He still slams it for being absurd and not paying taxes, but is convinced all the Mormons he ever knew were nice people and other Christians mostly accept Mormons as Christians, therefore, it must not be a cult.
But Scientologist on the other hand, total cult!
https://youtu.be/ut-1o9BTiWo

I guess Mormons get off easy because Mormons are just so nice.
He fails to mention the fact the Doomsday Sex Cult of Joseph's Myth forces kids to sing the praises of a pedophile. Nice people dont sing the praises of sexual abusers.
Christians dont pack pornograpic dick pics of God, depicted as a fully erect Egyptian Fertility God, around in their scriptures.

Every cult member I have known is far from being nice.

jett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Every cult member I have known is far from being
> nice.

Its a facade they maintain in hopes their "every member a missionary" attitude convinces some gullible dupe they should join up and start kicking in 10% of their hard earned income into the pyramid scheme for the privilage of singing the praises of Joseph's Myth.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Its a facade they maintain in hopes their "every
> member a missionary" attitude convinces some
> gullible dupe they should join up and start
> kicking in 10% of their hard earned income into
> the pyramid scheme for the privilage of singing
> the praises of Joseph's Myth.

There's a deeper reason. All religions are nice and polite and tolerant as long as they are a vulnerable minority. But when they become a majority, seize power and own the place, then they all want to rule as their god sees fit.

Just ask muslims in Thailand and Burma how nice those buddhists really are.

Visitors Welcome Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just ask muslims in Thailand and Burma how nice
> those buddhists really are.
True, tribalism is not unique to Mormonism.

Just ask those Christians in Africa or the Middle East about Muslims

Hindus in Bangladesh are oppressed by muslims while in some parts of India it is the opposite. The list is endless. It works in every configuration. Every religion is totalitarian without a strict separation of church and state. Look at what is happening in Turkey and the USA: as religion rises, the nation slides.

That's a bit of an over-generalization, don't you think?

As a TBM I was taught by my parents to be kind to everyone, because that was the example Jesus showed us. It's still something I try to live by. Conversion of the gullible and tithing never once entered my mind.

I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but your bitterness might be getting in the way of fair-mindedness.

I can see how our cult is moving towards being a mainstream religion. It will take much more time before I think it will loose its cult status.

Just in my own lifetime I've seen many changes that I would consider a "softening" of the teachings. Blacks can have the priesthood, The meeting times have been reduced, Laminates are no longer cursed with dark skin, and being white and delight-some is now "pure and delight-some. The whole blood atonment thing is in the far past and plural marriage is seen as an antiquated relic that was only practiced for a short time by a few people.

Even the blood-oaths in the temple were removed. Soon they will no longer require temple-recommend holders to not talk to apostate family members. It would be nice to see the shunning go away. That may even happen in the next few decades...who knows?

praydude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can see how our cult is moving towards being a
> mainstream religion. It will take much more time
> before I think it will loose its cult status.
>
> Just in my own lifetime I've seen many changes
> that I would consider a "softening" of the
> teachings. Blacks can have the priesthood, The
> meeting times have been reduced, Laminates are no
> longer cursed with dark skin, and being white and
> delight-some is now "pure and delight-some. The
> whole blood atonment thing is in the far past and
> plural marriage is seen as an antiquated relic
> that was only practiced for a short time by a few
> people.
>
> Even the blood-oaths in the temple were removed.
> Soon they will no longer require temple-recommend
> holders to not talk to apostate family members.
> It would be nice to see the shunning go away. That
> may even happen in the next few decades...who
> knows?

If they have almost every characteristic of a cult, it meets the definition of a cult:

‪ 1. The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

‪ 2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

‪ 3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

‪4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry�or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

‪5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar�or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

‪6. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

‪7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

‪8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

‪9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

‪10. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

‪11. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

12.‪ The group is preoccupied with making money.

‪13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

14.‪ Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

‪15. The most loyal members (the �true believers�) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

14/15 they meet by my count.
And I could argue temple rituals are mind altering. Forcing you to sing the praises of a pedophile seems like a real mind fuck.

http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2018 08:34PM by koriwhore.

Koriwhore, I agree with ALL of your points. Of course the mormon church is still a cult...but...in a century or two the mormon church could be a regular religion. My point is: religion = cult + time. To show the more obvious examples of crazy cult behavior (child brides and sexual emasculation/dominance) one has to go back to early(ish) mormon history.

I do think it is interesting to see this cult slowly soften over time. It still has a long, long way to go to not be a cult but I do think if it stays around long enough eventually it will become a regular (although kooky) religion.

If Joe Smith were alive today would he even recognize the church he left?

Praydude, JS would assuredly not recognize the church today.

My view, however, is that the church has moved in a more cult-like direction in recent decades. The LDS church began as a cult, moved away from that until in the 1960s it would accept contrarian views about many things and even had a couple of liberal apostles.

Since correlation, however, the church has gradually tightened down again. Over time the doctrine went away and all that was left was obedience. Free agency became agency, and members were expected to change their beliefs on moral and political issues without resistance as ordered by the Q15. In other words, the church is less free, less tolerant in some ways, today than during the late McKay days.

You are right that doctrinally the church is mainstreaming, doctrinally and in terms of public relations imagery, but the core of the religion is submission to individual leaders. If the church surrenders that, it will become something like a mainstream religion and hence irrelevant. But the church is far from accepting that fate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2018 04:19AM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Praydude, JS would assuredly not recognize the
> church today.

....OK

> My view, however, is that the church has moved in
> a more cult-like direction in recent decades.

That could be due to THE (MORmON) church's newly implemented emphasis on believing just for the sake of believing (to keep LD$ Inc revenue coming in !!!!!) to believe in spite of evidence and facts that so readily disproves MORmON claims of authenticity as those facts are so amply provided by the internet.


> The
> LDS church began as a cult,

.....definitely



> moved away from that
> until in the 1960s it would accept contrarian
> views about many things and even had a couple of
> liberal apostles.

You speak AS IF THE (MORmON) church was tolerant of dissent prior to the 1960's into the 1960's .....that simply is NOT accurate.

That simply is NOT true. I remember the iron fist control that LDS Inc administered in the 1960's. LDS Inc could not actually cut the throat of any apostate (as Brigham Young might do 100 years earlier in Zion Utah) because the law of the land of the USA prevails in Utah ( as a State of the USA), but dissent / opposition was HARDLY tolerated in the 1950's and 60's !!!!!

Hippies were dissenters and THE (MORmON) church despised them !!!!!


> Since correlation, however, the church has
> gradually tightened down again. Over time the
> doctrine went away and all that was left was
> obedience. Free agency became agency, and members
> were expected to change their beliefs on moral and
> political issues without resistance as ordered by
> the Q15. In other words, the church is less free,
> less tolerant in some ways, today than during the
> late McKay days.

LD$ Inc has revised (de emphasized) their MORmON doctUrinal stance in pursuit or their Hinckley style big tent /grow THE (MORmON) church as much as possible emphasis. Most of that revision has actually been to be MORE tolerant, ie more acceptance of blacks. LD$ inc is actually more tolerant of homosexuals now than it was in the past. , There was zero (ZERO) tolerance /allowance for Homosexuals in the past. Remember??? LD$ inc actually tolerates Homosexuals (not homosexuality) now. That is a HUGE change !!!!


> You are right that doctrinally the church is
> mainstreaming, doctrinally and in terms of public
> relations imagery, but the core of the religion is
> submission to individual leaders. If the church
> surrenders that, it will become something like a
> mainstream religion and hence irrelevant. But the
> church is far from accepting that fate.

LD$ Inc has ratcheted up its rhetorical emphasis on being obedient, in the attempt to save themselves, but its actual enforcement of obedience is actually much more lax, because THE (MORmON) church can NOT afford to start ex comming way ward members the way that they used to with current activity rates and membership declining so rapidly.

OK, Joe Rogan said that MORmONISM is not a cult ........

and what else has Joe said ???????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rOPRdjrlJE

Joe says that Scientology IS a cult.

Joe definitely speaks of MORmONISM with equivalency to Scientology IN that instance.

smirkorama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, Joe Rogan said that MORmONISM is not a cult
> ........
>
> and what else has Joe said ???????
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rOPRdjrlJE
>
> Joe says that Scientology IS a cult.
>
> Joe definitely speaks of MORmONISM with
> equivalency to Scientology IN that instance.
He is taken in with Mormons fake "nice"ness. Nice people don't abuse kids by forcing them to sing praises of a man who they know, raped his followers wives and teenage daughters as young as 14 when he was in his 30s.

You don't think there was a liberalizating trend from the JS days, the Reformation days, through the early 1960s? You think Bennion would always have been tolerated?

Yes, there was always oppression, most seriously of blacks and gays, but hippies? Sure, people were told to get haircuts. But that is not the same level of oppression as in the late 19th century. And by the 1990s gay people were no longer being tortured and had gained a quiet acceptance in many areas of the church. After the September Six campaign there was evena movement towards more tolerance of intellectual descent.

My assertion is that there was beneath this progressivism was a countervailing trend towards repression, born of McConkie and Packer and Kimball and Correlation, that brought us in the late 2000s a pogrom against liberal Mormons and a wave of excommunications. That ended the new order Mormon phenomenon and ushered in the new authoritarianism.

So yes, I believe the church is less cult-like now than in the 1850s and more so than in the more confident, more tolerant (in many ways) church of the 1960s (for white, straight people) to the intolerant and dictatorial 2010s. The trend is neither universal nor "clean," but I believe it was significant.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't think there was a liberalizating trend
> from the JS days, the Reformation days, through
> the early 1960s? You think Bennion would always
> have been tolerated?

"Liberalization" From Joseph Smith on, Hmmmmmmmm? lets see about that.

Post Joseph Smith MORmON administration would include the time period of Brigham Young's reign immediately following Joseph Smith ......in the over 100 year time period that you so readily lumped together and just breezed right through AS IF it was all pretty much identical relative to your arguments.


Back Ground

Joseph was using his self assigned standing as God's (supposedly) chosen exclusive Latter Day prophet to loot those around, both those inside and outside of Smith's stupid scam of MORmONISM, .....especially those INSIDE Smith's MORmON church, sucking up every bit of their money in the name of God. Then there was the deal with Joe collecting wives from his MORmON members. Outside of THE (MORmON) church, Joe had his secret MORmON thugs/gangsters (the Danites) roving the country side to steal anything and everything that was available. The plucky folks in Missouri had enough of MORmONS. They booted the MORmONS out their state. Contrary to MORmON reasons (propaganda) that are s still put out and promoted by MORmON PR (LIARS) even today, it was NOT because the MORmONS were such great neighbors and just SO gosh darn likable. Joe Smith persisted in his looting and debauchery right up to the point when Joe had his ass killed for being so recklessly self serving and self indulgent.

Enter Brigham Young

Brigham Young had watched Joe Smith's MORmON (SCAM) enterprise with great interest ........from the inside. Brigham wanted to do everything that Joe had done, only better /even more, .....with the exception of ending up gunned down like a rabid dog. Brigham Young's solution to the matter was to move THE MORmON Church (SCAM) outside of the borders of semi orderly, American governed and regulated civilization to the western frontier with as much of the MORmON flock as BY could con / dupe into making THE move with BY.


With out the oversight /interference of the American government, B. Young fairly well did what ever he wanted to, including accumulating vast personal wealth from his transplanted MORmON flock, having a personal wife collection /MORmON harem substantially bigger than Joe Smith's as picked from his MORmON flock, and readily dealing out Laban style treatment / punishment (execution) for any dissenters/opposition that were caught in Zion Utah.

In the West, there were less gentiles around to loot and steal from, so Brigham compensated by plundering the MORmON flock like crazy/on a super concentrated basis. When gentile targets did make themselves available, like NON MORmON west ward bound wagon trains and pioneer companies, Good old brother Brigham had them shaken down very hard. That worked for BY for 30 years. 30 years being a substantive portion of the 100 plus time period that you just lumped together!

Is that the post JS "liberalization" period that you were referring to? When you are claiming that MORmON cult like authoritarian tendencies relaxed/ relented because Joseph Smith was out of the mix?

Brigham Young thought / hoped that the American civil war would destroy America. Brigham Young figures that his new western American MORmON Zion based nation of "Deseret" will take over and supplant The USA as the supreme political empire and governmental administration on the American continent. .....BUT that did not happen. Instead, Brigham's MORmON Zion ended up being incorporated into the still existent and Expanding USA.

As "Utah" was swallowed up by the westward expanding USA, "Utah" was back with in the United States borders, to be reeled back under the control and influence of American law, which meant NO more summary executions of those who dared question THE (MORmON) church in Utah. That means that "Utah" had to relent on its authoritarian cult ways (of Murdering dissenters and opposition) due to the imposition of external influences. A
"reformation" due much more to compulsion of external influence/ forces than any internal prerogatives.

SO how much credit is to be given to the MORmON cult for supposedly relaxing its authoritarian style cult tendencies post Brigham Young ? .....Who really extended tolerance to MORmON dissidents/dissenters? THE (MORmON) Church? or the Law of the land as administered by the US government, as the USA encompassed ZION Utah, which did not allow killing people for being critical of THE (MORmON) Church in Utah?

> Yes, there was always oppression, most seriously
> of blacks and gays, but hippies? Sure, people were
> told to get haircuts. But that is not the same
> level of oppression as in the late 19th century.

Oh,so you want to discount that hippie thing?

So abject LD$ inc disdain and loathing and contempt of Hippies in the 1960's, Hippies as general political /cultural dissenters not even specific dissenter /critics of MORmONISM, is NOT an indication of latent MORmON cult style authoritarianism that was (supposedly) continually and precipitously relaxing from JS onward to be in dramatic decline (according to you) by the (very) time that Hippies happened to emerge as a cultural sub group / phenomena (?.........????????) Yah! That makes sense !!!!!

.......Could it be that the ONLY reason that Hippies were NOT ex commed by LD$ inc was because Hippies could NOT be ex commed since Hippies were NEVER members in the first place, but do NOT worry, MORmONS hated hippies just like they were MORmON apostates anyway !!!!!!


> And by the 1990s gay people were no longer being
> tortured and had gained a quiet acceptance in many
> areas of the church. After the September Six
> campaign there was even a movement towards more
> tolerance of intellectual descent.

The Sept Six was in 1993. LD$ inc ex commed my convert like he was nasty old garbage in 1998. 20 years later after that, in the current now that you are complaining about as being a newly emerged apex of LD$ intolerances, LD$ inc no longer excomms so readily because their growth numbers and active members numbers have declined so much that LDS INc more currently has to put more stock in the fewer members that they still have that are still remaining, as they are super desperate for new members, in this time of intolerance, they will take ANYONE !!!!! so we see deals like LDS INc PR's "tattooed tramps can be MORmONS too" campaign ala Al Fox.
>
> My assertion is

your assertion was that MORmONISM and THE (MORmON) church was somehow more lax in cult like terms after Joseph Smith.

Considering that Brigham Young had a 30 year reign of abject
authoritarian Tyranny and Terror while directing the MORmON church /cult that immediately followed Joseph Smith, makes your assertion ( I am going to be direct) silly, ridiculous and simply absurd.

Your assertion was that THE (MORmON) church continually became more lax in its attitudes on dissent and disapproval for ......WHATEVER happens to fall outside of officially approved LD$ inc bounds, after Joe Smith until an apex of (supposed) laxity in the 1950's and 60's and that in more recent times THE (MORmON) Church has managed to rebound clear back to Joseph Smith era apex norms to be more mean, cruel, vindictive, spiteful and hateful.

The idea that THE (MORmON) church is currently more uptight and less forgiving on violation of its official LD$ standards (whatever they happened to be) than it was in the 1950's and 60's is NOT a well founded notion.


> that there was beneath this
> progressivism

ummmmmmmmmmm WHAT "progressivism" ???????!!!!!!!???????


> was a countervailing trend towards
> repression, born of McConkie and Packer and
> Kimball and Correlation, that brought us in the
> late 2000s

ummmmmm McConkie and Kimball were both DEAD in 1985, late 2000s would be over 20 years later!

> a pogrom against liberal Mormons and a
> wave of excommunications. That ended the new
> order Mormon phenomenon and ushered in the new
> authoritarianism.

Sorry, but the new order MORmON is NOT dying because of LDS excomming, because LDS Inc currently can not afford to Excomm anyone, NOMs is dying because NOM's too free spirited and are too bored with MORmONISM to A. Keep paying tithing B. Keep attending boring MORmON church. That is a big problem for LD$ inc because their supply of old order MORmONS who will go along with whatever THE (MORmON) church says /does, that LD$ really loves,is dramatically dwindling too!!!


So now, you are going from gross oversimplification where you completely discounted /overlooked Brigham Young's 30 plus year reign of tyranny which made you incorrect in your assertions, to some form of complexity that falls far short of making any sense at all.

>
> So yes, I believe the church is less cult-like now
> than in the 1850s

Ummmmmmm just as I already point out, The 1850's would be post Joseph Smith admin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! The Joe Smith era being the one that you IDed as the worst/most cult like era for MORmONISM.

so WHAT are you really talking about??? since there is huge problem in the construction of what you are attempting to say.


> and more so than in the more
> confident, more tolerant
> (in many ways) church of
> the 1960s (for white, straight people)

as some one who was alive, and a member / inside of
THE (MORmON) Church in the 1960's, and who remembers, I have NO idea what you are talking about! which tends to make me think you have no idea what you are talking about. The blacks did NOT get the MORmON priestDUD until 1978 and members for the most part were shocked/ stunned by that announcement. And 1978 is NOT really part of the ("tolerant") 1950' and '60's.


> to the
> intolerant and dictatorial 2010s. The trend is
> neither universal nor "clean," but I believe it
> was significant.

Compared to the current situation with in MORmONISM that you (errantly) describe and complain about as an new apex of intolerance, blacks and gays ........and errant/ wayward MORmON members are practically coddled compared to the way that they were treated inside of MORmONISM in the 50's and 60's.

Thank you for the "back ground [sic]" and congratulations on your enthusiasm. The next step would be reading accurately and then analytical skills. Best of luck on your journey. In the meantime, a few points to indicate where you could tighten things up if you wanted.

First, you assert that I focused solely on Joseph Smith's abuses and ignored Brigham Young' tyranny. That claim, which you repeat several times, is false. Do you know what the Mormon Reformation, to which I referred, was? Look it up and you will learn something.

Second, you assert that I overlook the oppression of black people in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet I wrote "there was always oppression, most seriously of blacks and gays." And again, the liberalization that later occurred was for "for white, straight people." It's unfortunate that you did not notice those statements since, along with the claim that I ignored Brigham Young, you wasted much of your response on those false propositions.

Finally, you write that "as some one [sic] who was alive, and "inside of [sic] THE (MORmON) Church in the 1960's, . . . I have NO idea what you are talking about!"

I think it is fair to say we agree on that much.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2018 09:43PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't think there was a liberalizating
> trend
> from the JS days, the Reformation days, through
> the early 1960s? You think Bennion would always
> have been tolerated?

Yah! Yah!

I see your point!!

The "liberalizating" [sic] tendencies of THE (MORmON) church cult (and it is a certainty that MORmONISM is loaded with "liberalizating" [sic] tendencies much more than other societal factions, liberalizating [sic] tendencies that end up dragging THE church around by its "liberalizating" [sic] MORmON nose) prevailed over THE church's penchant for dictatorial authoritarian style control yah! that really happened! .......well, at least ever since Joseph Smith's time ......or ever since the Reformation time, ......or ever since SOMEWHERE starting in that 30 year .....or 50 year ........or however long time slide, depending on how a person is (not really) counting that constitutes the duration of the beginning period of THE church as needed to mark the beginning of the prevalence of the trend of "liberalizating" [sic] that is being touted .....lead to a Church "pogrom" [sic] of correlation and formal disdain for all the many liberals hiding out in the MORmON church ........which is NOT to be confused with the same old MORmON style contempt and loathing of dissenters of any brand -a confusion that some less intellectually rigorous people (which certainly does NOT include you!) get stuck with so that they mistakenly think that its the same old MORmON style intolerance that has always been in action and causing the same old MORmON related problems.


.....After all, hating gays is a totally new MORmON intolerance /phenomena, NOT just a new MORmON emphasis on an old (issue of) MORmON hatred and intolerance !!!!!!

Just as you pointed out, all of that escalating post start up (a start up that runs clear through the MORmON Reformation and beyond) MORmON "liberalizating" [sic] eventually lead to the free wheeling period of time in MORmONISM of the 1950's and '60's, when a MORmON member could pretty much do whatever they wanted. .....That free wheeling MORmON sentiment really comes through in the commentary of MORmON leaders in their conferences talks in the 1960's !!!!!!!!


Most of all, just like you said as your main point, in current times (the 2010's), due to Packer and McConkie and Kimball and Correlation, MORmONISM took a hard turn toward going back to being more authoritarian and dictatorial and controlling......after so much unabated "liberalizating" [sic] that went on .....due to MORmONS natural inherent preference for "liberalizating" [sic].

That return to old authoritarian and dictatorial and controlling ways happened in the 2010's as McConkie and Kimball were really driving LD$ inc policy in a newly realized effectively anti "liberalizating" [sic] way ........even though McConkie and Kimball were long since deceased (as of 1985) ........ and even though MORmON correlation was implemented during the freewheeling 1960's.

That is a really keen observation on your part. You painted a picture of timely compelling direct cause and effect right there !!! I now, in 2018, see just how correct that you really are!!!!

Its not like you just made up ......or parroted..... some super specious assertions or nonsense (that you read out of a book or magazine article that really did not make sense to you but sounded really good anyway .......with big words like "progressivism" and "liberalizating" [sic] ) to try to sound really clever and profound, and then you just added in some well known names that were actually totally disconnected from the contrived matter in any practical (....or *praticalizating* to be more in harmony with your superior comprehension, grammar and usage) terms in some wild desperate attempt to add some credibility to the great sounding (nonsensical) load of (foolish) screed that you went with. Yah, that is something that definitely did NOT happen, even as the stuff you talked about definitely DID happen -just the way you said it did !!!!


>
> Yes, there was always oppression, most seriously
> of blacks and gays, but hippies? Sure, people were
> told to get haircuts. But that is not the same
> level of oppression as in the late 19th century.
> And by the 1990s gay people were no longer being
> tortured and had gained a quiet acceptance in many
> areas of the church. After the September Six
> campaign there was evena movement towards more
> tolerance of intellectual descent.
>
> My assertion is that there was beneath this
> progressivism was a countervailing trend towards
> repression, born of McConkie and Packer and
> Kimball and Correlation, that brought us in the
> late 2000s a pogrom against liberal Mormons and a
> wave of excommunications. That ended the new
> order Mormon phenomenon and ushered in the new
> authoritarianism.

That (previous) paragraphs just makes SO MUCH sense !!!!

No wonder that you get a little snippy when people do not come up to your lofty standards for analysis, comprehension, usage and composition !!!!


>
> So yes, I believe the church is less cult-like now
> than in the 1850s and more so than in the more
> confident, more tolerant (in many ways) church of
> the 1960s (for white, straight people) to the
> intolerant and dictatorial 2010s. The trend is
> neither universal nor "clean," but I believe it
> was significant.


So, somehow, The MORmON church of the 2010's has managed to be even more authoritarian and dictatorial and controlling, (.......even WITHOUT its old explicit death threat penalties in its MORmON temple ceremony......) in spite of its raging "liberalizating" tendencies through its post start up years, than it was during the free wheeling 1960's (when the explicit death threat penalties were still in the MORmON temple ceremony).

yah, yah! That totally makes sense, now that you have explained it so well !!!

I'm glad you've seen the light.

> Soon they will no longer require temple-recommend
> holders to not talk to apostate family members.
> It would be nice to see the shunning go away. That
> may even happen in the next few decades...who
> knows?


I was never told by a church authority that I couldn't talk to ANYONE

scmd1
> I was never told by a church authority that I
> couldn't talk to ANYONE

Right before I resigned, I went to my 3rd Bishop, with my serious questions I had to resolve in order to continue raising my kids, a 6th Generation of Mormons, I expressed all the serious questions I had.
At first he used the old, "Whatabout" Logical Falacy. When I brought up Mormon racism and exclusion he said,"Whatabout Jesus? When he said to not teach gentiles, was that racist?
I said I didnt think so because gentile isnt a race.
Then I brought up polyandry and he said, "Whatabout King David? He had many wives and concubines, even his soldiers wife. And the Star of David is on the Israeli flag!
I said, He also had Bathshebas husband murdered. So yeah, probably not somebody who I'd hold up as a model of morality.
He told me it was fine to have these doubts, but if I ever shared them with other Mormons he'd have to discipline me.
I said, "Even my wife and kids?"
He replied, "Especially your wife and kids!"
He had my resignation in his hand the next day.
What made it tough is that he was also a good family friend, wife's OB/Gyn and a personal friend who delivered 3/4 of our children.

That is considerably different than speaking to or conversing with an apostate (your actions would be what the LDS church considered to beapostacy) but it is quite mind-bogglingly controlling behavior on the part of any church authority to suggest he had the authority to tell you what you could or could not talk about with your wife and children.

The whole lay leadership thing, particularly with a system in which leaders possess ecclesiastical authority over members, creates boundary issues between people who have social and professional relationships outside of church. My wife is Catholic. There's virtually no chance of the guy who delivered our babies being appointed parish priest in the next decade if ever. It's a problem peculiar to religions with lay clergy and with clergy possessing ecclesiastical authority over members. catholic clergy possess religious authority to some degree, but In many Protestant denominations, the pastors are there to conduct worship services and to run certain programs. They're often not in any way "in charge" of the members.



> He told me it was fine to have these doubts, but
> if I ever shared them with other Mormons he'd have
> to discipline me.
> I said, "Even my wife and kids?"
> He replied, "Especially your wife and kids!"
> He had my resignation in his hand the next day.
> What made it tough is that he was also a good
> family friend, wife's OB/Gyn and a personal friend
> who delivered 3/4 of our children.

scmd1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is considerably different than speaking to or
> conversing with an apostate (your actions would be
> what the LDS church considered to beapostacy)

Asking my Bishop setious questions for my kids sake and getting lies in response is apostasy on my part?

Yeah the MORmON world is a bizzaro world.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> scmd1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That is considerably different than speaking to
> or
> > conversing with an apostate (your actions would
> be
> > what the LDS church considered to beapostacy)
>
> Asking my Bishop setious questions for my kids
> sake and getting lies in response is apostasy on
> my part?
>
> Yeah the MORmON world is a bizzaro world.


I doubt asking the questions of a bishop was what would have been considered apostacy to them as much as would have been the idea that you might have shared information concerning those questions you asked with others, which church leaders would probably consider apostacy. I think it's nonsense as much as you do.

scmd1 Wrote:
------------------------------------------------>
> I doubt asking the questions of a bishop was what
> would have been considered apostacy to them as
> much as would have been the idea that you might
> have shared information concerning those questions
> you asked with others, which church leaders would
> probably consider apostacy. I think it's nonsense
> as much as you do.

I felt like saying, "Who tge fuck do you think you are trying to deny me my freedom of speech, especially with my kids?"
But I think my resigning in protest said more to my Bishop wife and kids.

Temple recommend interview question: Do you associate with anyone who is an apostate or who sympathises with any apostate groups?

That is not a correct summary of the recommend question.

The question is

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

Nothing in that says that a Mormon may not speak, or associate, with an apostate. Accuracy matters.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2018 02:52AM by Lot's Wife.

I have a TBM mom who is 76 and I'm the only sibling left that she can depend on. I have not told her that I think the church is a cult because I fear that she will be forced to shun me. She knows I don't believe in mormonism but I haven't come out of the closet as it were and said definitively that I think it is a cult. I understand your statement that accuracy matters. I'm sort of banking on it.

That said, I wonder if it is healthy or the right thing to keep my mom thinking that I don't think Mormonism is a cult.

Personally I feel that my mom wants out of mormonism as well but she can't seem to process it. She doesn't go to church anymore and she doesn't like to talk to her old friends that pressure her to go. I do feel that she is on her way out but I'm taking baby steps.

All of that said my mom isn't that mentally well either. Not Alzheimers just racist mor-dumb. She's an off-putting person.

I think a lot of us have had to, or are, dealing with those issues.

I was shunned for a long time--wasn't it Oaks who said that members should pray for guidance about how to shun their apostate relatives?--but saw my parents eventually lose faith in the church and try to repair the damage to family relationships. To some degree they succeeded, but they regret--as do I--the losses.

They are not, however, willing to acknowledge that they no longer believe. They would rather keep up the pretense until they die, which is understandable given the connection between the church and their social networks and even their personal identities.

So we all live in limbo, knowing we are on the same page but unable to acknowledge that to one another.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2018 04:17AM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is not a correct summary of the recommend
> question.
>
> The question is
>
> "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any
> group or individual whose teachings or practices
> are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the
> Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"
>
> Nothing in that says that a Mormon may not speak,
> or associate, with an apostate. Accuracy matters.

"Affiliate with...any group or individual whose...practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by (the church)". Taken at face value, anyone whom you associate, be they friends, family or co-worker, who lives their lives in a different manner than what the church teaches could theoretically be a threat to your temple recommend. Does allowing my LBGT daughter to live in my house, and to love her and support her, constitute "affiliating" with an individual whose practices are contrary to church practices?

You are right. The question is written very broadly.

But it has always been, and remains, written to cover polygamy. The words "affiliate with," "support," "agree with" are intended to capture more than "talk to." They are looking for a more substantial relationship.

But yes, if the church wanted to redefine the scope of the question, it could capture broader relationships with other groups.

"Nothing that ridiculous could be all bad."

I'm not too familiar with Rogan but he sounds like he is a taco shy of a combo plate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2018 10:15PM by Dave the Atheist.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I not too familiar with Rogan but he sounds like
> he is a taco shy of a combo plate.

He has the most popular podcast on the internet. He is also a Stand Up comedian, ringside fight announcer in UFC and a body builder. Prior to that he dud Fear Factor.
Not sure why you say that sbout him. Care to explain what he said thatmade you think that?

And UFC is a good thing ?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And UFC is a good thing ?
Pretend moral superiority is a good thing?

RWNJ is a good thing ?

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dave the Atheist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I not too familiar with Rogan but he sounds
> like
> > he is a taco shy of a combo plate.
>
> He has the most popular podcast on the internet.
> He is also a Stand Up comedian, ringside fight
> announcer in UFC and a body builder. Prior to that
> he dud Fear Factor.

Right. None of which make him any kind of authority on religions, cults, science, or anything else. They make him a popular idiot, but that's about it.

> Not sure why you say that sbout him. Care to
> explain what he said thatmade you think that?

See above. He's a popular idiot who chases the most ridiculous conspiracy theories. I'm not even sure the lights are on, let alone anybody being home.

I can't imagine why you'd care what Joe Rogan thinks. Assuming (and it's a generous assumption) he thinks at all.

Maybe he took a few too many tokes on the peace pipe.

But I agree, Mormons as a group are relatively harmless. Yet, Mormonism itself is not harmless.

Babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe he took a few too many tokes on the peace
> pipe.

The DMT peace pipe....

I revile the Mormon religion, but most Mormons I know are nice people, family and friends included.

I don’t live in Utah though, I live in the Midwest. Even when I lived in Utah I don’t know that I experienced a whole lot of the insanity that I have seen described on this board, although I am somewhat familiar with it. Maybe it had to do with the fact that when I lived in Utah it was mostly as someone living in a drug treatment center.

What was most revealing about that was learning how much Mormonism had done a number on not only me but all the other people there. Most of them I believe could trace many other issues back to growing up in a Mormon household.

I no longer go out of my way to meet and interact with Mormons though, so maybe my perspective is different than others. And if I were more aggressive about showing my distaste for their religion in front of them, maybe things would be different.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2018 11:43PM by midwestanon.

midwestanon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I revile the Mormon religion, but most Mormons I
> know are nice people, family and friends
> included.
>
> I don’t live in Utah though, I live in the
> Midwest. Even when I lived in Utah I don’t know
> that I experienced a whole lot of the insanity
> that I have seen described on this board, although
> I am somewhat familiar with it. Maybe it had to do
> with the fact that when I lived in Utah it was
> mostly as someone living in a drug treatment
> center.
>
> What was most revealing about that was learning
> how much Mormonism had done a number on not only
> me but all the other people there. Most of them I
> believe could trace many other issues back to
> growing up in a Mormon household.
>
> I no longer go out of my way to meet and interact
> with Mormons though, so maybe my perspective is
> different than others. And if I were more
> aggressive about showing my distaste for their
> religion in front of them, maybe things would be
> different.
Unfortunately there is no avoiding Mormonism for me.
Its in my blood, deeply rooted in my DNA.

>
> Unfortunately there is no avoiding Mormonism
> for me. Its in my blood, deeply rooted in my DNA.
>

So, when you bleed, you bleed mormon! I think you're proud of your mormon DNA!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Unfortunately there is no avoiding Mormonism
> > for me. Its in my blood, deeply rooted in my
> DNA.
> >
>
> So, when you bleed, you bleed mormon! I think
> you're proud of your mormon DNA!

Not really. I came from a long line of dupes. I am more proud of my 2.8% Neanderthal DNA. I even have a 23andme.com t shirt with "I'm 2.8% Neanderthal" on the front of it that I wear on vacation with Christians, which I do regularly.
It causes a lot of interesting conversations.
They usually joke that they would have thought I was a lot more Neanderthal
Christians are not big fans of being told theyre probably more Neanderthal than me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2018 10:30PM by koriwhore.

No, they graduated into a real estate and stock equity monolith, not a religion.

Graduating into a real estate and stock equity monolith is what makes it a religion. :-)

Like it confuses members of the cult, it likewise confuses the public (who doesn't question or know any better).

M@t

This whole cult-or-religion debate, about TSCC or about any other sect, is a debate about the sex of angels. There's no point.

It is based on the premise that a religion is inherently good and a cult is inherently bad, and I think that premise is false. Both are bad. Both can lead to bad things that would not happen otherwise. Neither ever leads to good things that couldn't happen without them. You don't have to be a believer to do charity work. But you do need to be a believer in order to kill infidels.

What was that quote again? Something like "for evil people to do good you need law and order, but for good people to do evil, it takes religion"?

I’ve observed that Joe Rogan doesn’t have an opinion on anything.

And he has no compunction yammering about his opinions regardless of how obviously ill-informed he is. Sometimes I’m embarrassed for him. But he does have 3 hours to fill.

He reminds me of Russell Brand. But I don’t think Rogan spends nearly as much time rehearsing being witty.

I have listened to his podcast a lot, and in general he seems to mostly agree with his guests. When he disagrees he either keeps quiet about it, or he's very subtle about it. For example, he sometimes brings up his disagreements in a way that it sounds like he's just making a suggestion, rather than disagreeing. I think he works hard to avoid confrontations. I guess if you generally agree with his guests that's a good thing, but if you disagree with them it can be annoying that he doesn't challenge them very much.

But I think a big part of the reason he got so popular is that he embraced the anti-SJW movement early on (when these people were mostly being shunned/ignored by the rest of the media, or at best given a 5 minute hostile interview on a News channel). His podcast was doing very well before that, but after having Christina Hoff Sommers and people like that on it just exploded even more. People were desperate to hear them talk after all the controversy surrounding them, and he was doing 3 hour interviews with them where they go so in-depth about everything.

And he's ill-informed on a lot of things, but he's definitely absolutely correct on, for example, the biological and behavioural differences between men and women. If you want to be popular on the Internet now, you just need to go on Youtube and cite the differences between males and females.

Anonymy0 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have listened to his podcast a lot, and in
> general he seems to mostly agree with his guests.
> When he disagrees he either keeps quiet about it,
> or he's very subtle about it. For example, he
> sometimes brings up his disagreements in a way
> that it sounds like he's just making a suggestion,
> rather than disagreeing. I think he works hard to
> avoid confrontations. I guess if you generally
> agree with his guests that's a good thing, but if
> you disagree with them it can be annoying that he
> doesn't challenge them very much.
>
> But I think a big part of the reason he got so
> popular is that he embraced the anti-SJW movement
> early on (when these people were mostly being
> shunned/ignored by the rest of the media, or at
> best given a 5 minute hostile interview on a News
> channel). His podcast was doing very well before
> that, but after having Christina Hoff Sommers and
> people like that on it just exploded even more.
> People were desperate to hear them talk after all
> the controversy surrounding them, and he was doing
> 3 hour interviews with them where they go so
> in-depth about everything.
>
> And he's ill-informed on a lot of things, but he's
> definitely absolutely correct on, for example, the
> biological and behavioural differences between men
> and women. If you want to be popular on the
> Internet now, you just need to go on Youtube and
> cite the differences between males and females.
He helped give rise to the Intellectual Dark Web by doing those types of long in depth interviews, and appealing to the Neanderthal in all of us.

I don’t know what sjw is but i know he makes a lot of ignorant comments, especially about nutrition and he makes his statements with the assurance of a nutritionist. I don’t know much, but i do know veganism, for example. His ignorance on that topic is remarkable. But that doesn’t slow him down one bit.

CateS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don’t know what sjw is but i know he makes a
> lot of ignorant comments, especially about
> nutrition and he makes his statements with the
> assurance of a nutritionist. I don’t know much,
> but i do know veganism, for example. His ignorance
> on that topic is remarkable. But that doesn’t
> slow him down one bit.
He has a business selling supplements for a body building business. Like I said he is the ultimate troglodyte but that appeals to the 2.8% Neanderthal in me. Do does the UFC. I just dont watch it much because of tge meatheads involved.
Having said that, I just think he is funny as a stand up comedian, does great interviews with highly relevant intellectuals, among others, on topics the traditional media wont touch with a 19ft pole.
We need to have civil discourse or nothing will ever change.

Also SJW = Social Justice Warrior

Im more of a progressive than Bernie Sanders but shouting down Ayan Hirsi Ali, Bill Maher and Sam Harris on college campuses has the opposite effect of progress. We end up with millenials not voting and White Nationalists in charge.

Those "other Christians" don't mostly see Mormons as Christians.

Kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those "other Christians" don't mostly see Mormons
> as Christians.

100% of them dont accept LDS Baptisms, but thats not one of the characteristics of a CULT.

"MORmONS" So clever and original

You really ought to take your issues up with Joe. This borders on gossip--a distinct Morg practice.

jb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You really ought to take your issues up with Joe.
> This borders on gossip--a distinct Morg practice.

I like Joe, I listen to his podcasts probably more than Sam Harris, Dave Rubin or Jordan Peterson put together. I just think when it comes to Mormonism he doesnt get that Mormons gleefully lie to their kids, by ommission, and raise them to sing praises of a pedophile. To me, thats abuse. Nice people dont have kiddie rapists for heroes.
Nice people speak up about sexual abusers.

Ahhhhhhhh!!! Everybody run!! The doomsday sex cult!! They are singing praises to a pedophile! Ahhhhhhh!!!!!!!!