My brother used to be super inactive--really sowed some wild oats--until his son was stillborn two years ago. Sadly, because God apparently holds dead babies hostage, my brother and his wife started going to church again. (Whatever. People have to heal however they can. I just don't like the advantage the church is taking.)

The last time I saw my brother he told me that one of the men who excommunicated me for getting pregnant (no extreme circumstances. Just good, old fashioned hay-rolling resulting in pregnancy) is bishop now. I guess this bishop told my brother that drinking beer or coffee every now and then is not a big deal. The WOW is just for the people who are prone to be addicts. People who can control themselves don't have to be so strict.

Now, there are so many logical problems with this already, but my big question is: SERIOUSLY? SERIOUSLY?!!?

On our way home I was upset because of the obvious floating standard. My husband pointed out that if the church took a hard line against my brother, my brother would simply not come back again. But the men who exed me knew that I was such a goody-goody (really. In every way but one, and that was under heavy emotional pressure.) that I would do whatever they told me to do. In short, I would "take it".

How cruel is that? To mete out abuse simply based on how willing a person is to take it? I think I read on this board once something about how the church grooms us into perfect victims.

as a general rule, people ENJOY being arbitrary & caprious;

a Greatly FEWER number of people enjoy being Treated arbitrarily & capriously.

IMHO, Bps, SPs, other leaders enjoy exercising as much discretion as they possibly can.

My father always said some people can be brought around with a simple suggestion and others need to be hit over the head with a 2x4. The end justifies the means. The number one goal,to save your soul by whatever means are necessary. If that means a little leniency for a struggling soul on milk, let him suckle a little before hammering him with the meat.

Oh, and bishops are pretty low on the revelation ladder. They church is backpedaling on previous prophets and apostles comments that a mere bishop can't be expected to literally be talking to the lord. He is only a lay minister and surely he is not perfect. The church is perfect and not necessarily the members.

I had greatly varying bishops. One loved Mountain Dew. The next guy called as bishop made it clear that drinking Mountain Dew was a violation of the WOW and was a sin. Youth who drank regular Coke, Pepsi could not pass the sacrament for a week or two, depending on how repentant they seemed. Drinking Mountain Dew got you a month vacation from the sacrament table.

I had another bishop who was hard on everybody about everything. A real stickler for rules (including some that were clearly just his own "revelation." When I (as counselor in the bishopric) once politely asked a ward member to obey a particular very minor rule that the bishop very frequently bawled people out for, the bishop got on my case for being too nitpicky. But, after that he also stopped insisting that the YM's ties came to within an inch of their belt to qualify for blessing or passing the sacrament.

Everything the penishood does is arbitrary. I've seen convicted child molesters not exed & welcomed back with open arms, while very young teenage girls have been treated like they are agents of Stan.

Did you refuse to give up your baby to them?
It's rare that a pregnant woman gets exed.

Those people are aholes, sounds like they had a personal vendetta.

But Mormoism is a crock anyway, you can't expect justice or mercy from idiots who believe such lies in this day and age.

...about how rarely pregnant women get exed. My mom assumed I'd gotten pregnant before and had an abortion (so, so not true.) because why else would they do something so extreme? I don't really understand why they chose what they did, but I do believe that the men who did it regretted it and possibly made different choices afterward. Maybe I'm just telling myself that

rosemary said,

"I guess this bishop told my brother that drinking beer or coffee every now and then is not a big deal."

I think the Mormons are going to do away with the WoW as it discourages people from joining the Morg. Besides, it's not rational. Other than the smoking ban, the WoW does not contribute to one's health one bit. In fact Mormons are probably unhealthy because of it (poor diet, too much sugar, no exercise etc.) Coffee and alcohol (in moderation) are actually good for you. The WoW is just based on guesswork (what else is new), so they'll trade it in if they think they can suck in more tithe payers. It won't do them much good though. I just can't see people lining up to join the morg no matter how much they improve their customer service.

canadianfriend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rosemary said,
>
> "I guess this bishop told my brother that drinking
> beer or coffee every now and then is not a big
> deal."
>
> I think the Mormons are going to do away with the
> WoW as it discourages people from joining the
> Morg. Besides, it's not rational. Other than the
> smoking ban, the WoW does not contribute to one's
> health one bit. In fact Mormons are probably
> unhealthy because of it (poor diet, too much
> sugar, no exercise etc.) Coffee and alcohol (in
> moderation) are actually good for you. The WoW is
> just based on guesswork (what else is new), so
> they'll trade it in if they think they can suck in
> more tithe payers. It won't do them much good
> though. I just can't see people lining up to join
> the morg no matter how much they improve their
> customer service.

All they would have to do is use the actual words of the WoW, not the arbitrary interpretations that have been added. It then can sink into the abyss of 'mormon folklore.'

Since the WoW scripture and today's implementation of it vary so much, I always considered it stupid. It was a mistake to emphasize it so much in the modern "standards." It is not a commandment anyway.

Even when relatively active, I felt no guilt having a beer once in a while and drinking coffee when doing night shifts. Coffee has probably saved my life by keeping me awake while driving home.

Furthermore, the WOW isn't even practiced evenly by the church. It says very clearly in there that meat is only to be eaten rarely and in times of famine. Well... they don't ask you what your meat consumption is in a TR interview.

It also says that "barley drink" is okay... isn't the only barley drink beer?

Exactly. Coffee, tea, alcohol bad! That huge steak they served at the ward budget buster, totally cool. A sugary and fatty dessert table at the yw camp fund raiser, totally cool too.

I don't want to look up the actual phrasing right now, but doesn't the church even avoid attributing the "hot drinks is interpreted to mean tea and coffee" clause to who actually interpreted it? I think it's just phrased in the passive voice. Interpreted by whom and with what authority? Also, who received the interpretation that the restriction on meat was only because of lack of ability to preserve it and a desire to prevent waste? It's just "has been interpreted."

My mom insists it's talking about postum, and that prior to postum, pioneers regularly drank roasted barley hot beverages.

Uh huh. When they could have mormon tea, otherwise known as ephedra? Don't think so... They've got a busy bee image to maintain.

I don't know about this. They had ephedra?

Ephedra is the name of the plant that ephedrine and pseudoephedrine were origianlly extracted from (before synthetics, I believe). It is a faily common plant that grows in dry mountain west. It's common name is Mormon Tea because, well, they made tea from it.

Guess that explains how women can have that many babies and not need coffee.

I've had similar things happen to me because as the "good guy" I wasn't going to up and leave the church, whereas the insane people just might.

I've also seen bishops, seminary teachers, and etc. justify that kind of thing.

More and more I think the stories of Abraham and Job are the essence of the priesthood — be a really, really, really good guy, and God will treat you like crap.

Never did understand the whole stupid Job story. As far as I'm concerned, that story would be a huge embarrassment to god. Wouldn't he not want people to know he tormented an innocent man for an afternoon's entertainment?

rosemary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Never did understand the whole stupid Job story.
> As far as I'm concerned, that story would be a
> huge embarrassment to god. Wouldn't he not want
> people to know he tormented an innocent man for an
> afternoon's entertainment?

I thought it was to win a bet with the Debble.

Either your brother wasn't telling the truth or the bishop to whom he refers is in line for removal.

I trust my brother more than the stupid bishop!

The more I see & read the more convinced I am that the lay ministry of the LDS church is a huge mistake.

On one had you have untrained people who "follow the spirit" meaning they do whatever they want according to their personality. You never know what kind of havoc the will cause.

On the other hand you have a huge load on the people. It takes them away from life and their family.

It's a lose/lose.

basically said the that different people in the Church can choose to love the WOW if and how they want. Some people can drink tea....no big deal etc.

I wonder what most LDS leaders doing TR recommend interviews would
think of this.

WTF? Your parents are way out of line with their assumptions.

Learn to recognize your parents' behavior and your excommmunication for what it really is - ABUSE.

This can be extremely damaging to your self-esteem.

My suggestion would be to talk to a mental health professional for a few months and to cut off communication with your abusers.
These people do not have your interest at heart and you need to protect yourself.

Thank you, Leah.

Fortunately, in the twelve years since it happened I have learned a great deal about abuse and how to quit putting up with it.

Sadly, whenever I hear of more blatant unfairness, such as the disparity between my brother's treatment and what mine was, the wound gets torn open again. My brother is not at fault; he is one of the few people in my family who did not participate in my abuse. I do wish the church treated him him harshly enough to run him off--just for his own good. I don't feel like I can tell him anything bad about the church without it jeopardizing our friendship.

I had ~30 years experience in the Church (all as an adult). during that time I had a selection of bishops with varying results with each. Some bishops understood me; some could not relate to my circumstances.

Some bishops were strict and all business; others were more "casual." Some bishops changed as they became experienced and realized just how powerless a bishop is.

Some bishops succomb to pressure to fulfill Church dictates. I was often a bishop's target for reactivation. Among those without current temple recommends I must have seemed a likely candidate: attends, pays full tithing... Brother I. should be an easy candidate. All I have to do is approach him in the "right" way.

So I had bishops try to motivate me to pull my life to together and get a treasured temple recommend. Challenge me. (Didn't work.)

I also had bishops practically give me a temple recommend.

A bishop suggested to me I could have a temple recommend if I promised to resume attending the temple. I asked if my recommend would be renewed the following year (when temple recommends expired after one year)? "No," the bishop said, "I'll expect you to improve by then." (No, thanks.)

Another bishop kept asking me ever relaxed questions in an interview hoping to elicit an acceptable answer. For example, "Are you a full tithe payer?" (standard question). When I whiffed on that, "Would you pay tithing if your wife doesn't spend the tithing on something else?" (Sorry, no 'special' recommends for me.)

In summary, bishops can be much like judges in courts: some are "hanging judges;" some are "soft on crime." The primary differences between a bishop and a judge is that a judge makes decisions on judgments every day; a bishop only on Sundays. And a judge's decisions become part of public record; nobody knows how inconsistent a bishop can be.

I thought the general rule today in TSCC is to excuse women for having sex - "It's the men's fault since they're not marrying the woman" and such? But, if a priesthood holder (especially if he's a leader or a teacher in church, TR-holder, etc.) then there would be drama if he's caught, ie masturbating or drinking coffee or something like that?
But perhaps it's changed again now...