. . . I don't like being lied to. That made me really angry. Forget the line that one should learn to just "get over" one's anger. Earth to Mormonism's religious abusers: Anger is a legitimate emotion, especially when focused and employed as powerful rocket fuel to recognize, deal with and correct lingering, embedded and persistent injustice. Anger helps to identify injustice and propel positive change in remedying injustice.

I was angry at being blamed (like it was somehow my fault) for daring to ask questions about the history/content of Mormon tradition, doctrine, policy and practice. Through the accident of birth, I had inside access to the top of the LDS food chain--and what I found there reminded me of the smell of a fridge full of rotting garbage.

Here's a basic operational premise to keep in mind, folks:

Beware of ANY organization (religious, business, social, sports, governmental, political, fraternal. you name it) that denies you access to information necessary for you to make informed and rational decisions for your own life.

Personally, I don't regard it as having taken "courage" for me to bolt the Cult. What it took was INFORMATION and the time to process data. Given that from my own experience I had learned not to trust:

--the manipulative efforts of the Mormon Church's hierarchy to bring me into line;

--its unresponsive and deflecting reaction to my honest, direct and informed inquiries (Note: knowing the right follow-up questions to ask is key); and

--the robotic, guilt-tripping tactics of its local leadership in combo with their LDS-sheep supporters (including some members of my own family); . . .

I therefore found it imperative for me to do my own research, build my own resource library and come to my own conclusions.

In short, I learned to trust myself and not Mormonism. It all boiled down to a simple matter of me personally deciding the terms as to when and why to jump the corral fence and start living my own life.

End of story.



Edited 17 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2013 06:34PM by steve benson.

Amen!

> Beware of ANY organization (religious, business,
> social, sports, governmental, political,
> fraternal. you name it) that denies you access to
> information necessary for you to make informed and
> rational decisions for your own life.

Well said.

agreed, well said.

I remember when you left the LDS religion (1993 to 95 time frame) and what I remember hearing was you left because of the way his counselors were keeping your grandfather away from his family. I was impressed even back then that you were standing up for your values.

Many people do not know that back then for most people the internet was AOL and email. There were very few sites to go to in order to learn the truth about the LDS Regime. You could purchase Mormon Doctrine or LDS books. When a GA would show up for Stake Conference that was big stuff.

Like Steve, the thing that I am still most upset about is not the changing doctrines but the out right lies told and retold as if they were the truth. Until the internet we only had their lies to believe in.

When I was a missionary, I showed the picture of Joseph Smith behind the curtain translating the BOM. I had no way of knowing that was a lie. 40 years later they are still showing that picture and lying about what happened. The LDS chain of command prevents anyone of learning the truth. You have to ask your bishop who know less than you or I. Answers are never sent back down to the members.

The lie about the Masons having received part of the gospel from King David's Temple is another lie. Noah's flood and the garden of eden are also all lies. The earth being 6,000 years old and earth is built from other planets are also lies. Everything about the LDS religion is based on a lie.

Once the veil is removed and all that is left are the lies, it hurts. My whole life was wrapped up in being a mormon, it was who I was. I WAS A LIE.

Information is the enemy for LDS Inc and they know not how to proceed without lying. They change their story and keep the lies.

Angry is good.

What finally sealed it for me was my personal meetings with Oaks and Maxwell. It was a cold splash of realilty on a full-bore cult that these guys thought they could tell me about in private and then lie about in public what they told me about in private.

I hear you. It's one thing if your mission president is able (with GA connections) to have his son transferred to the dad's mission and live with his mom and dad traveling about the mission without a companion as the mission photographer (which was my experience) but to see the dishonesty and lack of answers in the 12--that's significant.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2013 04:42PM by iris.

. . . of their missions.

Do you think the GA Factor may have had anything to do with that?

Naaaaaaah. :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2013 05:05PM by steve benson.

The lies and half-truths, that's what gets me angry. That I never knew half the stuff I can easily find online today.

This is no different than the Catholic church preventing its members from reading the Bible for hundreds of years.

I could probably wrap my mind around the stupid FAIR arguments.

The problem I had was attending church and knowing that my honest questions would not be welcomed.

I can't live my life being intellectually dishonest with myself. It makes you sick.

Hold Your Tapirs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The lies and half-truths, that's what gets me
> angry. That I never knew half the stuff I can
> easily find online today.
>
> This is no different than the Catholic church
> preventing its members from reading the Bible for
> hundreds of years.


I call BS. This thread is about LDS not the Catholic church. Please cite your source.

"It is alleged that the [Catholic] Church forbade Catholics from reading the Holy Bible by placing it on the index of Forbidden Books. The Bibles placed on the Index of Forbidden Books were Protestant Bibles that lacked 7 books and/or badly translated versions of the Bible.

"Exception

"The Diocese of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, is the only place in the world that I know of where in the days before Vatican II, Catholics were forbidden from reading the Holy Bible. Even local priests will admit to this practice. The explanation given for this non-Catholic practice is that the local priests feared if Catholics were to read the Bible, they would give it their own personal interpretation. Not being qualified to interpret the Holy Bible, they were forbidden to read it."

("Misconceptions Regarding Catholics Being Forbidden from Reading the Holy Bible," at: http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/apologetics/forbiddenbible.htm)
_____


"It is true that earlier in this century, in some Catholic circles, people were not encouraged to read their Bibles. This discouragement was a mistake. The Church does not claim that these types of mistakes have not been made. Catholics believe that although the teaching of the Church is 'infallible' on matters of doctrine, the Church is not 'indefectible.' Sometimes God chooses people who fall. He has done that since the beginning of the Church. (i.e., Judas).

"It was never forbidden to read the Bible. But some priests were worried that congregations would come up with dozens of conflicting interpretations of Scripture. These priests knew of over 300 Protestant denominations who had distinct beliefs about the interpretation of Scripture. Many of these interpretations conflicted with each other yet every one of them claimed divine inspiration. As a whole, neither Catholics or Evangelicals are into relativism (which says there are many truths). So we have to conclude that the vast majority of conflicting Evangelical biblical interpretations are incorrect since only one can be true. (Perhaps this is a powerful argument against 'Sola Scriptura'--Bible alone.) Some priests saw this divisional process in Protestant circles and felt it was a danger."

("Did the Catholic Church Forbid Bible Reading?," at: http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/did_the_catholic_church_forbid_bible_reading.php)
_____


"* FACT 1: Until the present generation, the Roman Catholic Church forbade her people to read the Bible for themselves under pain of 'mortal sin.' That is, the Catholic who owned or read the Bible was de facto condemned to Hell.

"Evidence:

"The Bible was placed on Rome's 'Index of Forbidden Books' list by the Council of Toulouse/Toledo in the year 1229. It remained there until the index was discontinued at Vatican Council II. Anyone reading or owning a 'forbidden' book was anathematized, or cursed and remanded to hell for doing so.

"Cannon 14 from the Council of Toulouse says that the Roman Catholic Church:

"'Forbids the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Testament . . . and most strictly forbids these works in the vulgar tongue.'

"Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating confirms this fact when he writes that 'the bishops at Toulouse restricted the use of the Bible until the [Albigensian] heresy was ended.' (p. 45, 'Catholicism and Fundamentalism,' by Karl Keating). The peculiar thing is that the Bible remained on the 'Index of Forbidden Books' for another 730 years! In his dance with truth, Mr. Keating takes care to omit this little fact.

"Still More Evidence. This teaching was confirmed at the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8, 1546, 'Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures'). The Council of Trent went further, stating that anyone who dared study Scriptures on their own must 'be punished with the penalties by law established." With incredible audacity, the Council of Trent went so far as to forbid even the printing of and sale of the Bible! Anyone daring to violate this decree was anathematized, or cursed and damned to Hell for it. ('Dogmatic Cannons and Decrees of the Council of Trent,' . . . pp. 11-13; copyright 1977, 1912, with Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, Tan Books and Publishers, P.O. Box 424, Rockford, IL 61105)

"Still More Evidence Liguori, the most respected of Cannon Lawyers in the Roman Catholic Church, wrote that '[t]he Scriptures and books of Controversy may not be permitted in the vulgar tongue, as also they cannot be read without permission.'

"And Yet Even More Evidence Pope Clement XI (1713), in his bull 'Unigenitus,' wrote that '[w}e strictly forbid them [the laity] to have the books of the Old and New Testament in the vulgar tongue.'

"* FACT 2: Since Vatican Council II (1965) The Roman Catholic Church now permits her people to read the Bible, and even offers an 'indulgence' of three hundred days off of Purgatory time for doing, if they read in for at least fifteen minutes at one sitting. ('The Holy Bible, Douay-Confraternity' version, Title Page overleaf.)

"* FACT 3: Vatican Council II confirmed all pronouncements of the Council of Trent, which, as we see above, forbade the Bible to the people."

("Catholic Dilemma: Reading the Bible," at: http://forum.yadayahweh.com/framehelper.aspx?g=posts&t=885)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2013 04:36AM by steve benson.

Thanks Steve! You saved me from an evening of research. I was fairly certain I remembered that from some history class. Not at BYU either. ;-)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2013 11:35PM by Hold Your Tapirs.

Steve....That's BS because notamormon says so. :P

Sheesh...rolls eyes.

Someone needs to look up the Protestant movement and read about Martin Luther. The cathoholics didn't even want it translated from latin let alone to let people read it.

E-Gads!

All religion is control and all control is evil.

Do the math.

Yah, and just overlook that little thing where "THE" Catholic church burned the Great Library of Alexandria.......

Nothing to that!

Hey, that was an accident.

They had an awesome porn section and the pope was hella pissed it got destroyed.

Once again, PORN solves another one of history's riddles.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent4.htm

The Council of Trent

Decree Concerning The Edition And Use Of The Sacred Books

Moreover, the same holy council considering that not a little advantage will accrue to the Church of God if it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be regarded as authentic, ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,[5] presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation,[6] has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.


Those who lend or circulate them in manuscript before they have been examined and approved, shall be subject to the same penalties as the printers, and those who have them in their possession or read them, shall, unless they make known the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors.

The approbation of such books, however, shall be given in writing and shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether it be written or printed, and all this, that is, both the examination and the approbation, shall be done gratuitously, so that what ought to be approved may be approved and what ought to be condemned may be condemned.

Furthermore, wishing to repress that boldness whereby the words and sentences of the Holy Scriptures are turned and twisted to all kinds of profane usages, namely, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, godless and diabolical incantations, divinations, the casting of lots and defamatory libels, to put an end to such irreverence and contempt, and that no one may in the future dare use in any manner the words of Holy Scripture for these and similar purposes, it is commanded and enjoined that all people of this kind be restrained by the bishops as violators and profaners of the word of God, with the penalties of the law and other penalties that they may deem fit to impose.

notamormon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent4.htm
>
> The Council of Trent

It should be noted that the Council of Trent was in 1546 (as Steve mentioned above). At this point in time, things were already changing in the world. The printing press had been invented by this time and more and more commoners had information that was previously restricted or suppressed. The cat was already out of the bag.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2013 09:08AM by Hold Your Tapirs.

notamormon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I call BS. This thread is about LDS not the
> Catholic church.

This whole board is about LDS but often there are related topics and even tangents that are instructive to discuss. It happens. And many of us enjoy the elucidation. I, for one, enjoy examining parallels and similarities between LDS and other churches. It helps to put things into perspective.

Besides, it is not possible to examine Mormonism without reference to Catholicism. :)

And yeah, they didn't let the peons read the scriptures. Even way back in their day, they too knew that information is power. The masses get hold of a book and read it for themselves, or access the Internet and search out the 'meat'. Suddenly the emperor can't hide his nakedness any more.

It's a beautiful thing to behold - not the disrobed emperor but all the people checking out his naked backside.

Just for the record, I didn't intend to offend any Catholics with my statement. I was merely drawing a parallel. Indeed, knowledge is power and that knowledge leads to change.

I prefer to use the word "outraged."

. . . in a very raw, unvarnished sort of way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2013 04:28PM by steve benson.

I'm Pissed OFF because I was Pissed ON.

They lie to you because they think you are an idiot.

That's what pisses me off.

Assuming I am just some gullible fool that would grant any authority to these over-grown children just makes me go BERZERK.

I think it's laughable that anyone should come here and tell us to be careful how we express ourselves, others are watching and may form an opinion.
Be authentic! That's what I say. If that is anger, bitter, outrage, or even phony-nice, have at it, just lay it all out so we can all understand where each other is coming from.

Way too much of mormonism is concerned with what others will think of us. Who cares!?

Be yourself.

What really makes me mad....raging mad...is the hypocrisy of tscc expecting you to be totally honest WHEN THEY ARE NOT!! Truthfulness is one of my core values...you stomp on that and i come out swinging :-P

Well stated. The manipulation is so apparent unless you are "in line."

could have dismantled the LDS church.

began posting here. I have calmed down a bit since then.

+1

Sorry Steve, but you are wrong about one thing. You do have courage. Lots of people in the church have the information. But they lack the courage to process what it means, to face the implications of what they have learned. They bend themselves into pretzels trying to hide from the truth because the truth contradicts not only what they believe but strikes at the core of who they are. And that's scary.

You needed the information but what you chose to do with the information took courage.

And I agree with you - the lying has always been the huge deal-breaker for me. Lots of religions believe weird things. It was the lying, misleading, name-calling, persecution of inactives that got me out. I can't stand being lied to. And next time someone accuses me of being angry or offended I'm going to ask them why they AREN'T angry. Because the truth about the church should offend the integrity of any decent person.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2013 06:37PM by CA girl.

... particularly in the high-command chambers of the Mormon Church, who have sufficient inside information combined with innate intelligence to know better but who, for their own reasons, resort to disingenuous "answers" and deceitful ploys when faced with evidence that exposes their institutional claims as lies.

As to those on the lower rungs in Mormonism's general rank-and-file membership ranks, yes, they can be stubborn and misled--but they are often placed in that situation because of their sincere faith in the high leadership of the Mormon Church, inculcated through a lifetime of exposure to brainwashing teachings or through the slick conversion techniques of the Mormon missionary program. In my opinion, it is easier to deal with these people, where more realistic expectation for personal evolution exists as to the chances for change in their perspectives, based on the unfolding of time, the exposure to facts and the journey of individualized experience. Often an individual crisis of faith precipitated by a sense of betrayal--or a situation of intensely personal circumstance that goes directly contrary to what they were taught as being "true" in Mormonism--can result in a profound alteration of attitude, conceptualization and belief. For those, I do have hope.

For the Machivellian leadership at the summit of Mormon power, I do not hold out such hope or expectation (although, that said, there have been some significant examples of personal mutinies in the early and later ranks of the Mormon Church's upper-command councils). To them, I doff my Masonic temple hat (which I had to pull out of a dark and dusty storage closet in order to do so).

:)



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2013 08:01PM by steve benson.

Betrayal is enumerated by the esoteric history TSCC has devised to maintain control of its members. Withholding information from an intellectually inferior group with intent to protect that group from demoralizing comprehension of accompanying narratives will (once the group becomes sentient)cause significant vexation. Some in the group will promulgate their new erudition with fervently bias opinion critical of the supervisory body within in the institution. Subsequently, most traditional beliefs become problematic and amenable to examination. The compilation of disparaging information creates insurmountable doubt...

The need to warn the group and to expose the betrayal is a natural response to save others from the emotional pain inflicted by TSCC. The pious narcissistic need to control members is evidence that the leadership will never love the members, they never have and never will. Once a member recognizes betrayal, and the lack of genuine love, the path out of TSCC should be initiated promptly...it's a cult people.


(Quote from a previous post oldklunker)

I agree that leaving takes courage, particularly with your high-profile family. You knew there would be repercussions to leaving and you were willing to accept that in order to live your truth. There are a lot of people who are unwilling/unable to do that and they won't become notorious like you did. I knew who you were back in the days when I was TBM b/c you were ETB's vocally ex-Mormon grandson. And I don't live in Utah nor do I pay much attention to LDS news/gossip. That's a lot to step into but I agree, if you're lied to and manipulated and you know it's all about a bunch of garbage, at some point you have to break free. You should be angry that you've been vilified by some of the TBM contingent. Fortunately that's a small segment of the population. Hopefully the anger can be worked through since it's a crappy way to go through life. I'm one to talk, though. I just realized today how truly angry I am. I haven't been able to pinpoint exactly what it is I'm angry about just yet, but the rage boils beneath the surface.

I know politics is no allowed so please take my comparisons as fully applicable to our current government, regardless of party:

"Beware of ANY organization (religious, business, social, sports, governmental, political, fraternal. you name it) that denies you access to information necessary for you to make informed and rational decisions for your own life."

We are constantly denied access to critical information required to evaluate what our government is doing - vast amounts of information that does not fit the narrative is labelled "national security" and never sees the light of day.


"--the manipulative efforts of the Mormon Church's hierarchy to bring me into line;"

Manipulaitve efforts, from planted news stories to outright purchasing (funding of news organizations), is used to keep us in line.

"--its unresponsive and deflecting reaction to my honest, direct and informed inquiries (Note: knowing the right follow-up questions to ask is key);"

Again, "national security" is used to allow unresponsiveness and the label "conspiracy theory" is used to deflect.

"--the robotic, guilt-tripping tactics of its local leadership in combo with their LDS-sheep supporters (including some members of my own family); . . ."

You must not support our military, love it or leave it, how can you believe the govermnet could doe such a thing, etc. Guilt much?

"I therefore found it imperative for me to do my own research, build my own resource library and come to my own conclusions."

Please, do as much research as you can, we are in very dangerous waters.

Removing my tinfoil hat now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2013 12:48AM by ramonglyde.

tin foil hats ? much preferred to magic underwear !!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4uo2wNkcQU

MORmONISM has NOTHING to hide, just ask Hinckley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR6udrKFjGo



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2013 08:59AM by lucky.

Recently a family member asked me why I was still critical of the mormon church. I said because they scammed me for a lot of money, time and mental energy. He told me that I always had a choice and that no one had forced me to do those things. I had chosen to live as a mormon with faith and I don't have a right to blame the church just because I changed my mind. That I should just let it go and live my life away from it.

It's a lot like the rape victims being told they caused their own problem by how they dress.

I think this attitude of blaming us is about as galling as the lies that angered us in the first place.