...today’s “Oh, I always knew that.”

It’s interesting that many of the things that got Fawn Brodie (and many others) excommunicated are now (reluctantly) admitted by TSCC.

About a year ago, I mentioned to a well-educated, well informed TBM that I first learned about the “rock in the hat” story from South Park. He brushed it off saying “that’s just a theory.” I think for many sheep, the seer stone in the hat has gone from “anti-Mormon lie” to “just a theory” to “I always knew that.”

Consider this: When I was a missionary (in the late 1970s), if I had taught an investigator that JS translated the BoM by looking at a stone in a hat (a stone that he had previously used for treasure hunting), my companion would have immediately interrupted me and scolded me as soon as we had left the investigator’s house. If I did it a second time, I would have been reported to the mission president. If I continued, I would have been sent home, dishonorably, from my mission.

When I was Gospel Doctrine teacher (in the 1990s) if I had taught the truth about the BoM “translation,” I would have been immediately counseled by my bishop, and possibly released from my calling. If I continued, even informally, teaching the now-accepted truth, I likely would have been the guest of honor at a “court of love.”

I know that I was guilty of self-delusion and had to practice constant mental gymnastics for my many years of activity in, and devotion to, the LDS church, but there was much less to deal with back then. There is so much information available now—even from “official” sources. How far do you have to stick your head in the sand to not see the deception?

If a lie is repeated over and over, it will eventually be come to be believed as a truth.

Politicians know this.

tru dat

Indeed.
Or, in some cases, the "old truth" is still adhered to, despite the church now officially saying otherwise.

For example, I found this site the other day:

http://scottwoodward.org/bookofmormon_translationprocess_debunkingmyths.html

The site basically tries to "debunk myths" about the BoM translation process by STILL claiming it was all done as earlier said, with the U&T, and not the rock in the hat -- the rock in the hat is called anti-mormon lies. Still. After the church has admitted it was done "rock in the hat" style. The old belief is still clung to, and the "anti-mormon lies" are still called anti-mormon lies.

Excerpts from a book published in 2000. Not current.

JAR

We've always been at war with Eastasia.

Not to go too much OT, but this goes along with selective apologetics. A prime example might be David Whitmer'es testimony of the plates; THAT testimony must be accepted as proof, but his description of the rock in a hat translation story or that JS said some revelations are of the devil...well *that* is made up propaganda from a disgruntled exmo.

Except that he never recanted his witness of the plates and that proves the truth of the plates.

Except that the official LDS site says that his rock in hat story *is* true.

Except that...

My head hurts.

Chicken N. Backpacks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not to go too much OT, but this goes along with
> selective apologetics.

I think that is the topic. :)

A non-mormon example: Last week, Rick Santorum appeared on "Real Time with Bill Maher." Their discussion was interesting.

On contraception and abortion, Santorum essentially said that the pope was right, and both are "wrong." He called it an issue of his religion, and staunchly stood behind the pope's statements.

Then on climate change, he gave the party line denying its reality. When Maher brought up the pope's statement that human-cause climate change is real, and should be of concern to Catholics (and everyone else), Santorum said the pope isn't a scientist, and isn't an expert on climate change, dismissing what he said.

Do we need to remind Santorum that the pope isn't an expert on sex, either, never actually having HAD sex?

The point is the selective acceptance of what religious leaders say based on one's own existing beliefs and motivations. If a religious leader says something you agree with already, you're likely to consider it "doctrinal" and official. It a religious leader says something you don't agree with, you feel free to dismiss it. Like the LDS church admitting the rock in the hat story, but many members still dismissing it (or pretending they knew it all along).

(note: please don't make this about climate change; I'm using this to point out selective acceptance of the statements of religious leaders, not to argue about climate change OR abortion)

Remember Bill Clinton never had sex with that woman (pointed and shaken finger)

Can we all say together

THEY ARE F-ING LIARS

Now didn't that feel good?

Wait...wait!!

I found a case where the church is right; one thing we make fun of is that Jesus basically said it's OK to be poor, and told his disciples to give up their worldly stuff to follow him, but the LDS position is to be prosperous. We think that is selective reading of the gospel, but it's another anti-mormon lie.

Welllll, now the LDS Philanthropies™ are trying to get people to will everything they own to the church...how Christlike! Now you can not only consecrate your very existence on Earth to TSCC, you can let your kids be poorer by donating everything when you die! The church is true!

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

In a perfect afterlife, Fawn Brodie would have been waiting as the official greeter for Hugh Nibley.

That would be a scene I'd love to see!

Me, too. It makes me smile just thinking about it.

blueorchid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In a perfect afterlife, Fawn Brodie would have
> been waiting as the official greeter for Hugh
> Nibley.

...with a ticket to "outer darkness."

Even better.

Maybe she was!

Only in the Mormon Church,
"God's one-true-church-on-earth,"
where you must be HONEST with your
fellowman to get a temple recommend,
can you be excommunicated for
TELLING THE TRUTH.

TBM response: And that's the beauty of the Gospel.

jiminycricket Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only in the Mormon Church,
> "God's one-true-church-on-earth,"
> where you must be HONEST with your
> fellowman to get a temple recommend,
> can you be excommunicated for
> TELLING THE TRUTH.
>
> TBM response: And that's the beauty of the Gospel.



I never thought of it this way.
Now that I have I can see how this approach and belief is another layer of mind numbingling bizarre beliefs which program the mind and culture to accept an insane system.
\\and how does one break free from the nonsense belief system?

question question question


don't accept the programmed beliefs as answers to the questions.
allow oneself to know THE Truth.
allow The Truth to be different than the bizarre story you've been programmed into believing.

allow oneself to tell the Truth without fear repercussions interfering.

Your post made me see the complex layers of programming and the acceptance of believing something that is unbelievable and/or wrong.

This is big for me tonight.
I recognize these patterns transfered into a lot of different areas of my life.
aaaarrrggghhhh

I know. TSCC finally admditting the truth is almost more infuriating than when they were lying. That's because when I resigned, they were excommunicating people for saying the very same thing that they now said were never kept secret and that they've always known. Lie. Lie. Lie.

So they're supposed to be exonerated now that they sort of admit it, but they should not be expected to issue an apology to those who they vilified? Lying con men!

+ +

I like your passion NormaRae. It is infuriating! No apologies ever from the Second Anointees who preach apology as part of the repentance process. TSCC's tactics are insulting to the human mind!

+1 to both NormaRae and Jiminy.

My religion prof in about 1978 or 79 taught us about the stone in the hat but I failed to realize the significance at the time.

...an exception to the norm. I was active at this time as a young man and it was never mentioned in church or the CES.

I had a friend who was a missionary in Central America (who was a convert at age 18) tell me that he heard all of the "anti-Mormon" information while he was on his mission... From poor Latin American families in the jungle in 1975.

My response... "I call bullshit on that Mike."

So some poor jungle natives knew all about polygamy and blood atonement in 1975. No. No way.

This is a typical Mormon response. Deny. Then admit. What's the big deal? I knew that since I was in preschool.

BS. BS people.

...todays lds.org essays.

I am still scratching my head over the fact that they don't say who wrote them up or if it was some kind of collective effort. They always are so quick to slap their names on things, right down to that middle initial.

I agree with you. It is odd that no one put a name on the papers.

none of them wanted to own responsibility for it.

so sad really.

Susan I/S Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...todays lds.org essays.
>
> I am still scratching my head over the fact that
> they don't say who wrote them up or if it was some
> kind of collective effort. They always are so
> quick to slap their names on things, right down to
> that middle initial.

Design by Committee.
http://www.quora.com/Who-wrote-the-essays-regarding-LDS-Doctrinal-issues-on-The-Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-day-Saints



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/2015 01:07AM by cognitivedissonance.

Thanks for sharing the link.

My response to TBM's saying: "I/we've know that for years" is why then is it considered so newsworthy by news agencies large and small?

If it was common knowledge - and taught frequently in church -- that JS had 33 wives and that he translated with a rock in a hat, then all these news agencies that covered these stories would have dismissed it as old news.

and thus we see how the MORmON religion really is trandscendent!!!! .... in a very nasty self serving deceitful way.

Yet, THEY are still bad people because they said those things BEFORE it was official.

that is how quantum MORmON doctrine works. its not constrained by time and space, it just is what ever it is as it suits LD$ Inc
( thieving, LYING, BLOOD SUCKING ) purposes

When i was learning the truth about the church i sent twelve doctrinal questions about the church to church leaders. At the time they were called lies and half truths, now they have proved to be true!