The regulars here are pretty familiar with the faults of mormonism. The church is a bureacratic hierarchy that squashes dissent and exercises too much control over the minds of its members.

On a a philosophical level, God is presented as a glorified man. He had existed in time and grew and is growing even in immortality. We aren't given an explanation as to who came before Heavenly Father. Is it turtles all the way down? Then there is the immorality of polygamy, breaking printing presses, etc.

So clearly its not perfect in both the philosophical and as a physical entity.

But, if you look at other churches, aren't they suffering from much of the same issues? Mainstream christianity loves to tout God's love and being saved by grace, but on the flipside of that, there is an ever loving God that condemns the bulk of humanity to eternal torment. The Christians and proudly point to passages in the bible ( written by man) to back up the eternal torment thing.

And its not infrequently that you will hear of a new hypocrite pastor or reverend, etc. that has been caught molesting children in their congregation,cheating on their wife, hiring a male prostitute or some other horrible thing.

Are we just complaining about the devil we know?

Mormonism is worse.

Yes, maybe with the exception of jay dubs and scientologists.

“Are we just complaining about the devil we know?”

Um.....yeah. That’s the purpose of this board. Many people here (including me) will sometimes point out problems with other religions (or religion in general), but this is a place to deal with the problems of mormonism.

Yes, much worse. Mormonism is not a church, it is a cult by a all definitions. There is some explanation about where HF came from, i.e. he was a man like us, on his own planet, with his own Christ. Man has always existed as "intelligences", and then later born into a spiritual body by heavenly parents. I guess when you compare "other churches" (again I don't personally regard Mormonism as a church), but I think of the Baptist church for instance. The origin of that church was not started by a pedophilic psychotic founder(s). The catholic church is NOT necessarily cruel psychologically to it's members like the Mormon cult is. In fact, research as shown that followers are mentally healthy by comparison given that can repent weekly, and be totally absolved of their sins by a priest. Not so in the Mormon cult, they are emotionally cruel to their members. Their may be some splinter isolated incidences of "other churches", but the Mormon cult is just pathetic, cruel, and heartless by nature, and rooted in evil.

I am an agnostic, and not a defender of churches, but the pathetic Mormon cult - I do not like because of it's origin and dark underbelly.

Most churches do not have adult men interview children and ask sexual invasive questions
Most churches disclose their financial info to their members
Most churches do not exclude family and friend at a wedding.
For starters...

+1

Calico Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most churches do not have adult men interview
> children and ask sexual invasive questions
> Most churches disclose their financial info to
> their members
> Most churches do not exclude family and friend at
> a wedding.
> For starters...

Most Christian churches do not say that tithing is necessary for salvation.

Most Christian churches do not have annual meetings with parishioners to ask if they've paid a 10% tithe.

True, but there are a lot who do harp for money. How do you think those preachers at the prolific mega churches (they are everywhere in the South) are getting their money? People think they are giving money for Jesus but it ends up funding expensive lifestyles.

That said, Mormons are a lot worse when it comes to exclusion and extorsion of tithing by holding family hostage.

Yes, the Mega churches are money oriented, as are some others. But the mainstream ones are not. I read once that the average church donation in the U.S. is about 2.6% of family income. Not 10%. I think most mainstream Christians would consider 10% excessive.

Years ago a colleague told me that her independent Christian church expected a 10% tithe. But apart from charitable work, the money was spent in-house. For instance she mentioned that each college-bound child of a church member was given a laptop computer as a farewell gift.

Summer, that sounds good and is good intentioned I'm sure. However consider how it could come across as the church being a middle man and taking credit by redirecting the money. Here's why:

If people weren't giving money to their church, they could probably buy their own school supplies with 2% of their income. For the people who can't afford it, if we as a society funded our education instead of all the resources spent on religion, students would have the technology they need. I have a problem with our priorities when I see fancy churches next door to run down schools.

I know, a lot of people like giving their own money to others knowing they will get a "surprise" gift. Jesus would buy computers now I guess? I remember one ward I was in had a guy who would buy new shoes for kids going on missions or college. It wasn't a church donation.

Using the temple as the whole purpose of existence. You have to earn going there. Obedient means serving the way they tell you to, tithing , plus fast offerings. If you don’t make temple , you failed.
The church comes first.
As far as churches that preach hell and brimstone , if their preachers really believed in hell, they wouldn’t be lying, cheating, living like kings, while their flock/ subjects are giving up extras for “ god”.
They’d be afraid of hell if they really believed and wouldn’t be scumbags, especially using god to get money, they’d be going to hell themselves

A temple is a monument to God. Mormon temples are a disgrace.

There’s no accounting for men.

Is sushi that’s been sitting out for a few days worse than fresh sushi?

In my not so humble opinion The vast majority of religions be they Christian or not have a huge interest in financial wellbeing. Everything else seems to be secondary.
So PICK YOUR POISON!

Mormonism isn't organic. It's not just another "church." It was made up by people who knew they were making it up for the express purpose of fraud and theft to enrich themselves.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mormonism isn't organic. It's not just another
> "church." It was made up by people who knew they
> were making it up for the express purpose of fraud
> and theft to enrich themselves.

Exactly! Excellent points, anybody!

Mormonism is a high-demand, high-control religion on the same end of the spectrum as the JWs. A few of the fundie Christian churches are similar, but most Christian churches are not.

You can skip church on Sundays in the mainstream Christian churches, and no one will bring up your name in a (ward council) meeting. No one will come knocking on your door, pestering you by phone, or love-bomb you. You can donate whatever you want. You go for about an hour each Sunday (perhaps with optional bible study for a second hour, participate in the service, and go home. There are no obligatory callings. No modesty shaming. No pressure to serve a two-year mission. No one groping you to see if you are wearing your garments. No one pressuring you to go to the temple. No one making you feel that your hour of church each week isn't enough indoctrination. No bans on what you drink. No one telling you what movies to watch or music to listen to. No mandatory interviews with invasive questions. No excess interest if you are in a sexual relationship with another adult or even living with someone outside of marriage.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but at least you are treated like an adult with a life of your own.

Christianity as a whole is detrimental to the personal development of an individual. That's not to say that many people have benefited from Christianity in their lives but the core teaching is contrary to my core ethic.

Namely that humanity as a whole is fatally flawed and cannot save themselves. The idea that no action, whether it be a single action or collectively during my entire life will do anything to result in my "salvation", how ever that is defined. The idea that nothing outside of divine intervention will result in my best self is wrong.

Mormonism doubles down on this idea so it is worse than most. But any religion which doubles down on anything is going to worse than most.

I think Mormonism is worse than some others but I suppose it has provided purpose, identity and McAnswers to its sheeple in the same way.

There are several things to consider when ranking the damage or benefits of a religion of course.

I have to consider how controlling and dogmatic other religions were when they were young religions. If Mormons were 2000 years old, I suppose they would not be as bad as they were at 200 years old.

I watched some of the Catholic EWTN station to see what they are selling nowadays. On Friday they had the Stations of the Cross which is astonishingly intended to instill guilt and shame. The gore of Jesus torture, costumes, atmosphere, dramatized voices reading in such sad, sad, sad voices, and props looked like something from Svengoolie. I'm honestly amazed so many Catholics were not permanently damaged from the kind of brainwashing and manipulation I saw. Mormons are absolute amateurs when it comes to indoctrination techniques by comparison. I would never subject my child to the mind-boink of the "Jesus in PAIN for you" mimicry they detailed. I disagree with poster Anon..E above that this is not cruel.

What is it with humans that makes them like to go to church to reinforce they are horrible flawed creatures with no hope but to depend on someone to save them?

Lately I'm considering if we should judge religion by the type of fanatics they produce. If a religion truly was a religion of peace, the fanatics would be extremely peaceful (I think Ricky Gervais said something along that line). Are the fanatics of Mormonism worse than the fanatic Hasidic Jews, Sharia law Muslims or even the more crazy Evangelicals in the US? I'm not sure how to evaluate what is worse.

Catholicism is a "big tent" denomination that accommodates a range of beliefs and practices. It has to. My family and I never did the stations of the cross nor took much interest in that particular custom. Ditto for the other Catholic families we knew. We would see a photograph or a short video of the Pope doing it, and say to ourselves, "Oh, that's nice." Then we would go back to whatever we were doing before.

This is often a very difficult concept for Mormons and exmos to understand, because Mormons have a very different relationship to their church and their beliefs. In the Catholic faith, a cafeteria approach is normal and even expected.

In terms of Catholic indoctrination, it is very good at instilling guilt for various sins. But apart from that, it is largely harmless. Apart from the child abuse scandals, the Catholics that I've known who have left the church don't hate it. They don't feel particularly damaged by it.

I think it is the indifference the cafeteria types seem to have to the things they ignore that bothers me. It is not OK with me to have gore and blood pictures of torture at church and shrug. It is not OK to shrug at the organizational structure that attracts and protects abuse.

In a weird way, I admire Catholics for the immunity many exhibit to being obedient. However, the other side of the coin is why they enable the ones who take it seriously and perpetuate the hypocrisy. I mean, why bother? Maybe the Catholic Church is just really good at getting people hooked on tradition and ritual. I think it is a good life skill to be able to blow stuff off like that.

Before Catholic Defenders chime in, remember I'm saying you are the more reasonable ones. :-)

>>I think it is the indifference the cafeteria types seem to have to the things they ignore that bothers me. It is not OK with me to have gore and blood pictures of torture at church and shrug. It is not OK to shrug at the organizational structure that attracts and protects abuse.

I don't think I ever saw blood and gore type pictures in my travels to various Catholic churches. Possibly in Mexico? But not in North America.

I don't know how current members are dealing with the abuse scandals. I personally couldn't deal with it, but Catholicism is as much a culture as a religion.

My idea of gore is probably different than yours. A statue or picture of Jesus nailed to a cross, blood dripping down, with eyes looking all agonized is pretty graphic (think 11th station of the cross type pictures). I've see such pictures multiple times in churches in the USA.

Although by today's standards maybe people are fine planting a guy hanging from a torture device in front of their kids. That's how they want to be sure the kids start feeling sorry for Jesus right away I guess. It's really weird to me when I step back from it and really look at a lot of the religious art history especially.

Me either. I have also heard lot more about love than quilt... I am sure it varies with the priest and the local church. The correlation in the Mormon church isn't nearly as present in Catholic churches I have attended. Personally, I respect cafeteria types in all religions. Some are indifferent, true, and some are capable of doing their own thinking which I think is a thing



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2019 09:37PM by bona dea.

The JWs are pacifists. The Amish are pacifists. They are extremely peaceful, but shun those who leave them. That is more cult-like than the Mormons.

There isn't formal shunning among Mormons, but there's plenty of informal shunning. We've heard many stories of exmos leaving the church and losing most or all of their church "friends" at the same time.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Mormonism is worse than some others but I
> suppose it has provided purpose, identity and
> McAnswers to its sheeple in the same way.

Religion does something else that most people don't recognize: it is a social vehicle through which attendees can find other like-minded people to hang out with without having to explain themselves or their motives to other people.

Some nonreligious groups perform the same function. In a recent poll of members of a local chapter of the Arizona Council of the Blind (AZCB--an organization to which I belong), it was determined that a majority of the membership liked being involved with the organization because when they attended meetings, they didn't have to explain themselves or their problems with blindness and vision loss to the other people there since everybody else there knew what it was like to be blind or have vision loss. Contrast that to when
these people (including myself for I am totally blind) have to go to work and do things with the majority sighted community where we do need to explain things to them about how this or that policy or decision will affect us, sometimes over and over again.

Put another way, people like to hang out with other people who think like they do. Yes, it gives us tunnel vision (which can be a real problem, especially when it comes to politics), but it makes people feel more comfortable to hang out with others who (they believe) think like they do. And which church you belong to is a good indicator of what kind of crowd you hang out with.
>
> There are several things to consider when ranking
> the damage or benefits of a religion of course.
>
> I have to consider how controlling and dogmatic
> other religions were when they were young
> religions. If Mormons were 2000 years old, I
> suppose they would not be as bad as they were at
> 200 years old.
>
> I watched some of the Catholic EWTN station to see
> what they are selling nowadays. On Friday they had
> the Stations of the Cross which is astonishingly
> intended to instill guilt and shame. The gore of
> Jesus torture, costumes, atmosphere, dramatized
> voices reading in such sad, sad, sad voices, and
> props looked like something from Svengoolie. I'm
> honestly amazed so many Catholics were not
> permanently damaged from the kind of brainwashing
> and manipulation I saw. Mormons are absolute
> amateurs when it comes to indoctrination
> techniques by comparison. I would never subject my
> child to the mind-boink of the "Jesus in PAIN for
> you" mimicry they detailed. I disagree with poster
> Anon..E above that this is not cruel.
>
> What is it with humans that makes them like to go
> to church to reinforce they are horrible flawed
> creatures with no hope but to depend on someone to
> save them?
>
> Lately I'm considering if we should judge religion
> by the type of fanatics they produce. If a
> religion truly was a religion of peace, the
> fanatics would be extremely peaceful (I think
> Ricky Gervais said something along that line). Are
> the fanatics of Mormonism worse than the fanatic
> Hasidic Jews, Sharia law Muslims or even the more
> crazy Evangelicals in the US? I'm not sure how to
> evaluate what is worse.

That is so true and an important point.

I've seen lots of Christians in Alabama who shop around for the congregation that has similar values as they have about things. Being Christian isn't enough- they have to cherry pick in similar ways. I can understand that. I like RfM because in real life I rarely run across people with similar backgrounds.

In Mormonism, most have the same perspective on things in general. The ones who don't are stuck because they can't shop around for like-minded people as well since they are assigned to a ward.

I think the internet has provided a meeting place for people to find others with similar views and this also is one reason people don't have to go to church as much.

Dagny,

Excellent post. I too wonder why religions are representing themselves as forces for good yet wars back centuries and through today are by religious fanatics. And yes the dichotomy of terrorists following a religion of peace is baffling. :(

Mormonism would be just another churches if it got rid of the pay to pray temple cult. That is what sets it apart. Paying cash to be saved goes against everything Jesus taught.

It benefited me.

Jesus uncovered the scapegoat-mechanism revealing the irrationality of violence as the basis for building social cohesion in society.

For example.

Jesus is the truth and if one knows him it is easy to understand how the crucifiction-burial-resurrection completely nails the logic in how mighty but unethical people hide the truth all around the world.

In East Germany they destroyed the truth by destroying peoples lives at every level. They later hid the truth. When the regime fell, every document about the tyranny went through paper shredders. But the truth is resurrected thanks to an institute that have collected all the paper shreds, scanned them and stll keep putting the documents back together again so that they are readable.

The truth is restored and the bad deeds are put in light and justice restored for every people affected.

Jesus, The Son of God, did this for us. Thank you Jesus!

What about the churches? There is only one church and it is Jesus sitting at the right side of the Lord.

Was that a for real Kool-Aid post?

Are you talking about Jesus the son of the extremely violent god of the Old Testament? Did you mean the Jesus who only "saves" people who believe in him?


I think your second sentence is a stretch. You said: "Jesus uncovered the scapegoat-mechanism revealing the irrationality of violence as the basis for building social cohesion in society."


Maybe you meant this instead: "Jesus uncovered the scapegoat-mechanism revealing the irrationality of dependence on a god as the basis for building social cohesion in society."

In my homecountry there is a belief that society can not exist except by the power of the state. There is no natural law, no objectivity, there is only the belief that the strongest write the laws and it is the naming of morals and ethics that makes it so.

Positive law. An european invention from Austria. It is described as scientific.

A couple of years ago I was an addict, broke, unemployed, close to a bum.

I sat in many closed rooms with people that according to the law should have helped me. But they just hated me, procrastinated my process, only because they could. According to their ethics there was no God seeing what they were doing. One day I noticed they do this because they believe there is no God and that they use violence against all the things that make them and their society look bad.

I found God and the Son of God.

OK, I see religion was a coping mechanism for you. You think ethics require a God which tells me you need religion to be a good person. Surely you have noticed that religions and people who believe in God can be violent too.

It's too bad our governments can't offer adequate social services. I think religion WANTS government to leave social services to them in many countries.

For me it is the truth.

There is a God. People do not need religion, which is man made, they need God and his Son.

Religious people are ritual people trying to be righteous in the eyes of each other.

In the RCC there are crimes committed in covert. Do people who are RCC-priests believe God does not see when they molest young people behind closed doors?

People in general are reckless because of sin and God does not want our works to make friends again. Why would he, he already got everything?

He wants us to believe in him.

Social service?

If there is none to get they just say that there is one! Plenty of it.

That is a God-less view on reality.

So God created people to be reckless sinners because he wants people to believe in Him?

It doesn't sound like you had many options or resources so I'm glad that sky friend belief is working for you. I mean that sincerely.

I was secular from the beginning, grew up in a social democratic home that climbed the class ladder into the upper bourgeoisie class and learned through my later tribulations that the secular society and its people treated the truth like it was malleable when it was obvious that it was not.


They say religion is a lie and yes it is, the man made religion is a lie because God does not want our works according to the scripture.

But have you ever heard a politican tell the truth 100% of the time?

This is an interesting post, and I agree with a lot of the responses to it. I especially liked the response (I think it was from Dagny) that made the point that religions that are 2000 years old (Roman Catholicism, my former religion, claims this) were just as nutty, if not more so, as/than early Mormons, and they were clearly just as controlling.

People killed by the early Mormons? Their numbers can't compare to those killed by the Inquisition instituted in Spain and Portugal at the reported behest of the Catholic church to get rid of Muslims and Jews back in the 1400s and 1500s. Or how about the sacking of Rome by (newly converted) Catholics who represented themselves as Huns and Visigoths in 476 A.D.!

The modern Roman Catholic church has foresworn most of that now, but my 78-year-old mom is still alive, and in her youth (the mid-1950s), she remembers that Catholic women had to cover their faces when they went to Mass (that practice was discontinued by Vatican II in 1965).

All of that said, the modern Roman church is by far much better than the LDS church of today. For while guilt and shame are plainly revered in ceremony (good point, Dagny), priests don't chase you down (or hire someone to do the same) and force you or your children against your will to attend Mass.

I, though I am now an atheist, still live with my mom who is still very much a believer and we have made peace between us--she doesn't try to convert me and I don't try to convert her. This is a far cry from the stories I've read on this board and elsewhere about how believers and nonbelievers in Mormon families can no longer talk to each other. And, of course, the Roman Catholics never used temples; and never kept secret its rituals--they are all there fore everyone to see if they choose. In the end, the Roman Catholic church of today behaves much better than its LDS counterparts of today do, but I can see a day (probably not during my lifetime) where the LDS church could, if it survives, become "just another church."

Hi blindguy. Happy Easter to you and to your mom.

I always enjoy reading what you have to say.

One point, that perhaps goes without saying, but here I am bringing it up anyway:

You said: "..the Roman Catholic church of today behaves much better than its LDS counterparts of today"

1. It's a matter of degree. The RCC is "worse" in scope due to its immense size and reach, certainly compared to LDS, which dominates Utah, apparently, but is a total non-entity in most other places. So, by comparison, the RCC comes out as the bigger negative (unless you're a faithful Catholic and/or you like the RCC and see good in it).

2. The abuse that has taken place in the Catholic Church, and is undoubtedly still ongoing, spans decades and has claimed countless victims. Many will never receive recompense (have passed on or do not come forward or whose cases are not resolved in their favour) but even for many of those who do, there is still indescribable lasting damage in their lives.

Again, by degree, sheer size of the RCC, and its influence throughout history in entire countries, it is "worse" than the Mormon Church, in my estimation.

However, the comparison between the RCC and other churches or institutions becomes moot for victims/survivors of abuse everywhere. And likely we have not heard the entire story of historical and present abuse in many arenas. There was a recent thread here at RfM in which some brave posters told their stories of abuse during their childhood within Mormonism. Hair-raising. To them, comparisons of which institution is worse are meaningless. Who is to say how to accurately rank the worst, if we should even do so?

Too, there is the aspect of differences in people's perceptions, personalities, emotional make-up, etc, that colour how negative experiences will affect them in their present and future lives.

One aspect of the RCC abuse that has greatly touched me is the residential school debacle here in Canada when aboriginal children were mandated by the government to be taken from their homes and placed in oftentimes faraway places in both Catholic and Anglican schools. They were separated from their families and cultures and languages for years and many never saw their loved ones again. Likewise, many parents never saw their children ever again. Many suffered physical and emotional abuse at the hands of those who were meant to protect and nurture them (nuns and priests). Many struggled with substance use as adults, which caused problems for their children and, in turn, those children had families where now the third generation of kids are affected by having addicted parents who were brought up by addicted parents. And so on.

So that is a widespread, perhaps immeasurable, negative effect of just one aspect of Catholicism gone wrong.

Undoubtedly though, abuse exists in many guises. And how to quantify the negative emotional effects of religions such as Mormonism, JWs, and other oppressive, isolationist sects and cults. Many on this board through the years have described how difficult their missions were, or their agonizing two year wait for their child to return from their mission in turn. Others outline the abusive nature of their upbringing with zealous parents inside repressive religious groups. The abuse spans physical, emotional and intellectual areas. One account that has stayed with me for years since I read it on RfM way back came from a woman who had become a psychologist. Her posts were literate and informative. She described how after she left the Mormon Church she would go and sit in a coffee shop, observing the people around her, just to try and gauge what "normal" is. To learn how to be normal in society. I thought that was immeasurably sad. It's all she needed to say about her young life in Mormonism for one to get a sense of how challenging and abnormal it was.

I have read numerous articles this Easter season about religion, from its origins in humans to personal accounts of folks leaving the faith of their families. It's easy to see how negative the more repressive beliefs are to so many. And that it can take a lifetime to "get over it" if that is even possible. It can be a gigantic struggle but so many do find a way to overcome and live good lives, albeit with baggage. But it doesn't altogether weigh most of them down forever.

So I don't know how to quantify "worst" or "least" in this context. Maybe it's up to the affected individual. For RfM BICs, it seems to me, from reading through the years, that many would say that LDS is worst for them. That's the vice-grip they were in as children and youths, without choice, and they struggle to overcome the negative effects as adults.

Others of us were more fortunate. My parents didn't force any religion on us, other than the general acceptance of Christianity as the dominant influence in our culture. Any wounds I have from my forays into JWs, LDS and fundy EV groups are self-inflicted wounds.

What a dope eh?

Happy Easter though to you blindguy. In a secular way that is.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi blindguy. Happy Easter to you and to your mom.
>
>
> I always enjoy reading what you have to say.
>
> One point, that perhaps goes without saying, but
> here I am bringing it up anyway:
>
> You said: "..the Roman Catholic church of today
> behaves much better than its LDS counterparts of
> today"
>
> 1. It's a matter of degree. The RCC is "worse" in
> scope due to its immense size and reach, certainly
> compared to LDS, which dominates Utah, apparently,
> but is a total non-entity in most other places.
> So, by comparison, the RCC comes out as the bigger
> negative (unless you're a faithful Catholic and/or
> you like the RCC and see good in it).

The ending remark in parentheses is a very good point. While I no longer consider myself to be Roman Catholic, nevertheless I find myself believing in certain things such as social justice, concepts that were taught to me at the Jesuit high school I attended.
>
> 2. The abuse that has taken place in the Catholic
> Church, and is undoubtedly still ongoing, spans
> decades and has claimed countless victims. Many
> will never receive recompense (have passed on or
> do not come forward or whose cases are not
> resolved in their favour) but even for many of
> those who do, there is still indescribable lasting
> damage in their lives.

You're right here. While I suffered an incident of sexual abuse as a youngerster, it occurred while I was in 7th grade at a state schoolfor the deaf and blind--I never had any problems with the priests or anybody else while I attended the Catholic high school (come to think of it, most people tended to avoid and ignore me).

Related to this topic (though not personally to me) is the statement that the Pope Emeritus made last week concerning the relationship between the sexual revolution of the 1960s and the child abuse allegations coming out now. Obviously, the former pontiff would rather shoot the messenger than actually hear the message.
>
> Again, by degree, sheer size of the RCC, and its
> influence throughout history in entire countries,
> it is "worse" than the Mormon Church, in my
> estimation.
>
> However, the comparison between the RCC and other
> churches or institutions becomes moot for
> victims/survivors of abuse everywhere. And likely
> we have not heard the entire story of historical
> and present abuse in many arenas. There was a
> recent thread here at RfM in which some brave
> posters told their stories of abuse during their
> childhood within Mormonism. Hair-raising. To them,
> comparisons of which institution is worse are
> meaningless. Who is to say how to accurately rank
> the worst, if we should even do so?
>
> Too, there is the aspect of differences in
> people's perceptions, personalities, emotional
> make-up, etc, that colour how negative experiences
> will affect them in their present and future
> lives.

True. We do tend to measure what is worse by how it has affected us personally. Since I was never personally affected by the Catholic sex abuse scandal (see above), I tend to give it shorter shrift than somebody who was.
>
> One aspect of the RCC abuse that has greatly
> touched me is the residential school debacle here
> in Canada when aboriginal children were mandated
> by the government to be taken from their homes and
> placed in oftentimes faraway places in both
> Catholic and Anglican schools. They were separated
> from their families and cultures and languages for
> years and many never saw their loved ones again.
> Likewise, many parents never saw their children
> ever again. Many suffered physical and emotional
> abuse at the hands of those who were meant to
> protect and nurture them (nuns and priests). Many
> struggled with substance use as adults, which
> caused problems for their children and, in turn,
> those children had families where now the third
> generation of kids are affected by having addicted
> parents who were brought up by addicted parents.
> And so on.

Of course, the role of Canada (which, if I rember correctly, took the leading role in this affair) should not be overlooked here. The Canadian government literally tried to take the "Indian" out of its Canadian citizens, resulting in the behaviors you described.
>
> So that is a widespread, perhaps immeasurable,
> negative effect of just one aspect of Catholicism
> gone wrong.
>
> Undoubtedly though, abuse exists in many guises.
> And how to quantify the negative emotional effects
> of religions such as Mormonism, JWs, and other
> oppressive, isolationist sects and cults. Many on
> this board through the years have described how
> difficult their missions were, or their agonizing
> two year wait for their child to return from their
> mission in turn. Others outline the abusive nature
> of their upbringing with zealous parents inside
> repressive religious groups. The abuse spans
> physical, emotional and intellectual areas. One
> account that has stayed with me for years since I
> read it on RfM way back came from a woman who had
> become a psychologist. Her posts were literate and
> informative. She described how after she left the
> Mormon Church she would go and sit in a coffee
> shop, observing the people around her, just to try
> and gauge what "normal" is. To learn how to be
> normal in society. I thought that was immeasurably
> sad. It's all she needed to say about her young
> life in Mormonism for one to get a sense of how
> challenging and abnormal it was.
>
> I have read numerous articles this Easter season
> about religion, from its origins in humans to
> personal accounts of folks leaving the faith of
> their families. It's easy to see how negative the
> more repressive beliefs are to so many. And that
> it can take a lifetime to "get over it" if that is
> even possible. It can be a gigantic struggle but
> so many do find a way to overcome and live good
> lives, albeit with baggage. But it doesn't
> altogether weigh most of them down forever.
>
> So I don't know how to quantify "worst" or "least"
> in this context. Maybe it's up to the affected
> individual. For RfM BICs, it seems to me, from
> reading through the years, that many would say
> that LDS is worst for them. That's the vice-grip
> they were in as children and youths, without
> choice, and they struggle to overcome the negative
> effects as adults.
>
> Others of us were more fortunate. My parents
> didn't force any religion on us, other than the
> general acceptance of Christianity as the dominant
> influence in our culture. Any wounds I have from
> my forays into JWs, LDS and fundy EV groups are
> self-inflicted wounds.
>
> What a dope eh?
>
> Happy Easter though to you blindguy. In a secular
> way that is.

And happy Easter to you too!

But some extremist holy roller churches art worse than mainstream mormonism. These churches do snake handlings and babble, rolling on the floor in fits of unconsciousness. They also have to wash each others feet at church once or twice a year, something I'd never do.

Polygamist mormon groups are worse than that if they brainwash girls to marry while they're still children and kick out boys before they reach adulthood.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Polygamist mormon groups are worse than that if
> they brainwash girls to marry while they're still
> children and kick out boys before they reach
> adulthood.

Good examples, Cheryl. I agree. It's appalling. They haven't solved the issue yet of cross-border child trafficking between Canada and the US in those groups. Taking young girls to be "married" in a foreign (to them) country to much older men who already have multiple wives. I cannot comprehend parents doing that. But "follow the prophet" is their watchword.

And we've talked about the Lost Boys, in Utah and other places.

Some religious beliefs have a lot to answer for.

I am a nervermo so I am an outsider looking in, so forgive me if Im being presumptuous. I think the difference between other “legit” denominations and the LDS church is that the other denominations firmly believe what they are selling. The LDS church sends out thousands of Missionaries that purposely withhold important facts from potential converts of some of the more bubious beliefs so as not to harm the “final sale”. This leads me to believe that they don’t believe it themselves and that constitutes fraud.

"I think the difference between other “legit” denominations and the LDS church is that the other denominations firmly believe what they are selling."

That strike me as too broad an assertion. I'm sure there are leaders of sects who believe all of what they say, but there are probably many more who either disbelieve some of what they say and there are certainly fully cognizant fraudsters throughout Christianity. It is a simple matter to find examples of faiths that originated as, or became, the most blatant of frauds.

By the same token, the degree of disbelief among senior Mormons would vary from individual to individual.

I doubt Catholic priests who abuse kids actually buy what they are selling. I doubt Benny Hinn believes what he is selling.

Actions speak louder than words, but I've acted contrary to my beliefs more than once.

Just saying.

True that. Point taken.

I agree with Jacob.

Among the hundreds, and possibly thousands, of priests who today abuse children are some who have no remaining belief in Catholicism but also a very significant number who come away from their sin even more desperate for Christ's salvation. Guilt and a failure to "measure up" often drive people further into their systems of belief.

Yes, it is. There is no way mainstream, say, Baptist, Methodists, Quaker, Unitarian, etc. are anywhere as horrid as the Morg.

I'd say the Roman Catholic faith, both due to the length of their run, and their current activities, is more evil than LDS, Inc. As depraved as Mormonism was a times, there were no Crusades, conversion by the sword, Inquisitions, witch-burnings, countless religious wars, the current global child abuse system, etc., that was and is the RCC.

And, of course, there are other flavors of awfulness; the JWs, Scientology, the nuttier elements of the "charismatic" movement, the anti-LGBTQ+ idiots that picket funerals, etc.

At the end of the day, they are all equally bullshit. The harm the cause just varies a little.

Very true. Mormonism is bad but Catholicism is much worse. Islam sucks really bad too especially the not so awesome Mooohammad but we are only suppose to be talking about Christianity here. So I'll refrain.

No, Islam is an appropriate topic. It would just be nice if people recognized the diversity of a faith that is bigger and every bit as complex as Christianity.

Mormons will deny with great fervor that they are not a cult. It is funny to see them squirm and try and deny it, they know they are in a cult.

Yes, they are worse than any other church.

IMO, all religious organizations are man made by those with hardly good intentions. Remember the Puritans and the Salem Witch Trials? Puritan (pure). Then there was King Henry VIII. He created the Church of England so that he could have his marriage annulled and get the green light go ahead so he could remarry and keep on trying to have a male heir. Never mind the fact, that he had a wife or two beheaded. Most, if not all religious organizations have an evil past and/or present.