A few months ago, my wife started listening to my point of view. She started actually wanting to know my concerns. We've since come to terms with leaving the church and we're doing so together. Don't ask me how I accomplished this feat because I severely fucked up this process. The story of my wife and me finding a way out together however, is not what I want to talk about at this time (a story for another day perhaps). What I do want to elaborate a bit is an epiphany I've had since she decided to leave with me.

You probably didn't notice (and why would you?) but I've all but vanished from this board. The reason is I just have very little or nothing to say. From the moment my wife was no longer a prisoner to misinformation, the passion that fueled my indignation waned to almost nothing. I got my wife and kids back...that's all I wanted. Now, the anger that fueled my voice and desire to speak out is pretty much nonexistent.

However, I'm not done just yet. I wanted to share my epiphany.

The passion that fuels most of us to lash out vocally against the Church doesn't really come from doctrinal issues. It comes from real-world issues. Whether or not we "become gods," or "become as gods," really isn't a huge deal to us. Minor doctrinal tweaks really don't mean a lot to those who already don't believe; and that's not really what flames our fires anyways. Most of us don't care what star Elohim lives near. It just doesn't matter. The recent scripture modifications aren't going to make people who take issue with the church think, "Oh yeah...that's a little nicer than before...I think I'll stop speaking out." Even historical accuracy and coming clean doesn't matter that much. What matters is what they are telling their members to DO.

So let's talk about a real issue. Let's talk about tolerance.

What matters (I think) to most of us who speak out is that this is an institution holds people we love hostage to misinformation. People like our neighbors, our friends, and our families. It binds them in ignorance and it makes them behave badly. The church fuels the very fire of opposition against itself, and it has done so from its inception. This church teaches intolerance. It has taught it in the past, it does so now, and I have every expectation it will continue to do so in the future. The intolerance can be found in its current manuals, in its current conferences, and its monthly publications. So for an example I'll choose a recent example. Appropriately enough called tolerance.

In the February 2013 Ensign, there is an article by Dallin Oaks entitled, "Balancing Truth and Tolerance." Reading this article enraged me, and once again gave me something to say. Why did I read it? I was asked to by a well-meaning member.

In this particular article, Oaks talks of tolerance and how it must be balanced with truth. He makes an argument against what he calls, "moral relativism." He begins the article with, "Shocking reports of large-scale thievery and lying in civilized societies suggest a moral vacuum in which many have little sense of right and wrong." Then he then implicitly states that moral values of the United States are founded on Judeo-Christian values; and that we, as a society, should worry about the loss of them (the values).

He then goes on to further define who the enemy of truth is, and the meaning of "moral relativism." He says, "We believe in absolute truth." Absolute truth, of course, as defined by the church. Next he talks more about the “enemies of truth.”

"Many teachers in schools, colleges, and universities are teaching and practicing relative morality."

It's clear who he is implicating. The enemies of tolerance are any who do not teach “absolute truth.” Absolute truth, of course, as defined by the church. What Oaks is implying, is that if you don't agree with him, you are the enemy of truth. If you don't agree with him you are intolerant. He is dealing in absolutes. Just in case it's not clear enough, he actually uses the word absolute.

There is more. No lie is a good one without including a little truth so he then includes a little truth saying, "Tolerance is defined as a friendly and fair attitude toward unfamiliar or different opinions and practices or toward the persons who hold or practice them...we have greater need for tolerance."Fair enough, that much is true.

Then like any lie, it quickly gets twisted. He says, "For example, an atheist has no need to decide what kinds and occasions of profanity or blasphemy can be tolerated and what kinds should be confronted. Persons who don’t believe in God or in absolute truth in moral matters can see themselves as the most tolerant of persons. For them, almost anything goes."

This time he was at least direct enough to name the enemies of truth. Atheists. Oaks just said that society is collapsing, moral relativism is the cause, and those who do not believe in HIS moral absolutism have no values. To put it simply, he said that those who do not believe in his values do not have values. He just basically just said non-believers are the cause all of societies problems.

He deals in absolutes, and as much as I hate the prequels, I know who deals in absolutes.

“If you're not with me, you're my enemy.”

Oaks (or his ghost writer) isn't done yet. He concludes the introduction by coming full circle. In his already obviously intolerant article (that is supposedly about tolerance), he then says, "Unfortunately, some who believe in moral relativism seem to have difficulty tolerating those who insist that there is a God who should be respected and that there are certain moral absolutes that should be observed...Our tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs does not cause us to abandon our commitment." Or in other words, do not tolerate anyone whose opinions contradicts absolute truth as I define it.

To recap, Oaks defines societies' problems. He names the group responsible. He defines tolerance. He then delivers a message of intolerance against a specific group, and to conclude, he calls those who oppose his argument intolerant.

So of course members read this double-think and come away thinking that the definition of tolerance—as ridiculous as this sounds—is to stand up for what you believe in when someone doesn't agree with you. Also, the person with the opposing view must be respectful of your knowledge of absolute truth, or they are intolerant. That's the Mormon definition of tolerance.

Should it be any wonder so many members draw lines in the sand? Is it really so curious that that so many of Mormons believe in false dichotomies? Is it really inexplicable why to so many members the world is black or white with no room for any shades of gray? (Or for that matter books about shades of gray.) There is much more to this article I will not, but could, elaborate. It's sufficient to say this little jem from the Ministry of Truth also takes passive-aggressive swipes at gays, tells the members to get political, "seeking laws to maintain public conditions or policies," and many more things that they claim to absolutely not teach.

No amount of raw cookie dough on my porch is going to change that message and its impact on lives if people believe it. No revisions of Joseph's visions will either. The Mormon church teaches their members intolerance, they call it tolerance, and they teach it as recently as last month.

Back to my epiphany. Ending "persecution" would be pretty simple on the part of the church. Give us our friends and families back. Stop teaching that tolerance is a false dichotomy of moral absolutism. Stop teaching members to label others. Stop teaching them to double-think. Stop dealing in absolutes. Stop calling white black and black white. Stop teaching that those who do not share your values do not have values.

Most of us would probably become quietly indifferent and walk away, except that publications like this one instruct the members to stand up and fight for what they believe. With, eh, tolerance. We'd likely ignore the members' righteous indignation too, except that in a lot of cases they happen to be our family, or they are the folks who live across the street.

Little by little, the members are figuring out that what is taught in Mormonism is backwards. They are learning that what is called tolerance is its opposite. That what is called love is manipulation. That what is called kindness is abuse. Even members themselves are also becoming its opposite. They are becoming us.

Black is white. White is black. I know better now. I'm not coming back.

Perhaps try teaching a more Christian message. Teach the members not to cast stones. Teach parents to love their wayward children without condition. Be kind to gays. Teach children that their unbelieving mothers and fathers are not going to be separated from them for eternity. Be kind to non-believers. Teach members that it's okay to associate with nonmembers. Teach tolerance, and don't try to twist the definition of tolerance to fit into a paradigm of moral absolutism. Then, and only then, we will be left with nothing to say.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/02/balancing-truth-and-tolerance?lang=eng



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2013 06:32PM by The Man in Black.

Very well said and written. You make an absolutely fantastic point.

+1

Very good! I agree. And I also feel the same way after my hubby left. It was such a relief to me and our stressed relationship. I just wish that for everyone here as well. Maybe someday soon. The church is cracking at the seems and more and more older members are looking at it like what the heck? This is not what I was taught while I was growing up. It is causing people to really think about what they are into.......and they DON'T like it.

Thank you for breaking down that article. I think this post is worthy for an archive recommend.

MIB- I met you at starbucks last year...

My story is just the opposite- wife dug in

so glad to hear your wife opened the door to thinking for herself.

Someday I'll learn to proofread before hitting submit.

Thank you 'me'

Also, it took me over three years of stalemate. My wife dug her heels in too. Perhaps there is still hope? Twojedis story is a better example than mine, but spouses can and do come around years later.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2013 06:21PM by The Man in Black.

First of all, congrats on your wife! That's amazing!!

Thanks for your insights. Your last paragraph is incredible!

Of course we've noticed that you haven't been around as much. I'm happy to hear that your wife is studying truth.

It would be great if the LDS Church would teach a truly Christian message. But as long as they have that elitist attitude, where they're God's only chosen people, I sadly can't see that happening any time soon.

I too have noticed!

What a great read!

I'm so glad to hear that she is leaving the church with you. My exwife didn't and it was for the better that we split.

Everything was amazingly well said. Thank you for those words.

So lets see, murder is bad unless god says so (Nephi killing laban) monogomy is gods law unless he says it is not. So mormon god is totally cool with moral relativism but he retains that right for himself. The rest of us have to live in black and white, unless god decides that red and blue are the new black and white.

I think it's hilarious that he chose to quote BKP in a a talk on truth and tolerance.

I forced myself to read this talk. As I read through the twists and turns I realized that he was summing up exactly why I left the church.

Their inability to tolerate the truth about themselves has made my life miserable in so many ways. He's got some nerve standing up there looking down his nose at the very people the church has lied to and then were intolerant of. The historians come to mind. But, also many others. When will the church tolerate the truth about itself?

And even though I don't spend much time here anymore, I did notice you hadn't been posting as much.

I'd like to see someone well-versed in logic take Oaks' speech and diagram it, showing all the reverses, twists and turns.

Wow-that was awesome! Thanks for dissecting that! I'm happy for your family. My husband and children are out as well and I don't know if I could be as happy and as strong if they were still in. The church and it's teachings have and continue to cause significant damage to those it touches!

Your comments remind me of a Dallin Oaks article that had the same effect on me. It was years ago but when I broke down his double speak it amounted to his making of obedience (to Mormon doctrine interpreted by him) as being the first principle of the gospel. I was floored because I had always been taught that love was the first principle. I was recently reminded of this when I asked a Mormon who did not know me what was the most important teaching of his church and he stated "obedience to God's will" and he, of course, knew God's will through his priesthood power.

Absolute truth, obedience, Dallin Oaks seriously is a mad man but as a lawyer he knows how to do just what you said, "make black white and white black" for Mormons who do not know how to deconstruct his legal speak and see it for what it is.

Glad you read his article and spoke out. Maybe someone here will see what's happening to their church and want to leave as you and your wife have done. It's not hard when you see TSCC for what it really is.

I noitce when you're not here, MiB. I've always enjoyed your posts. It's wonderful that your wife and you are now on the same page with regard to church. I know that you've been very patient in that regard.

How nice of Dallin Oakes to speak for atheists. Perhaps he would likewise be in favor of atheists speaking for the Mormon church.

If Mr. Oakes wants to discuss moral behavior, let's start with Joseph Smith sending a married man halfway around the world on a mission, and then marrying that man's wife while he is gone. Nice.

Then there's always Joseph's "marriages" to young girls of 14 and 15 when the average age of first marriage for women was 22.6. I'm sure that Joseph was just taking care of (very) young widows.

Let's continue with Joseph's order for the destruction of someone else's newspaper printing press. I suppose that is A-OK as long as the newspaper in question is inconveniently (but truthfully) pointing out that Joseph and his cronies were practicing polygamy in secret. Too bad, so sad.

But a man as immoral as Joseph Smith can be counted on to tell us the truth about finding golen plates and about heavenly visitations. Do I have that right, Mr. Oakes?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2013 07:40PM by summer.

A very well written piece. Hit very close to home. Thank you.
Now go enjoy your family and your freedom, finally. :)

Leave it to the f-ing lawyer to twist words to his evil purpose, what a repulsive slimeball. As if most of us don't already suspect that the entire process of making it through law school wasn't itself deeply profoundly steeped in 'moral relativism' of exactly the most opportunistic kind and propelled by the most base of desires and motives. What are the chances a man like him would recognize absolute truth even if it hit him on the head like a freaking 20 pound seerstone? I won't be placing bets any time soon.

I just detest this guy. As the morg pushes out anyone with a brain and a conscience, it is characters like him who appear to be 'smart' and 'competent' and 'edumacated' who gain yet more power over the sheeple. I bet he really thinks he's doing something important with sort of talk. Makes me sick.

Thanks for dissecting this hideous bit of propaganda, I may use this and send it to a few targeted family members.

The Man in Black is the good guy. The men in temple whites are slippery and dangerous. Don't leave your stapler or paper clips out in front of them. They'll clean you out.

Dallin Oaks


What a douchebag. My brain began to short circuit as I attempted to comprehend his double-speak.

Thanks for the post, MIB

Man In Black, I almost never come here anymore too.

I'm glad I saw your post when I came for a rare visit. I had filed away in my mind that you were one of the ones that it didn't work out for. I'm so pleased to hear that it came around for you and your family. It made my day.

"Newspeak." "Doublethink."

- 1984, George Orwell

;o)

That deconstruction may very well be the best thing I have ever read here, and there have been some amazing posts on this site.

I don't always notice when you aren't here, but I always take notice when you do come here and post, The Man in Black, because your thought process is always arresting. If you ever feel like you have nothing to say in the future, please feel free to be repetitious--a great many would benefit.

I tend to come from a more emotional place, and it's posts like this that really help me. Thank you.

Your family story has provided me with hope of one day getting my family back (and in the last few weeks, I've actually seen glimpses of that potential future). I'm so glad for you! It is also comforting to see your shrinking need to pushing against the church. It's comforting to see that just getting your immediate family back is enough to calm the majority of the frustrations.
I always hoped that would be the case if I one day get my family back... but worried that I would then feel equally driven about my extended family.

Also, this was an excellent post.
TBMs are so sure that their teachings are perfect, but if there are any imperfections, it's all really old stuff that's been solved with growing pains.

I love reading recent conference talks. I'll go through with a highlighter, and just highlight different things.

First I usually highlight Amoral teachings (like tithing, belief, attending the temple, etc... anything that doesn't help people/this-earth).

Then I like to highlight things that I consider straight-up immoral. More often than not, those end up being intolerant phrases.

The church may be growing more benign each year, as it tries to adapt to modern society and morality (nothing absolute about how they change), but it has a long way to go still, as evidenced by articles like the one you linked.

Its great to see you on here! I'm so happy to hear about your wife. And I think you should have an RFM calling- to dissect the great mormon publication that is the Ensign. It would keep ya here for a bit at least. =)

How great to hear this!
And yes, I notice you don't post much anymore. :)
I can understand the peace you found. I would love to get all my loved ones out and find it myself too someday... TSCC takes up too much of my energy sometimes, but I realize I am the one giving it this energy. I still see it as a good fight, or I'd find ways to give it less energy.

"For example, an atheist has no need to decide what kinds and occasions of profanity or blasphemy can be tolerated and what kinds should be confronted. Persons who don’t believe in God or in absolute truth in moral matters can see themselves as the most tolerant of persons. For them, almost anything goes."


Jesus kid-killing Christ that's really fucking offensive.

B/W ONLY apply to subjects External to TSCC; if one uses that reasoning TO TSCC....

Exactly. They hold the world to the black and white standard while they themselves wallow in the grey.

Well said!!

topped.

I was actually wondering how you were doing the other day. Glad to hear things are working out for you and your family. Really enjoyed this post. You really hit the nail on the head, and it gave me a lot to think about.