Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
The Manifesto to end polygamy and going right on and continuing it is a sign and token to me that no matter what moral grounds the LDS Church has to violate to preserve its moral authority it will crush all the lilies of the fields it needs to to keep their other fields white and ready to harvest.
No doubt in my mind, but it is all circumstantial and anecdotal for me. What about you? PHIL? Maca? rat in Orem?
Does anyone here think this is a good thing? Are LDS Articles of faith merely toilet paper to keep the collective ass clean and continuing to gas out holier than thou and thou shalt nots?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2021 03:19PM by Elder Berry.
No doubt in my mind, but it is all circumstantial and anecdotal for me. What about you? PHIL? Maca? rat in Orem?
Does anyone here think this is a good thing? Are LDS Articles of faith merely toilet paper to keep the collective ass clean and continuing to gas out holier than thou and thou shalt nots?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2021 03:19PM by Elder Berry.
laws are expressly made to control the other guys not the pure and holy
You didn't disappoint.
Officer, here's my temple recommend.
Funny when you are being pulled over for a DUI.
Above. Sure they do.
But in utah they are the law.
I present the marijuana initiative the the people of utah passed.
The church did not approve and had the legislature hurry and pass a new law to override the will of the people.
I remember the news outlets stating with out shame that the church was involved in drafting the replacement laws.
Then the news outlets made sure everyone knew the church approved of the final law.
Anywhere else in the US does this happen?
But in utah they are the law.
I present the marijuana initiative the the people of utah passed.
The church did not approve and had the legislature hurry and pass a new law to override the will of the people.
I remember the news outlets stating with out shame that the church was involved in drafting the replacement laws.
Then the news outlets made sure everyone knew the church approved of the final law.
Anywhere else in the US does this happen?
I think we need recent examples to develop valid answers;
the weed thing, at least to me, was ChurchCo working within the (highly biased) legal environment.
the weed thing, at least to me, was ChurchCo working within the (highly biased) legal environment.
Being above the law is implicit in any religion that believes it is divinely led, for what possible excuse is there for failing to do what God orders?
Abraham, the father of the faithful, was willing to kill his son in order to please God. Even Jesus refused to bend to civil authority when given the choice. If one truly and fervently believes s/he is hearing the voice of God, s/he must perforce obey it at any cost. So yeah, it's not natural for Mormonism to prioritize secular law over divine rule; it's like holding one's breath insofar as you can do it for a little while but it's unnatural and difficult and you desperately want to go back to normal.
That was one of the great, and greatly sacrilegious, innovations in the US constitution. The Founders had seen in Europe what happens when different groups all believe they are acting under divine guidance: the 30 Years War, which devastated Germany and set it back centuries, was just the most salient illustration of that. So they demoted God. They said there would be no state religion, meaning they did not accept the proposition that God directly guides humans. This was not an atheistic argument but it was assuredly agnostic; it meant that people could not know which religion was absolutely true, which God spoke to the whole world.
So where does that leave us? Authoritarian religions like Mormonism or Evangelicalism will occasionally choose to obey secular authorities but they do so reluctantly, aware that they must one day account for having failed to comply with the will of the supreme being. And come something really important like polygamy or anti-vaxxer superstition, they'll disobey worldly powers enthusiastically and only desist under great pressure and with great resentment.
So does the church think it is above the law? How could it think otherwise?
Abraham, the father of the faithful, was willing to kill his son in order to please God. Even Jesus refused to bend to civil authority when given the choice. If one truly and fervently believes s/he is hearing the voice of God, s/he must perforce obey it at any cost. So yeah, it's not natural for Mormonism to prioritize secular law over divine rule; it's like holding one's breath insofar as you can do it for a little while but it's unnatural and difficult and you desperately want to go back to normal.
That was one of the great, and greatly sacrilegious, innovations in the US constitution. The Founders had seen in Europe what happens when different groups all believe they are acting under divine guidance: the 30 Years War, which devastated Germany and set it back centuries, was just the most salient illustration of that. So they demoted God. They said there would be no state religion, meaning they did not accept the proposition that God directly guides humans. This was not an atheistic argument but it was assuredly agnostic; it meant that people could not know which religion was absolutely true, which God spoke to the whole world.
So where does that leave us? Authoritarian religions like Mormonism or Evangelicalism will occasionally choose to obey secular authorities but they do so reluctantly, aware that they must one day account for having failed to comply with the will of the supreme being. And come something really important like polygamy or anti-vaxxer superstition, they'll disobey worldly powers enthusiastically and only desist under great pressure and with great resentment.
So does the church think it is above the law? How could it think otherwise?
Very well put.
Thank you, SLS.
My goodness, you practically simpered!!!!
We manly men should compliment you more often!
We manly men should compliment you more often!
I’m sorry, Jesus. Did you say something?
Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Being above the law is implicit in any religion
> that believes it is divinely led, for what
> possible excuse is there for failing to do what
> God orders?
Funny how God is aligning with human laws and cultures so much that there aren't many good and faithful in prison like Alma, Amulek and Zeezrom.
> So does the church think it is above the law? How
> could it think otherwise?
It can think it like any other organization and individual but collectively? Members are covenanted to donate their lives to the church. But there is not much zeal to die for Mormonism let alone go to jail for following it.
I would say nowadays and with the apostleship full of legal and business types collectively does anyone think this is a good thing? I am probably wrong in thinking that the LDS Church thinks collectively it is above the laws of the lands.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Being above the law is implicit in any religion
> that believes it is divinely led, for what
> possible excuse is there for failing to do what
> God orders?
Funny how God is aligning with human laws and cultures so much that there aren't many good and faithful in prison like Alma, Amulek and Zeezrom.
> So does the church think it is above the law? How
> could it think otherwise?
It can think it like any other organization and individual but collectively? Members are covenanted to donate their lives to the church. But there is not much zeal to die for Mormonism let alone go to jail for following it.
I would say nowadays and with the apostleship full of legal and business types collectively does anyone think this is a good thing? I am probably wrong in thinking that the LDS Church thinks collectively it is above the laws of the lands.
Yes, that's a productive way to look at the problem.
Toqueville wrote that religions and political structures tend to line up with each other. Countries with authoritarian religions generally have authoritarian political systems and vice versa. Writing during (what he probably did not realize was) the early Mormon period, he stated that egalitarian faiths like Presbyterianism would fare better in the US than Catholicism or Islam. If you'd asked him about Mormonism in its more dictatorial 1940s-1870s period, he'd have said such a religion would not be a good fit for American culture.
I think you've identified how Mormon history subsequently played out. Reinforced by better education and ultimately the internet, most Mormons have come intuitively to view religion in more democratic and egalitarian terms than our ancestors did. That puts the Q15 in a difficult position. They are nominally committed to an authoritarian vision of the world but their followers--and even they themselves--are viscerally impelled towards less dictatorial practices. From time to time the tyrants among the Q15 fight back, but that very struggle vindicates Toqueville's judgment.
Having said that, there is an ironic afterword to the story which you alluded to in another thread when you said that humans embody an irrational element that enables them to deny scientific and political reality. Your point is that Toqueville underestimated the degree to which people everywhere, even in egalitarian societies, will surrender their rationality and seek the certainties of dictatorship when under great stress. That is of course what has happened in recent years in the US and elsewhere.
We thus see the egalitarian tendencies of a democracy undermining the power of the LDS hierarchy but then a more totalitarian movement spreading into and through the church. How exactly is the Q15 to react to that? How do they respond when half of the church wants less authoritarianism and a third of the membership goes off chasing another tyrant? Do they insist on uniformity and lose a lot of the moderates and liberals or do they try to bring the populists under control and lose many of them?
Toqueville wrote that religions and political structures tend to line up with each other. Countries with authoritarian religions generally have authoritarian political systems and vice versa. Writing during (what he probably did not realize was) the early Mormon period, he stated that egalitarian faiths like Presbyterianism would fare better in the US than Catholicism or Islam. If you'd asked him about Mormonism in its more dictatorial 1940s-1870s period, he'd have said such a religion would not be a good fit for American culture.
I think you've identified how Mormon history subsequently played out. Reinforced by better education and ultimately the internet, most Mormons have come intuitively to view religion in more democratic and egalitarian terms than our ancestors did. That puts the Q15 in a difficult position. They are nominally committed to an authoritarian vision of the world but their followers--and even they themselves--are viscerally impelled towards less dictatorial practices. From time to time the tyrants among the Q15 fight back, but that very struggle vindicates Toqueville's judgment.
Having said that, there is an ironic afterword to the story which you alluded to in another thread when you said that humans embody an irrational element that enables them to deny scientific and political reality. Your point is that Toqueville underestimated the degree to which people everywhere, even in egalitarian societies, will surrender their rationality and seek the certainties of dictatorship when under great stress. That is of course what has happened in recent years in the US and elsewhere.
We thus see the egalitarian tendencies of a democracy undermining the power of the LDS hierarchy but then a more totalitarian movement spreading into and through the church. How exactly is the Q15 to react to that? How do they respond when half of the church wants less authoritarianism and a third of the membership goes off chasing another tyrant? Do they insist on uniformity and lose a lot of the moderates and liberals or do they try to bring the populists under control and lose many of them?
"How exactly is the Q15 to react to that?"
Ignore it?
Ignore it?
Lot's wife wrote in part:
"That was one of the great, and greatly sacrilegious, innovations in the US constitution. The Founders had seen in Europe what happens when different groups all believe they are acting under divine guidance: the 30 Years War, which devastated Germany and set it back centuries, was just the most salient illustration of that. So they demoted God. They said there would be no state religion, meaning they did not accept the proposition that God directly guides humans. This was not an atheistic argument but it was assuredly agnostic; it meant that people could not know which religion was absolutely true, which God spoke to the whole world."
Actually, the U.S. Constitution goes beyond that as it does not define religion, and that has huge implications on how the U.S. government can deal with religious issues.
A 15-minute segment of last week's "On The Media,", an NPR program, deals with this issue. You can hear this segment at
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/constitution-religion-on-the-media
Here is the description provided from the site:
"As the Biden administration rolls out its new vaccine mandate for companies of 100 employees or more, some Americans are turning to Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, which allows employees to opt out of the vaccine over "sincerely held" religious beliefs. Those requests are on the rise, bringing with them a long list of questions. Like, what counts as a religious exemption? How can we tell if they’re sincere? And what even counts as religion? This week, OTM guest host
Sacha Pfeiffer speaks with Indiana University Bloomington professor of law and religious studies
Winnifred Sullivan about why the constitution was designed to avoid answering those questions clearly.
This is a segment from our September 17th, 2021 program,
Fire and Brimstone at
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/on-the-media-fire-and-brimstone?tab=summary
"
"That was one of the great, and greatly sacrilegious, innovations in the US constitution. The Founders had seen in Europe what happens when different groups all believe they are acting under divine guidance: the 30 Years War, which devastated Germany and set it back centuries, was just the most salient illustration of that. So they demoted God. They said there would be no state religion, meaning they did not accept the proposition that God directly guides humans. This was not an atheistic argument but it was assuredly agnostic; it meant that people could not know which religion was absolutely true, which God spoke to the whole world."
Actually, the U.S. Constitution goes beyond that as it does not define religion, and that has huge implications on how the U.S. government can deal with religious issues.
A 15-minute segment of last week's "On The Media,", an NPR program, deals with this issue. You can hear this segment at
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/constitution-religion-on-the-media
Here is the description provided from the site:
"As the Biden administration rolls out its new vaccine mandate for companies of 100 employees or more, some Americans are turning to Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, which allows employees to opt out of the vaccine over "sincerely held" religious beliefs. Those requests are on the rise, bringing with them a long list of questions. Like, what counts as a religious exemption? How can we tell if they’re sincere? And what even counts as religion? This week, OTM guest host
Sacha Pfeiffer speaks with Indiana University Bloomington professor of law and religious studies
Winnifred Sullivan about why the constitution was designed to avoid answering those questions clearly.
This is a segment from our September 17th, 2021 program,
Fire and Brimstone at
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/on-the-media-fire-and-brimstone?tab=summary
"
blindguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, the U.S. Constitution goes beyond that
> as it does not define religion, and that has huge
> implications on how the U.S. government can deal
> with religious issues.
Thanks. Something of a culturally shocking thing to do thinking about it. Mormonism is more against culture of not defining religion by secular authority than for it. In The BoM there is the Korihor exchange between religious and secular powers and he is subjected to both but the religious one is where sentencing happens.
Food for thought. If one claims to love freedom then they either love their freedom to define what religious leanings they like without fear of government reprisals or they just buy what has been done in other countries and in the U.S. (Mormonism, Scientology) as well. The give their allegiance to their higher laws and attempt to live them within the framework of the laws of the land.
This is why I posted. Do the LDS people collectively believe that they are above the laws of the land generally? If so, how does that make their theology look? Nelson is going with the government and many of them are not.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, the U.S. Constitution goes beyond that
> as it does not define religion, and that has huge
> implications on how the U.S. government can deal
> with religious issues.
Thanks. Something of a culturally shocking thing to do thinking about it. Mormonism is more against culture of not defining religion by secular authority than for it. In The BoM there is the Korihor exchange between religious and secular powers and he is subjected to both but the religious one is where sentencing happens.
Food for thought. If one claims to love freedom then they either love their freedom to define what religious leanings they like without fear of government reprisals or they just buy what has been done in other countries and in the U.S. (Mormonism, Scientology) as well. The give their allegiance to their higher laws and attempt to live them within the framework of the laws of the land.
This is why I posted. Do the LDS people collectively believe that they are above the laws of the land generally? If so, how does that make their theology look? Nelson is going with the government and many of them are not.
Hi EB,
Going along with the other posts above I certainly agree that the lilies of the field are getting crushed and it's not a pretty sight! lol! And yes the bretheren think of themselves above the law. Especially the laws that they create.
1)I recall as a missionary having to keep our miles below the quota, and then running out of miles and being punished by having the car taken away until the end of the month, Do the bretheren follow that rule?
2)I remember having a budget of $130/month for food and then running out and having to live off of ramen, do the bretheren follow that rule?
3)How about tithing? do the bretheren follow that rule?
4)We were commanded to tract door to door every single day, do the bretheren ever do that?
5)Most all of us have to pay income taxes to the IRS, Do the bretheren do that? They get a stipend that's tax free as far as I know.
6)Mission Presidents, when I was out, got their Georgia Mansions drive brand new Crown Victorias, Did us misshies get that,... Hell no!
Going along with the other posts above I certainly agree that the lilies of the field are getting crushed and it's not a pretty sight! lol! And yes the bretheren think of themselves above the law. Especially the laws that they create.
1)I recall as a missionary having to keep our miles below the quota, and then running out of miles and being punished by having the car taken away until the end of the month, Do the bretheren follow that rule?
2)I remember having a budget of $130/month for food and then running out and having to live off of ramen, do the bretheren follow that rule?
3)How about tithing? do the bretheren follow that rule?
4)We were commanded to tract door to door every single day, do the bretheren ever do that?
5)Most all of us have to pay income taxes to the IRS, Do the bretheren do that? They get a stipend that's tax free as far as I know.
6)Mission Presidents, when I was out, got their Georgia Mansions drive brand new Crown Victorias, Did us misshies get that,... Hell no!
Those aren't laws.
It seems to be a hallmark of bad faith - create rules that the creators and their successors routinely break. How does that inspire faith in God? Through suffering an unjust hierarchy God endorses?
Stipends are taxable income. I assume they ge a housing allowance that is not taxed, since this is typical for clergy in all churches in the US. The actual salary paid to clergy, however, is plain old income as far as the IRS is concerned.
Mission presidents are not taxed because they don't receive income, they receive reimbursement for actual expenses incurred. The church is pretty generous with what expenses they will reimburse, but if the MP doesn't incur the expense, there is nothing to reimburse. An MP can live with very nearly all expenses paid by LDS Inc, but will not end up with any extra money that can be put in savings. If they did end up with extra money, that would be income, and taxable.
Mission presidents are not taxed because they don't receive income, they receive reimbursement for actual expenses incurred. The church is pretty generous with what expenses they will reimburse, but if the MP doesn't incur the expense, there is nothing to reimburse. An MP can live with very nearly all expenses paid by LDS Inc, but will not end up with any extra money that can be put in savings. If they did end up with extra money, that would be income, and taxable.
When Brigham had theocratic visions of grander the church definitely saw itself as the law of the land and above all else.
The modern church today has hundreds of billions of dollars of assets to protect. It’s like any other corporation. It will pucker up and kiss political ass and even buy political influence.
The modern church today has hundreds of billions of dollars of assets to protect. It’s like any other corporation. It will pucker up and kiss political ass and even buy political influence.
Especially when it comes to sexual predators. It claims special allowance because it claims it can deal with the problem by application of its tenets. That's why bishops are not mandatory reporters.
The church did think that they were above the laws of the land; that's why they got kicked out of every state that they tried to settle in.
JS had the Council of Fifty set him set up as a king. He ran for POTUS, and made himself a Commander of his very own, home grown army.
Today, IMO, they still have the thinking that they can do some things that they want and get away with it; after all, they have 150 lawyers to help them out.
Proposition 8 comes to mind as one of their sneaky ways of trying to influence voters, and the Utah legislature is mostly active LDS people. As was mentioned by Heartless in a reply above, Niederhauser forced them to go back and negate our votes.
JS had the Council of Fifty set him set up as a king. He ran for POTUS, and made himself a Commander of his very own, home grown army.
Today, IMO, they still have the thinking that they can do some things that they want and get away with it; after all, they have 150 lawyers to help them out.
Proposition 8 comes to mind as one of their sneaky ways of trying to influence voters, and the Utah legislature is mostly active LDS people. As was mentioned by Heartless in a reply above, Niederhauser forced them to go back and negate our votes.
Joseph ran for President hoping it would turn enough attention to the property loses and abuse in Missouri. Joseph wanted the federal government to go after the state of Missouri and make them pay for what they did to the Mormons.
The Nauvoo Legion was a state of Illinois chartered militia. It did lose it’s charter when Joseph declared marshall law as mayor and destroyed a newspaper printing negative news about him.
That was the real dumb move Joseph made. He violated the first amendment as a political leader. He clearly broke the law there and it all snowballed down on him. Mormons were never consider good constitutional Americans. They were view more as a communal hive of brainwashed followers. Many viewed the whole Mormonism movement as dangerous.
The Nauvoo Legion was a state of Illinois chartered militia. It did lose it’s charter when Joseph declared marshall law as mayor and destroyed a newspaper printing negative news about him.
That was the real dumb move Joseph made. He violated the first amendment as a political leader. He clearly broke the law there and it all snowballed down on him. Mormons were never consider good constitutional Americans. They were view more as a communal hive of brainwashed followers. Many viewed the whole Mormonism movement as dangerous.
I think JS ran for president because he wanted to be president.
He'd already had himself ordained a king and priest and organized the Council of 50 as a secular national government. It would have made perfect sense to seek election to the presidency.
All that stuff about running to focus national attention on Missouri was just later Mormon spin.
He'd already had himself ordained a king and priest and organized the Council of 50 as a secular national government. It would have made perfect sense to seek election to the presidency.
All that stuff about running to focus national attention on Missouri was just later Mormon spin.
There seems to be conflict between an all powerful god, and rendering unto Caesar (an ideal also expressed in the 12th Article of Faith..."we believe in being subject"...)
One would think that an all powerful god could prevent a prison sentence. But self preservation being paramount, "being subject" is an admission that there are earthly powers over which god has no affect.
One would think that an all powerful god could prevent a prison sentence. But self preservation being paramount, "being subject" is an admission that there are earthly powers over which god has no affect.
Humberto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One would think that an all powerful god could
> prevent a prison sentence. But self preservation
> being paramount, "being subject" is an admission
> that there are earthly powers over which god has
> no affect.
Unless of course you can destroy the prison you are held in after witnessing the people you converted being thrown into fires and burned to death.
I wonder why Joe never destroyed a jail with God's power?
-------------------------------------------------------
> One would think that an all powerful god could
> prevent a prison sentence. But self preservation
> being paramount, "being subject" is an admission
> that there are earthly powers over which god has
> no affect.
Unless of course you can destroy the prison you are held in after witnessing the people you converted being thrown into fires and burned to death.
I wonder why Joe never destroyed a jail with God's power?
IMHO, I think we need recent examples to develop valid answers;
the weed thing, at least to me, was ChurchCo working within the (highly biased) legal environment; doesn't that indicate them working within the system even if overtones of 'thinking they're above the law' are also present?
the weed thing, at least to me, was ChurchCo working within the (highly biased) legal environment; doesn't that indicate them working within the system even if overtones of 'thinking they're above the law' are also present?
I think the "weed thing" is another example of the members probably thinking differently than their leaders I believe.
https://www.abc4.com/news/utahns-want-cannabis-legalized-study-finds/
Like Lot's Wife stated there is a conundrum
"Do they insist on uniformity and lose a lot of the moderates and liberals or do they try to bring the populists under control and lose many of them?"
Does the LDS Church think (collectively) it is above the laws of the lands?
I don't know. The leadership seems only to come out here an here like Holland's muskets with their dictatorial style that flies in the face of what is accepted as lawful (not using muskets.)
It is so confusing I don't know what this particular Mormon is fighting for or that one since they both disagree - vaccines, masks, marijuana, homosexuals...
Do they think that they are above the law now and those in the future with regards to their religion and "doing what is right?"
It is a Mormon mess now more than ever and it makes no sense to consider Mormonism some kind of unified group under a single leader.
https://www.abc4.com/news/utahns-want-cannabis-legalized-study-finds/
Like Lot's Wife stated there is a conundrum
"Do they insist on uniformity and lose a lot of the moderates and liberals or do they try to bring the populists under control and lose many of them?"
Does the LDS Church think (collectively) it is above the laws of the lands?
I don't know. The leadership seems only to come out here an here like Holland's muskets with their dictatorial style that flies in the face of what is accepted as lawful (not using muskets.)
It is so confusing I don't know what this particular Mormon is fighting for or that one since they both disagree - vaccines, masks, marijuana, homosexuals...
Do they think that they are above the law now and those in the future with regards to their religion and "doing what is right?"
It is a Mormon mess now more than ever and it makes no sense to consider Mormonism some kind of unified group under a single leader.
Mormons help out the illegal immigrants all the time. Finding Jesus and be in country breaking laws is ok. Get baptized and continue your ways just no sex until marriage, and no smoking or alcohol and no porn. Here is a calling. Serve God and your heavenly father doesn't care of laws of land for you. Don't kill though, we care about that.
Church double speaks so long as they can get that tithing.
Church double speaks so long as they can get that tithing.
no porn?
is that is the scriptures?
after all, there are plenty of other micro-managing details there...
just sayin'
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2021 09:40PM by GNPE.
is that is the scriptures?
after all, there are plenty of other micro-managing details there...
just sayin'
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2021 09:40PM by GNPE.
LDS loves porn talk. Bible coverage is related to do not covet.
Watching porn thinking you would ever be so lucky with one of the participants is the coveting part and whatever you are doing below the belt of course.
Watching porn thinking you would ever be so lucky with one of the participants is the coveting part and whatever you are doing below the belt of course.