I caught this op-ed in a local paper from a Mormon claiming to set the record straight on Mormonism. It’s a beauty because it illustrates how and what the average Mormon believes. Errors or ommissions include:
- no discussion of the limited geography model; assumes a hemispheric model of the BofM
- claims the moniker Mormon originated in 1930 (though this is probably a typo)
- no discussion of the complexity behind the term “Christian”; just assumes that if someone calls themselves Christian they are
- considers the prophet equivalent to the pope (infallibility anyone?)
- claims LDS stopped polygamy in 1890 (they said they would in 1890, but didn’t until about 1905)
- claims the RLDS (now Community of Christ) are the ones practicing polygamy; they never did and deplored the practice
I enjoy debating apologists online, but it does get on my nerves when I generalize about Mormon beliefs and they insist that average Mormons don’t believe some of the things they obviously do (e.g., apologists don’t think average Mormons think of the prophet as being infallible; apologists claim average Mormons think about the BofM as they do – a limited geography model or even metaphorical, etc.). IMO, the average Mormon is about where this guy is in his thinking.
That’s funny that he thinks the RLDS are the ones who practice polygamy. I would have thought it was a typo if he hadn’t written a whole paragraph about the RLDS. This guy clearly hasn’t been reading the paper very closely…
This editorial illustrates your point nicely, profxm. I want to be careful though. Ten years ago, I might have written something like that.
OK, I knew that the RLDS did not practice polygamy.
Jen Deetz is making a valiant effort. In my opinion, the brethren let her down.
profxm,
I don’t know where Mormon apologists have been making the claim that the average Mormon doesn’t believe in the simple view espoused above.
I’ve certainly never claimed that.
My only point has always been that it is ACCEPTABLE to view the Church the way I do and remain within the fold.
Well, if apologists don’t explicitly say that your average member sees the BoM as flexibly as they do at very least they think that the average member should and would if they took the time to learn… you know, outside of sunday school.
But the point remains the same … apologist very often have a significantly different view of Mormonism than the average member. And I’ve gotta give the average member credit for largely being more consistent with what the church actually teaches in sunday school.
BTW- my mother was on Bob Lonsbury’s show (www.knrs.com) this morning talking about the different views that the BY and JS families take on the church’s history. One thing really jumped out at me ….
Apparently the JS family thinks polygamy had a prominent role in the life of JS and was an abhorrent part of the church’s history (kind of a tangent to the RLDS view). Yet my mother (probably something of an average member) says that the total absence of polygamy in the JS movie does not represent a kind of revisionist history.
I’d say she’s probably been paying attention to her sunday school lessons. Just sayin’.
You haven’t, Seth, but Blake Ostler does so routinely. So does Daniel Peterson.
And you are not an apologist, Seth.
I do think we have to be careful not to stereotype too much the opinions of those within LDS wards. I’ve found some surprising opinions in the wards I’ve been in. And I say this as someone who has long pridefully felt himself “above the rabble” of “common humble LDS folk.”
Elitism and pride are things I’ve struggled with. So I’m a bit wary of them elsewhere, including the slight hints of stereotyping that occasionally crop up here.
Christopher Smith over at Mild Mannered Musings has an interesting post on the divide that’s showing up in the Church:
http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2008/04/internet-mormonism.html
It makes a distinction between “Chapel Mormons” and “Internet Mormons.”
And wouldn’t “chapel Mormons” be the type that the church would encourage? Also, I’m not so sure references to “typical mormon” or “typical apologist” qualify as stereotyping per se. I think it’s quite fair and useful to speak in terms of common beliefs without fear of being guilty of derogatory and inaccurate categorization. So long as the case can be made even if only by conventional wisdom.
I think that Seth is making a good point. I am more concerned about post-Mormon arrogance than stereotyping though.
As I said earlier, I could have written that letter.
With respect to stereotyping, it’s difficult to know what the people next in the pew might be thinking. After all, the chapel is not exactly a free speech zone and in many Mormon communities there are considerable conformist pressures.
However, if one talks to people in private, they are often much more independent and open minded than they let on in church. And abroad church tends to be a lot less conformist. That’s even true of East coast wards.
What we think privately and what we publicly profess may be out of sync but it is our public professions which count for measurement. At the same time, there are certainly cases where a whole community, ward or clique of members have liberalized the Mormon faith but this does not work as a case against what might be considered “the average Mormon”. So long as people join the church, grow-up in the church, and stay in the church their beliefs will be formed and shaped by what the church actually teaches in Missy discussion, in primary, in Sunday School, in the Ensign, and in GC.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s quite safe to say that your average Mormon is conservative of the church’s core teachings such that all this liberal mormon stuff is just that … liberal and fringe.
Call me arrogant if you will but when I speak with derision of what the church actually teaches its members (and what it doesn’t teach) and which they then parrot to the world as you see in this post’s referenced opinion piece (barring the clear misnomers around the RLDS) I at least do not seek to diminish these beliefs by modifying them to match my own views and assuming that in private your average member would agree with me. This I think is truly arrogant..
I will admit that I probably was somewhat of a peter priesthood as a teenager and b4 going on a mission.
To be quite honest, I believed all those things (except the RLDS or FLDS polygamy thing which I had heard about but knew nothing of).
As far as the prophet goes, I sometimes taught myself to look over weird teachings by saying to myself “I just don’t understand the context” but I believed everything a modern prophet or apostle said w/o doubt.
B4 calling me an idiot let me just say, I believed this b cuz I was taught to KNOW this stuff by my seminary teachers.
(sorry in advance)
I’m afraid too much of LDS/Mormon practice is centered around Details…
OTOH, anti-s & doubters get caught up into this when they/we/I get down in the muck & mud of things like to LGT/UGT. ‘it just doesn’t matter’; What Does is that living Any religion is a matter of Priorities: (I claim) that mine is Love for God & neighbor, with the extent of details I can tolerate as Honesty, Charity, Mercy-Compassion, Repentance-Forgiveness, etc…
I’M NOT PERFECT & DON’T EVEN CLAIM THIS MAKES ME “BETTER” than Anyone Else!!!!!!
Anything more or less than that/those… is just so much poop flowing down an open gutter , gathering attention by the stink & sight to attract attention of those who don’t have anything else better to do.
(again, Sorry if this sounds ‘holier than thou’ … it comes after 40 yrs ‘hooked on details’ & BS, ‘understanding’ that AssHat leaders ‘had to’ speak condescendingly to me ‘to keep me in line’ BARF! I’M AN ADULT!!!
I KNOW WHEN YOU’RE LYING TO ME!
LDS practice is wayyyyyy toooooo judgmental (for me,anyway); that’s ‘as plain as the nose on face’
I enjoy how the “church” never changes, how the word of God is always the same. Like Blacks have always been able to hold the priesthood. If nothing else, it is quite amusing.
Yeah, the church is perfect except for the people. One of these days, they say, we’ll figure out how this makes sense. But, coming to my senses, I gave up and finally admitted that the church is the people … and these people are very odd.
Why do we have to believe that people who haven’t taken the path that we have are stupid, or brainwashed, or helpless victims?
Do our own choices have to come at the expense of our respect for other human beings?
Not necessarily, though in those cases where we do I find that those who simply excoriate other ideas for their provable failings to be vastly more charitable than those who pity the sinner his fate in hell.
I hope my post doesn’t come across as me saying the average Mormon is stupid. That wasn’t my intent. The average Mormon may not be particularly knowledgeable ABOUT Mormonism but that doesn’t make someone stupid. That’s like me saying I’m stupid or not intelligent because I happen to know very little about cephalapods.
My point was not an intelligence thing, it was an accuracy of generalization thing. As a sociologist, I often think in terms of generalizations. The dichotomy between internet Mormons and chapel Mormons is similar to what I was saying – the average Mormon has never heard of the “limited geography model” and knows very little about Joseph Smith’s polygamy, drinking, etc. That’s not an intelligence thing, that’s a knowledge thing. The whole reason I pointed this out was to reinforce my arguments that many Mormons do think like “chapel Mormons”, despite what “internet Mormons” sometimes claim.
profxm – I agree, based on my personal experience I believe there is a strong contrast between what apologists say Mormon’s believe and what most Mormon’s believe. My assumption of this is based on what I learned in Seminary, Institute, and on my mission in Latin America.
I really believed those things to be the way it is. Now that I know better I will talk to some ppl (apologists or apologetic hobbyists) and they tell me that we don’t believe the things I was taught as a youth; then I ask, “Why did they teach me that stuff then?”
To me it almost seems that they adapt the message accordingly in order to retain membership. I won’t go out and say that that is the way it is but it does appear that way from my personal vantage point.
I think part of the problem is that leadership is trained to run an organization – they are excellently suited for that.
But there aren’t really any trained theologians in the leadership pipeline. So they aren’t that careful in safeguarding or nurturing the doctrine. There’s not really much in the way of organization for administering a top-down revising or clarifying of Mormon doctrine.
The way change really works in the Church is that it trickles up the ranks from the bottom. A Stake President will get wind of a problem and pass it on. That kind of thing.
The Church looks authoritarian at first glance. And in a lot of ways, it is. But it is also one of the most democratic institutions as well. It dilutes authority and spreads it out throughout the ranks. So to say that it’s all coming down to us “from on high” from Salt Lake isn’t entirely accurate. Very often, the “Brethren” don’t move on something until there really is a common pulse of consensus throughout the membership that something has changed.
But this “common consent” impulse also makes the leadership very conservative on doctrinal issues and unwilling to move. And since they tend to have more training in running an organization than in advancing doctrine, they focus on that side of things. So we get an impressive temple-building program, but no word on Heavenly Mother.
There is also a heavy impulse to farm out theological matters to the individual church members for their own consideration and revelation. Just because Salt Lake is not sending down stuff on Book of Mormon geography, does not mean that they don’t want the membership studying it out on their own. It really does seem to me that the theology and doctrine of the Church has been entrusted to the membership and not to the General Authorities. And it will not be institutionalized until the membership calls for it to be so institutionalized.
I know this sounds like blaming the victim to you guys, but I think the main reason the church membership “receives not” is because “they ask not.” The membership doesn’t want new doctrine. They aren’t asking for it, they aren’t bothering to study things out. At least, they aren’t doing it as fast as needs to be happening. We’re commanded to seek out learning – and we absolutely ARE NOT limited in where we seek that knowledge. If all saints were scriptorians, scholars, and earnestly seeking truth, I think we’d have a different story here.
So, in short, I think its a mistake to regard Salt Lake as a bunch of theological caretakers. They are organizational caretakers. For better or worse, the theology has been delegated to the body of the Church and the slow pace of doctrinal evolution is probably dependent on how hungry that lay membership feels for the doctrine.
You can call that an organizational failing, or a failing of the membership – as you will.
Let me repeat – I think it’s a mistake to view doctrine as something that travels top-down in this church. It doesn’t travel that way. It travels from the ground up.
Revelation in this Church goes through THE LAY MEMBERSHIP and filters through the General Authorities. So you’ve got the following revelation flow:
God -> The general body of the Church -> local leadership -> the General Authorities -> Church institutions
But we don’t get it, and we sit on our hands waiting for mamma to tell us what to do and what to think.
I will just call it “obviously nothing to do with anything that ever took place in the Old or New Testaments.”
Yeah? How do you figure that?
Seth, I can see your point, but I’m not sure I buy it. Has anyone ever been excommunicated for believing AND THEN teaching openly beliefs that are not in line with those of the leadership? (Hint: Sonia Johnson) If you answer “yes” to that then you’ll have to admit that this is, at best, a 2-way street (doctrine travels down and up), but the “up” street is pretty fracking small and the “down” street is pretty fracking big. Or, better said, the “up” street has a lot of traffic signs, stop lights, and detours while the down street has no traffic signs but virtually no traffic.
Plus, I highly doubt the leadership will listen to Peter Priesthood’s idea on the pre-existence of the hemispheric model, but they might listen to FARMS or FAIR. That means what you really have is a quasi-behind-the-scenes institution/think tank/amateur divinity school that is occasionally able to produce a car that can negotiate the “up” street and make it all the way to the leadership. Without the complete car (e.g., limited geography model), people get no where on the street and don’t have the pull to get there ideas to those who can send the car back down the other side.
I’d love to see your populist ideas enacted, but to get that, I’d have to go to a different religion altogether (e.g., Community of Christ, Methodists, Hindus, etc.).
I’m just pointing out that the concept is actually built-in. And it factors into the present inertia.
A concept being built-in and being realized are two very different things. Can you name a doctrine or belief that originated as a popular belief among the general body that was later instituted as a belief/doctrine by the leadership?
-polygamy – nope
-blacks not getting the priesthood – nope (though a maybe-ish might work here)
-blacks getting the priesthood – maybe-ish?
-god as man – nope
-heavenly mother – nope
-temple ceremony – nope
-mission service – nope
-proclamation on the family – nope
-birth control – nope
-gay marriage – nope
-abortion – nope
Sorry, I just have never seen a “ground-up” movement that led the leadership to change positions.
Seth – I am having a hard time understanding what you wrote – particularly in light of my own experiences. So additional clarification would be helpful.
I don’t think that the leadership does a good job of leading at all – but that is a matter of perspective. Most MBA 101 classes (again, business model, not non profit model) talk about feedback, research, communication and statistics. I’m not sure that the GAs follow that model.
Bishops, SPs and (from all I know) GAs don’t have any sort of formal training do deal with many, many issues. It’s one thing to have a handbook to deal with counseling a battered wife – it’s quite another when she is sitting in front of you. Or if you think someone is stealing tithing funds. Is there a way to even tell if someone high up in leadership is embezzeling?
Let’s take an example of the Book of Abraham or women and the priesthood. I think this has been discussed throughout the lay membership for over 30 years. There is a ton of research out there. A ton of active mormons who have been asking for help. There has to be some bottom up pressure for clarification on it. As yet, nothing has been forthcoming on this issue.
Two examples of bottom up (??) – the 1978 revelation for blacks and the priesthood and the recent apology for MMM.
But – with what’s going on – who knows if those were leadership decisions (listening to the population and what HF revealed to them personally) OR the personal revelation from HF to the leadership. It’s never clearly stated (to the leadership’s advantage).
I am not trying to be disrespectful here.
I just don’t see the evidence of what you are describing.
-temple ceremony – nope
Actually, yes. It has been changed in accordance with the wishes of the membership.
-proclamation on the family – nope
This one was actually a pretty accurate manifestation of popular LDS sentiment.
-birth control – nope
Again, yes. This has totally changed and evolved. And it’s a movement that has come from the members.
-gay marriage – nope
This one is currently in transit as the membership gradually requires a more softer approach.
-abortion – nope
Another softening position that I would argue is being driven by member concerns more than leader concerns.
-birth control – nope
Are you kidding me? This one has done almost an entire 180 and it has been almost solely member-driven.
Another one is the focus on adoption instead of marrying the teenage parents. That’s changed.
The taboo on face cards has been largely discarded – and that pretty-much came from members who just weren’t interested in it still being an issue.
Attitudes on women in careers, marriage ages, number of children, parental roles have all been intensely changed and altered by the membership, with the GAs just along for the ride largely.
Attitudes on Caffeine are largely member-driven. So will further developments in the Word of Wisdom on health-related issues.
Attitudes on earth stewardship and social responsibility are going to be mostly member-driven.
Softening of views on evolution are coming from a portion of the membership (not all).
Needed changes in ward meeting formats will be a ground-up affair.
The mission field is an intense microcosm of this ground-up feedback. Salt Lake is intensely interested in gathering data from individual missionaries, which then drive policies.
Heavenly Mother is quite likely to change at some point in the future. And it will be a member-driven revelation.
When some form of polygamy re-emerges – and my prediction is that, given a hundred years or so, it will – that will be due mostly to the membership.
You’re confusing a slow and subtle current with the absence of any current at all. But you seem to be missing an awful lot that is going on in the Church. Just like people who fixate on the President of the US are going to miss an awful lot of what makes the USA tick.
aerin, I was talking about the leadership in Salt Lake. At the local level, you play the hand you are dealt, with whatever leadership pool is available.
The Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is probably one of the most formidable and well-run organizations in the entire United States. An assertion that I pulled from independent journalists, not just my own tribal pride. This is an impressively well run organization.
That does not always translate well into dealing matters of the individual heart, but the organization is still pretty tight. That’s largely due to the fact that we’re run by hard-nosed professionals rather than scatter-brained theologians.
all these types of discussions are contra to Any Claim that the day-to-day practice of Mormonism…whether LDS, FLDS, RLDS (now Church of Christ) isn’t mired in details. I would guess that the RLDS is the least detailed practice, although I have very little first-hand info on that…
(reprise) determining current MoDoctrine is like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall, BUT: If you’re branded a doubter or a critic, you’ll soon learn how specific they can be…
all these types of discussions are contra to Any Claim that the day-to-day practice of Mormonism…whether LDS, FLDS, RLDS (now Community of Christ) isn’t mired in details. I would guess that the RLDS is the least detailed practice, although I have very little first-hand info on that…
(reprise) determining current MoDoctrine is like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall, BUT: If you’re branded a doubter or a critic, you’ll soon learn how specific they can be…
I thought this might be the result. Here’s the problem with both my argument and yours – Does either of us have any evidence to indicate what the impetus was for change on any of these? You can argue that popular opinion was moving in these directions, which is probably somewhat accurate. But I can argue that the leadership was actually inspired (not that I would) and the change actually solidified popular opinion. How do you tease out causality in an argument like this? It’s basically impossible.
That said, if I’m a bit clearer in my argument, I think you might see my point… I don’t think there is a single case of one individual or even an organized group of individuals not in leadership positions (or part of think tanks) getting together, formalizing a position, and then pushing that to the top in the Mormon religion. This very thing has happened in the Community of Christ (e.g., female ordination, recognition of gay groups, etc.). This isn’t to say the leadership doesn’t pay attention to the opinions of the membership, but is that what causes the changes? And if it is, doesn’t that basically undermine the whole “inspired leadership” aspect of Mormonism?
(My guess is the response here will be a very progressive, liberal interpretation of “inspiration” – e.g., inspiration is just realizing what needs to be done and doing it. That, of course, goes back to the argument I originally made with this post: that’s not what Peter Priesthood is taught and believes.)
No problem, profxm, you didn’t call anyone stupid. It just seems that this type of discussion tends to draw the “who you calling stupid?” card. Fascinating, really.
I think you nailed it with comment 23 and Seth can go on all day about the theoretical, but pragmatically speaking, when it comes to democracy in the church there’s no “there” there … just a well developed mirage. Come on now, this is meant to be a theocracy of men who are assumed to be in regular communication with the all-powerful creator of the universe. To think otherwise is again to confuse one’s liberalized views of the church with what the average member actually believes and experiences.
aerin, really enjoyed your comment as well. Particularly this part:
Damn, just damn.
Guy Noir, I really appreciate your point about the details and of course these detailed points of doctrine combine to form the basis of the church’s claim to exclusive authority. Goes with the territory.
BTW, profxm, did you mention cephalopods? I thought so. This has become my favorite secret keyword.
I see the church being more of a large company with high employee turnover at the bottom. This is especially the case overseas where wards and branches will completely change w/in 2 years. I have seen this firsthand.
The aspect I dislike about this whole discussion about doctrine is that I don’t believe most of these things have anything to do w/ doctrine. I see a lot of these “doctrines” as interpretations of doctrine, which are based on the American culture of the day–when first instituted or a GA’s understanding of how he believes things should be. That is why these things change–sometimes multiple times.
If indeed Christianity were/is true and eternal, I think Thomas Jefferson said it best, “Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian.”
Whether this indeed would have happened I don’t know but I sincerely believe that part of the church’s problem is that they have expanded their “doctrines” beyond their reach. Examples might include modesty and birth control. It would appear this whole thing has reverted back to a pharisee-like atmosphere rather than focusing on what really matters for a TRUE Christian namely, faith, hope, mercy, charity, love, kindness, peacemaking, pure of heart, etc. Yes, this would mean one person’s faith might be made manifest in a different way than another’s but wouldn’t that make Mormon’s all the more unique if they were to take this simple approach.
“Teach proper principles and let the ppl govern themselves.”
Abortion, modesty, and birth control are not principles but interpretations as to how to apply those principles.
But what do I know?
The very definition of Mormonism is “an expansion of Christian doctrine” though the internal PC is “restoration”.
As for “TRUE Christians”? Same as “TRUE Scotsmen” … it’s a fallacy-laden dead-end.
And Thomas Jefferson … well, what can I say? Did he know any better the pure doctrines of Jesus as they came from his lips? Did he know this any better than the next interpretation … than Joseph Smith’s interpretation? Or was this just code for “you’re all a bunch of two-faced nitwits”? I’m just guessing that he didn’t consider himself any wiser on the subject than the next guy … but rather wanted to point out the inconsistency in Christianity as a whole.
And in the end – the difference between mainstream Christianity (American Baptist, American Methodist, American Presbyterian, Lutheran – not Missouri Senate Lutheran) and what you’re suggesting Matt?
I don’t know that we want to get into comparing those mainstream Christian religions, doctrine, training, service, etc.
Totally, I’m not comparing just pointing out the futility of finding true christianity without comparing. And of course comparing is totally futile as well.
I guess I see “expansion of doctrine” as being the expansion of gospel understanding rather than the expansion of behavior management.
I cannot think of one place where Christ condemned an act that wasn’t already condemned prior to his coming. In fact, he didn’t even condemn the woman brought to him in adultery. He didn’t condone it either.
What he did instead was focus on desire and intent. He taught us to not have anger, not to lust, not to judge, etc. These, IMO, are all doctrinal principles and/or ideas NOT expanded behavior management.
I agree that a “TRUE Christian” is a fallacy laden dead end. That is the point I was making. There really can’t be one. However, the church tries to be the ONE TRUE church.
Many statements of Thomas Jefferson conclude that Christianity as a whole had become a disfigured mess. He was not trying to interpret anything for anyone–he was saying, imo, that the problem is that Christian leaders were interpreting Christ’s words rather than letting the ppl take Christ’s words to heart in its purest form.
My point was that the church has done itself a disservice by expanding their behavior management too far and now their membership growth is too big to govern.
Even BKP himself said, “teaching doctrine will change behavior faster than teaching behavior will change behavior.”
Point taken, MomonZero. Of course, from the church’s perspective it’s the whole enchilada and it’s attempts at behavior modification a natural extension of being inspired by god.
Sorry to continue harping on the Jefferson thing, but beneath the quote is the implication of a non-interpreted source of doctrine. I don’t think any individual reader of the Bible — the only available source of Jesus’ supposed words — are anymore likely to come to that one true discernment than the next guy. But the belief in this idea of divine communication to the individual has certainly sprouted into many christian sects (all sects really) including that started by Joseph Smith.
From my perspective (I sit on a large hospital system’s governing board), the way the church is run in nothing at all like a corporation. I am not sure whether comparing the church to a business is going to be too helpful – if it is, do we compare it to a non-profit charitable organization? to a service industry? to a pyramid scheme? If it is just a corporation, it seems to be faltering a bit as growth has undeniably slowed.
As far as bottom up modification is concerned – I think it is very interesting a letter from the lst Presidency was just read in Sacrament Meeting, asking members to not send letters to General Church headquarters, and stating that all letters will be referred back to the SP and bishops. As there is no real standard doctrine that I can find, isn’t this a recipe for fragmentation and chaos? Although supposedly they will accept letters from a SP in behalf of a member.
Most growing organizations I know actively seek input and feedback from the rank and file these days, and do seek to modify policies and procedures to address issues that arise. As far as I can see, the
Church actively seeks to distance themselves from these problems – the big crises that have arisen in the past (ie manifesto and priesthood/blacks) were forced on the church largely from outside the church in order for the church to remain viable and grow, they did not arise so much from the inside. At least that is how I view it at this point. What do you think?
Well, mermaid, I think you’re right and would add one modification … the church has quite a formal system of authorized teaching resources and leadership guidelines which generally get followed down to the lowest leadership levels. I don’t see chaos coming anytime soon so long as the membership generally agrees that the leadership hierarchy is divinely inspired and increasingly so as you follow the chain to the top.
I view ALL the details of religion(s), especially Mormonism as Distractions away from the pure gospel: Love for God & neighbor.
On top of that, LDS, Inc. has a shitty track record for representing the details accurately… They just can’t seem to get them straight, let alone the First Time they’re told.
Someone else (FLAK?) said that the LDS church is more like a franchise operation (McChurch) than a church… Wisdom, indeed.
On all but the most superficial level, it REEKS of an authoritarian HYPE factory, with little attention given to the actual ‘product’, but endless attention to PR/appearances. If T. Monson can’t/doesn’t turn things around, turnover can only increase, and tscc will retrench to it’s former significance to chiefly ‘heritage’ members.
I’m sympathetic, Guy. By the way, how do you define love of god? Is this possible without some attempt to define god? You lost me on the pure gospel being the love of god part. I’m quite certain that most god-loving people find expression of that love in the details of their faith.
Matt:
it is my (personal) belief that all concepts need practical application of have life – meaning that humans can understand.
I think a strong synonym for Love is ‘respect’: If we love/respect God (example) we do not harm or despoil His creations; earth (plants, animals, landscape, etc) or people (our brothers & sisters).
Focus for-of the things I speak of, I’m sorry to say, has been almost completely lost today, and the LDS church hasn’t been helpful at all….(IMHO, anyway).
subtlety is a form of creativity; it also seems lost or disappearing from the scape.
profxm,
Just taking the birth control example… it seems highly, highly unlikely to me that that shift came from the top.
No, I’d bet you it came from various bishops and stake presidents who had to deal with the immediate results of the policy passing their concerns along.
Part of the problem is that these kinds of discussions wind up consisting of people who either aren’t insiders to how leadership in the church works, or have been out of the loop for a long time. It warps the perception of how things are operating inside.
Okay, yes, your point about more important things getting lost in the details … I’m very sympathetic to that and really have no problem with what you refer to as god since it appears to be so subtle as to beg the question as to why you call it god in the first place…if you know what I mean.
My above comment was to Guy Noir, just to be clear.
Hey, Seth … um, maybe your perception is warped as well. Just sayin’ ’cause so far what you’ve said about how things work in the church has been rather disconnected from what the church actually presents to its members as of … well … at least last GC. We’re not as out of touch as you suggest.
Seth:
I view the change in b.c. ‘doctrine’ as a value clash.
At the top, there were stmnts such as the (in)famous one by J.F.S. as saying (accurate or not) that he (as prophet) ‘only had sex with his wife when he wanted (to start) a [pregnancy] baby….
the words in Mormon Doctrine, DOM’s letter, others, conveyed the message that ‘God wants Mormons to have as many children as possible; (valiant) spirits in Heaven waiting to be born into righteous/LDS families’. It was unmistakable.
Then, along came technology in the form of pills; then, along came STD awareness, that suggests that condoms are useful for health reasons… Outcome: the church backs down, hedges its sayings/doctrines.
Tho the timing wasn’t as close-obvious, it appears kinda like the Blacks/Priesthood thingee, doesn’t it?
I never really bought the idea that the Church gave the blacks the Priesthood due to PR pressure. Just like I don’t buy that they ditched polygamy over statehood.
On both issues, they actually held out long past the PR pressure. If the Church was simply caving to federal pressure on polygamy, it would have done it decades earlier than it did. The persecution over the issue was so intense that it makes a suggestion that they dropped it just for statehood a bit implausible.
As for blacks, the wave of public sentiment had already peaked on the issue some time earlier. The Church held out on the issue too long for me to believe it was a PR stunt.
But you’re welcome to your opinion.
Just for Statehood? A PR stunt?
Seth, you’re oversimplifying Guy’s point (and in the case of blacks getting the priesthood you’ve taken an added liberty of misrepresentation).
Now, the point is … did they make these changes because god changed his mind? Or because the members got a grassroots campaign going (really, there’s very little to no evidence for this)? Or because they saw the writing on the wall and made an executive decision? Whatever the reason, if it’s not because god changed his mind (or set the minds of men straight — whatever) then it makes no difference how it came about.
And really, in the context of this discussion thread, the point is that your average mormon thinks god was behind the changes, with a more liberal minority willing to say that men had it wrong and god just made the change when and only when men were ready.
And why do most members think of it this way instead of as a response to grassroots pressure or outside pressure? Because that’s how we were taught the church works and admitting otherwise would be admitting that the church is not led by god but by some other force an this is not a very inspiring notion at all.
Matt – It is hard for me to get in TJ’s mind but he harped on churches a lot. Possibly he just thought it better to let Christ’s words stand on their own and then let every individual govern himself as he/she see’s fit. Although this kind of sounds like a spiritual anarchy.
But speaking from the church’s perspective here and thinking about ways it can help itself I think they need to simplify things in order to survive. The technological changes, the cultural changes, and much more are changing so fast that it doesn’t even seem like the leaders are able to keep up w/ all the interpreting of “doctrine” that needs to be done. (for example the recent letter sent out to the wards from the 1st prez about not writing letters to GA’s but instead directing questions to your Bishop or SP) Then add some apparent cover-ups of church history (at least some ppl perceive this) and it just leaves ppl dazed and confused.
I believe it is vital that the focus is intensified for a clearer picture in order to strengthen the faith of its members. The LDS perspective on doctrine does not need to change per se; maybe re-imagine itself would be a good way to explain it.
Why focus on watching over and governing the church going folk in today’s world? Leave that stuff to “Caesar” and help the ppl survive emotional and mental strifes through pure and simple gospel principles. Help the people understand the “doctrinal” processes in the scripture–show them how to take a principal and apply it to their daily lives w/o giving the person the right answer b4 telling them to study it out. Why? B cuz there are too many questions to answer in too short of time to answer them all b4 a person has to decide what to do.
A mormon might say well…yeah…we are taught to do that already…and I agree but the problem is that GA’s have (perhaps) overstepped their bounds already on other issues (i.e. the past stance on birth control) so that now many members become dependent on GA’s to tell them what is or is not okay. If they want to meddle in specific behaviors this is fine too…but rather than teach a black/white and right/wrong concept on every behavior instead, teach consequences for such actions beyond just teaching heaven/hell, worthy/guilty, confession etc. (for example you can teach kids to be abstinent w/ the definition being it will make you feel bad or you can teach about sex defined by topics of STD’s, abuse, pregnancy, abortion, etc. From the church’s position you can even teach them to not commit adultery (which for the church is a principle of righteousness not a behavior; the behavior would be sex), however sex is oftentimes made so hush-hush that young mormon ppl are confused when sex feels good rather than distasteful; combined w/ guilt this can lead to compulsive behavior–this can sometimes be a problem for ppl who are molested or raped; others abhor sex so much b4 marriage that they have a hard time coping or feeling good even about marital sex) Teach repentance but don’t teach what needs to be confessed to who. This leads to confusion. I can’t tell you how many institute and seminary classes I sat through where different teachers said that (fill in activity) needs to be confessed to a bishop, then a student asks what if i do (fill in activity) do I have to go to the bishop? Then the teacher says “if you feel guilty enough to be thinking about it then you should go to the bishop.” Then later you get a friend of mine confessing to the bishop that she “french-kissed.” To me this is really sad. This is why we lose so many young ppl.
My point is “KISS;” Keep it Simple Saints.
Love God, Love your neighbor and let your faith, hope, charity, beliefs, individuality, honesty (to self, others), virtue, be your guides in obeying the first two “great” commandments.
Again…I know that most Mormons will say…yeah, duh this is exactly what we are trying to do…but my view is we “make the commandment[s]…of none effect by [our] traditions.” IMO those traditions are these ritualistic standards and almost compulsive like behaviors the church is teaching to its members and in so doing the truly important and most Christ-like principles of the gospel sometimes, if not oftentimes, get left to the way-side by even the most dedicated of church members.
Sorry…this is way too long and I probably sound more like a rambling idiot than sensible person. I do not say these things w/ derogatory or demeaning intentions. They are actually in favor of seeing the church succeed w/ all my personal views and thoughts put aside.
I personally believe that if there be a god then he would want men and women to think for themselves. That would explain why so many cultural things are tolerated w/in the context of the gospel. I believe this would also be applicable to the GA’s (even if they were to see Jesus Christ).
The problem arises though when many members believe church policy, behavior, or interpretation taught by GA’s is the current and future infallible truth. They’re just ppl trying to do the best they can w/ the experiences and circumstances presented to them. This viewpoint is further encouraged by strong emphasis on obedience first above all else.
That Peter Priesthood guy described in this post will not be able to survive emotionally, mentally, nor spiritually w/ the bridges that continue to link ideas, continents, cultures, and teachings together.
It is for that reason I made the two previous comments. The peter’s and the molly’s can’t hide in “mormon bubbles” anymore. IMHO. and that is all it is. An honest opinion.
MormonZero,
My views were almost indistinguishable from “Peter’s” as little as 5 years ago.
Yeah, I’ve evolved that much in that short a time.
Give the guy a bit more credit.
Seth, in 1890 the Church was practically bankrupt. The Brethren were underground and many Mormons were in jail.
In 1978 Bob Jones University lost its non-profit status because of its racist dating policy.
The reason why it took the LDS Church so long to respond to the pressures of public opinion and the government is that the unanimity requirement for the fifteen. Remember, had it not been for Elder Lee, the priesthood ban would have been lifted almost a decade earlier.
The majority of the Brethren had recognized that there is no way around equality only a few years after Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson had passed the Civil Rights Acts.
Change is difficult to come by when it requires unanimity. Any other organization that requires unanimity displays the same patterns of delayed reform.
In that respect, there is no difference between the LDS Church and, say, the European Union. Change happens in the face of necessity. It just happens slower.
As it was, the extremists were able to take the remainder of the Church hostage to a self-righteous, hateful, and irrational agenda. Elder Lee, of course, perceived himself to be super virtuous.
That makes the episode only more scary.
It is unfortunate that we have to repeat the same dynamic over human rights for our gay and lesbian children and neighbors.
Interesting side note…
In a 1933 statement from the First Presidency, they framed the decision to abandon polygamy in light of Doctrine and Covenants 124:49-53. It’s an interesting few verses and an interesting argument.
How convenient that block of scripture is … yes, god has excused us from continuing in the very principle which was mean to grant us access to the highest order of heaven, because of our enemies whose children’s asses will now be kicked for generations because of it.
Lovely excuse there. Only the lord commanded the saints to return to building temples at the earliest possible moment … do you think he’ll do the same with “the principle”? No, not the god of the LDS church. Not likely.
Gotta admit, it must have been very painful for some to accept that their god was such a chicken-shit bully. Indeed, there were some who could not accept this, called the LDS leadership fallen, and went off to worship the true god in the wilderness … last seen in the neighborhood of Eldorado, Texas getting their asses kicked by gentiles and their children carried off into the captivity of Babylon just like the real people of god have always expected, and in the meantime being disavowed and shunned by their LDS cousins who have melted into the world of respectability and vanity.
Yeah, I do love that little bit of scripture for the way it demonstrates the disparity between the modern LDS church and the church which actually required of its members exactly what they promised in the temple.
But don’t get me wrong. This is all like the slowly dissipating terror of a nightmare for me now. I can still feel it, even get passionate about it, but its like a phantom limb … when I open my eyes I can see that there’s nothing there.
How very sad that my ancestors sacrificed all, that some even died, and that at this very moment there are some who abuse themselves and their children with a conviction that god requires it of them. I was taught to worship my ancestors for the price of the very same convictions which the LDS church now abhors.
It’s all very confusing you know.
Seth – You didn’t survive the change by being a peter priesthood. “[you] evolved.” The problem the church is having is that not all ppl evolve the same way you do. Some evolve into exmo’s, NOM’s, or personal apologetics. None of which is able to keep the belief’s of their youth, which were taught to them by the church who has all the TRUE beliefs.
mormonzero,
That’s just a part of growing up. Everyone loses childhood notions.
Seth – well…yeah…but this seems to me a lot like being taught that Santa Clause is true and then having to still rationalize why he is true even though he is not there.
It would be like having your parents teach you that Santa Clause is real and then when you find out the stories don’t add up they explain it like this…
Now, Santa clause doesn’t live at the North pole…he lives on the dark side of the moon–we think…santa clause has no flying reindeer…he has reindeer though but he lives on the dark side of the moon–we think…”but mom how does he get to earth then?”…”oh, sweety..well he still has his magic.”… Rudolph doesn’t have a glowing nose but he still led Santa’s sleigh through the stormy night..pointy-eared elves don’t exist to make toys but you can still ask for them and we will buy them for you at Toys-R-Us (which is a blessing from Santa Clause who bestowed the knowledge of toy making to regular men)… santa clause is not eating our cookies and milk but we like to have cookies and milk so don’t stop giving us your cookies and milk.
Most ppl just give up their childhood notions completely rather than cling to them.
However, I realize it is somewhat different w/ spiritual devotion. I don’t wish to make light of another’s spirituality and the way a person adapts to new knowledge. I respect the fact that you have been able to “evolve” and maintain your beliefs.
My original intent for posting was to just explain my thoughts on how the church needs change in order to survive. KISS. I am also looking at the ppl as a collective whole and how to help that collective whole thrive not just one individual.
What religious purpose is there to teach young ppl incorrect information and have them have to give up all those “childhood notions” other than to conform them to a certain way of life?
No Mormonzero,
I think the Santa analogy is cute, but not really useful here. It obscures more than it illuminates.
I think a better analogy is the teenager who discovers that his mom and dad aren’t automatically right all the time. How does the teenager handle that?
In a lot of different ways obviously – all of which are germane to this topic.
So, if the Prophet is not always right about God’s intentions what is the point of being a prophet? If he is just getting all his cues from the populace why bother listening to God at all?
Wayne, it’s that he’s right about as many times as you would expect from an random guess. Then you only have to point to the fulfilled prophecies as prophetic and all else as speaking as man. It’s called bamboozlement and it’s all the rage.
Actually, I thought mz’s Santa analogy was more than cute. It was brilliant. Good work, mz. It’s not your problem that some take offense at having their cherished rationalizations compared to what everyone (except western children under the age of accountability) knows to be poppycock.
Having read the op-ed piece that this “Peter Priesthood” wrote, I can only hope that a Mormon ,with an average High school seminary education, will write another piece correcting everything he got wrong.
You know Matt, it is possible to leave the Church without becoming insufferably arrogant toward those still in it. Several people on this website have done so.
But please, don’t mind me. Perhaps you might suggest that I also believe in Tinkerbell and the tooth fairy. Maybe that would help you feel better about yourself.
Ah me… will the knee-slapping wit never end?
Seth – I understand your different perspective…and how your view of these things can be completely different. The difference tho, that I see, is that if you grow up and find out your parents weren’t perfect but they told you they were even though they knew they weren’t, wouldn’t it be a little different than simply finding out your parents are not perfect?
Except the Church is not my Mom and Dad.
OK fine Kullervo, maybe your polygamist great, great granduncle then.
You happy now?
Yes, Seth, I suppose it’s possible but then is it not also possible to stay in the church and not be insufferably arrogant toward those who have left … you know, such as framing their criticisms as personal attacks rather than allowing them to stand on their own as a valid point of view?
I suppose not, since you find yourself inside one of the few organizations on earth arrogant enough to assume that its views, though made imperfect by people, are yet the most true representation of god’s view. I do believe your arrogance trumps my own by a deistic order of magnitude.
That’s right Matt, I’m just a stereotypical Mormon who thinks you left the Church because you got caught abusing Sunbeams.
Dude, wtf? Like I said, it’s all a personal attack for you. Must suck to have to deal with this ongoing personal assault every time a non-believer dares question your statements in anything but a most deferential and humble manner.
Matt,
Re-read comment #67.
Now please explain to me why that is not arrogant and condescending.
I called you on it, and you tried to lump me in with all the negative stereotypes you have about a group you feel did you wrong.
Frankly, I’m tired of smug non-believers telling me that I’m either some imbecile who believes in fairies, or dishonestly trying to cover up my mistakes with tortured logic. I try not to say these things about non-believers. I also try really hard to avoid bolstering my own opinion at the expense of other people. I’d appreciate a similar effort on your end.
See, that’s the problem Seth. You’re the only one using the terms “stupid, negative, stereotype, imbecile, fairie-believer, dishonest, tortured logic, etc”. You may try not to say these things about non-believers but you readily put these words into your opponents mouths and point them at yourself. This is very unfortunate.
BTW- your comment 75 was of particularly poor taste. Consider this fact before you point to the comments of others and make accusations.
Saying that you are not convinced by the evidence that the LDS faith is “true” and explaining that is one thing.
Claiming that belief in the LDS Church is akin to “believing in Santa” and something “everyone” outgrows once they get more brain capacity than an eight year-old is quite another.
That said, yes, comment #75 was in poor taste and I would not mind if a moderator wants to remove it.
Yes, it’s obvious that you took that personally. I’ve already addressed the point.
Now, who doubts that there’s a very good reason that the church baptizes its children at the age of eight and refers to this time as the age of accountability? Who doubts that this reason includes the fact that the child is indeed growing a brain and is on the verge of distinguishing themselves as a separate, distinct, and independent entity and just becoming capable of making “the wrong choice”?
The church knows this and acts upon the fact rather than risk losing its children to an alternate worldview.
This is not an insult, this is a fact.
I don’t want to get into the middle of this fight, but I do want to give some props to Seth – FYI, Seth is generally pretty level-headed and rarely does say anything negative about ex-Mormons. I don’t think I’ve said this before, but I value his contributions on this site quite a bit because he brings a perspective we don’t always get. Maybe he is somewhat masochistic (I couldn’t survive as long as he has on a believing Mormon site) subjecting himself to torture of dealing with all of us exes, but let’s try not to insult either way (not that I’m blameless in this matter, but I’m trying).
FWIW, I never meant to offend anybody or instill anger or irritation on anybody’s part w/ my santa analogy. I am not a believer but I do go to church and respect all the good the church can and does do. The reason I presented this analogy was simply to show a problem that church has in retaining its youth and members in general. I personally don’t believe that the church can keep trying to preach things that are incorrect to their religious students. It is only weakening their position w/ each on going generation. They are losing ppl, IMHO, for all the wrong reasons. They spend so much time teaching how Santa did it or what Santa used to do it and oftentimes forget to mention why Santa did it. And IMO that is the part that is important…The WHY. Thus my belief in Keeping it simple and focusing in on the doctrinal principles rather than all the behavioral management stuff.
I would like to second what profxm said about Seth. His viewpoints are a very valuable contribution to the discussion, and he has a lot of courage to keep plugging away in an environment of skepticism. Bottomline it seems to me is faith is a choice – some keep choosing to believe no matter how much “evidence” piles up against their beliefs. Not to be offensive, but there are still groups out there who believe the earth is flat, and the sun revolves around it. There are large groups of people who believe things that many other large groups of people think are outlandish. IMHO if beliefs lead to the religion of kindness, it doesn’t too much matter, but if they lead to treating others poorly, it does matter a lot and we ought to do all we can to help modify them to a less harmful belief system. An example is the belief that the earth was created for mankind – if it leads to us realizing we are caretakers and have responsibility to treat the earth well then that is OK, if it leads to a sense of entitlement that we can abuse the earth then that is a bad belief system. Most belief systems can be distorted to bad results if people want to use them to justify bad behaviors. Oh, I think I am off subject, sorry.
Well thanks guys.
Sorry Matt. I suppose you just caught me on a crabby day.
No problem, Seth. Thank you. I too enjoy your comments … and find you quite engaging, as you can tell. 🙂
UPDATE: The author of the original op-ed letter has written back in to correct her letter:
http://www.dailynews-record.com/opinion_details.php?LID=6589
Did someone on here let her know?
Also, note the mistake she corrected: RLDS are not FLDS. She didn’t correct any of the others. That would seem to indicate she doesn’t see them as mistakes (or the people who emailed her didn’t)… 🙂
OK fine Kullervo, maybe your polygamist great, great granduncle then.
Seth, I actually wasn’t just trying to make a snappy comeback. There really is a difference between discovering your parents are imperfect and that your religion may very well be fraudulent.
With parents, you grow up thinking they’re essentially perfect, and your image of them eventually has to be broken, because they’re not perfect. Nevertheless, while you may think your parents were perfect, you don’t actually depend on them for protection. You depend on them for food, clothing, upkeep, direction, guidance, protection etc. Parents are pretty much capable of providing those things without actually being perfect, so the disillusion about their perfection may change how you feel about them, but it doesn’t make you realize that they are actually unable to parent you, and that your relationship should be severed.
Furthermore, parents don’t usually claim to be perfect. So there’s not the same sense of personal betrayal when they turn out not to be.
So when your parents turn out not to be perfect, they’re still your parents. You’re still related to them, you still have history together, and you still have a relationship with them. They can even continue to provide support and sustenance, etc. none of that is affected by simple lack of perfection.
If you have parents who it turns out can’t actually provide things like support and sustenance, then things are different, and your relationship as parent-child probably needs to be re-evaluated. For example, my parents no longer are capable of parenting me. I don’t need anything from them, and I don’t depend on them for anything, including guidance and emotional support, because they have proven incapable of providing those things. IT’s not a matter of themnot being perfect, it’s a matter of them not being able to be parents anymore.
I still have a relationship with them because they are human beings and because I love them dearly.
The Church, on the other hand, is not a human being. It makes claims about what it is able to provide, and since I believe its claims are largely based on lies, it turns out not really to be able to provide what it is supposed to. While it is still capable of providing something, it is not capable of providing enough of anything that makes up for the crap.
It’s an organization, not a human being, so I am free to make this kind of assessment. Severing my relationship with the Church is not the same thing as severing my relationship with my parents.
Actually, all of those points have pretty good similarities to the relationship to the Church. I still think it is a pretty good analogy.
Any analogy is only useful to a point.
I’d go into more detail, but I’ve had a long morning and really need to crash for a bit.
g’night.
My point is, the Church, unlike my parents, is not a human being, and is not related to me. If my relationship with the Church is dysfunctional, there’s much less to stop me from just severing the relationship.
And deciding that the Church is essentially a pack of lies is not the same as finding out it “isn’t perfect.”
And my point is that plenty of teenagers, upon finding their parents aren’t perfect, take it to the extreme of accusing their parents of being hypocrites, overbearing, dishonest, stupid, out of touch with reality, etc.
Sound familiar?
But do we have our parents telling us that they are the ONE TRUE parents and represent the ONE TRUE way of parenting?
However the reaction from the child to the parents and the reaction from the person to the church can be similar.
I guess, my question would be…What good is there in teaching falsehoods and opinions as truth other than for self-promotion?
My thing is that the church teaches that the HG will testify of those things which are true and good. Why make it more confusing on a young and budding testimony by teaching things that they either do not know are true or really do know are untrue?
No, it’s about something you trusted and believed-in letting you down, and how different people deal with that. That’s the only point here.
Your insistence on “one true parents” for the analogy misses the point of the analogy in the first place.
You might as well just tell me my analogy doesn’t work because your parents never had a large office building in a small metropolitan city either.
Seth – Okay, you don’t like my analogies and I agree w/ the results of your analogy but don’t think it is bullet proof. We don’t seem to understand each other’s analogies. That is fine. Who really cares? *shrug w/ a smile*
Now, how about the question? “My thing is that the church teaches that the HG will testify of those things which are true and good. Why make it more confusing on a young and budding testimony by teaching [the young ppl] things that they (church teachers or leaders) either do not know are true or really do know are untrue, [while presenting it as truth]?”
I was trying to present ideas on how the church can maintain and retain more of its members. I only used an analogy to show the mentality of the ppl that are leaving the church not the ones who are staying.
It is a good thing that some ppl are able to overcome the let down of Santa, parents not being perfect, or a church not being what they thought it was. My opinion is that we have to go after the one, ten, or hundred sheep that leave (using Christ’s analogy, sorry if it is not perfect). I was only trying to present the thoughts of those who leave and present my most humble of opinions as to how the church might more efficiently maintain its membership. I was trying to think out of the box on how to help build up the church, not bring it down.
I guess I see the CES being a little behind the times and struggling to keep up. But, who really knows? I guess ppl just gotta do whatever it is they feel is right.
I chalk up a lot of it to built-in organizational inertia.
Yeah…I can agree w/ that. If the inertia is going too fast though they run the risk of getting out flanked. I think FARMS and FAIR both try to help out in this regard but I still see a problem of having to fight on too many fronts.
(thanks to the internet) most all of the church’s BS is more or less known. Thanks to a better informed society, the days of slide & glide answers (really ‘replies’) to the factual questions will work with a smaller & smaller % of ppl.
If I’m right, ‘the spirit’ isn’t a substitute for knowing the (available) truth. Joe set the tone when he lied about the ‘saints’ not practicing plural marriage, that’s been ‘the standard’ (albeit Very Low) ever since: thru the MMM, thru Hofmann, including the Book of Abraham, Kinderhook plates, horses & ‘fine steel’ back then… on and on. The GAs / COB crew MUST think that mormons (TBMs) are the most gullible ppl on the face of the Earth.
To cap it all off (so far, at least) G.H. tells Larry King ‘I don’t know that we teach that’ then gives the very next conference ‘a wink & a nod’ saying, well, I (think) know what we teach.
NO RESPECT for TRUTH, No Not Any.
No, if your parents are pieces of crap, they are still your parents. If your Church is a piece of crap, you find a different Church.
The analogy doesn’t work because parents (and family) are an extraordinary exception.
“No, if your parents are pieces of crap, they are still your parents. If your Church is a piece of crap, you find a different Church.”
Not the way I see it Kullervo.
This is religion, not a cheesy yoga-style new age therapy session.
“parents (and family) are an extraordinary exception.”
Why is that so? Why are they an exception?