OtterPop

I'm listening to a radio podcast of a discussion with the authors of the new book on the Moutain Meadows Massacre. Interesting to think about in light of this thread. No one seriously questions that it was believing Mormons who carried out the massacre. This was certainly an evil act -- but I doubt that many (if any) of these men were evil people.

No doubt this is true -- but you need to consider how many more men than women are mentioned in the scriptures at all.

bytor, I don't think these scriptures address the concerns I posed.

I've often heard this idea that motherhood is women's complementary responsibility to men's priesthood responsibility, but there are two things that really bother me about this: 1. It seems to minimize or marginalize a father's role. Men are parents, too. From what I've seen, even when they are not the primary caretaker, men are deeply committed to their children and their role as fathers. They love their children deeply. It is not all the women's responsibility to parent. 2. It leaves no primary responsibility for childless women. What about women who never marry or are infertile? Men still get the priesthood, but these women get . . . what? I'd really appreciate any thoughts or opinions.

I agree. Although it's right that work like Milgram's and Zimbardo's can't be done anymore for ethical reasons, I'm glad we have their studies. They've made me think about the conformity you write about -- and remind me to remember that, without awareness, I'm most likely no different than the ordinary people who participated in those studies.

I have met and worked with a lot of antisocials. I'm a social worker, and I've worked at a residential treatment center for substance abuse (not a fancy one, one where most people were either in treatment or in jail), and at the county jail. I do not agree that a large number of ADD/ADHD kids are better explained as budding antisocials. I say "budding," because antisocial personality disorder can't be diagnosed until age 18. Kids would be diagnosed as having oppositional defiant disorder. As far as how someone becomes an antisocial, I would say that the VAST majority of them were abused as children. Or perhaps I should say "tortured." (One example is someone being tied to a tree by his father and beaten with barbed wire.) I'm not saying that everyone who is severely abused becomes antisocial, nor am I using the abuse history as an excuse. Everyone I've talked to who has worked with jail populations -- even the most conservative, hard-line, law-and-order officers at the jail -- would acknowledge that the inmates who fit this profile had been abused as children. I know there has been at least one study that showed that antisocial traits run in families, and that children more closely resembled their biological parents than their adoptive parents if they had been adopted. (Don't ask me to cite the study; I read it many years ago. Feel free to take it or leave it.) Several studies show that ordinary people -- not antisocials -- will torture others given the "right" circumstances. Philip Zimbardo, who designed and conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment, wrote a fascinating book called The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. If you're interested in this subject, it's an essential read.

I'm not sure who all said what, and I'll go back and re-read your previous post. My bad. Sorry.

I assume you're talking about this sentence: DO YOU THINK ITS ONLY A COINCIDENCE THAT JOSEPH SMITH INITIATED INTO FREEMASONRY AND THEN WITHIN THE MONTH "REVEALED" THE MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONY, WITH ALL ITS MASONIC ELEMENTS? The author here clearly believes that Joseph Smith took the endowment from the Freemasons. I don't think that's a hidden assumption -- I think it's very in-your-face. He makes no bones about where he is coming from, and the timeline he describes is correct, I believe. Once again, I get that you don't like the tone, but to call this a lie is, well, not exactly the truth.

Perhaps you're talking about other things posted on that site, but I didn't see any "malicious lies" in the quotes you posted here. I understand that you don't like his tone, but I didn't see any actual untruths that he wrote.

And you, too!

changed -- I appreciate your kind thoughts. I found my answers outside the LDS church -- and I'm the better for it.

Stereotyping would be interacting with John Doe while being focused on what I think is typical of Mormonism, rather than on what he has expressed here. Just because I think he has said some things that I think are "fairly typical" (note the modifier fairly) of Mormonism, doesn't mean I am reacting to a stereotype rather than to him. If you disagree, kindly show me where I have assigned attitudes/opinions to him that he has not expressed, except as hypotheticals that I invited him to correct, if necessary.

I responded to things that John Doe actually said on this board, not to my perception of a "typical" Mormon (which I certainly do have). That's not stereotyping. That's discussion. And, John, I am happy to hear your perspective, and I may challenge it -- as you have appropriate done with my perspective.

John You can't "stereotype" one person. My comments about you are based on what you have posted recently on this board, not some grand assumption I have about what you must be like. Did it ever occur to you that some people quit living the commandments because they quit believing in the church? And that this may happen before they formally leave? Of course I don't think people are going to answer on a survey that they "couldn't keep the commandments anymore." I also think a lot of people would not care to submit to a survey when they leave the LDS church. Are you so naive that you believe that members exiting the church wouldn't know that the purpose of the survey is to figure how to keep people from leaving? Or believe that people who are hurt and angry might not want to participate in something designed to benefit the organization they are leaving? Do you believe there is any legitimate reason for leaving the church? If not, then you are hardly viewing your friends/internet contacts with through a clear lens, are you? Your assumption is that there is no good reason; therefore you must assign to these people a reason that you are comfortable with. If I'm wrong, I'd be glad to hear that I have assumed wrong and that you think a person can have a real reason for leaving.

Sure, there are reasons. But not all those reasons are "excuses." I thought we were talking about a survey of why people leave the church, not why they become inactive. I'm sure some people become inactive because they're lazy, but I don't think people cancel their membership because they're lazy. There's a real difference between being inactive and actually leaving the church. I make a definite distinction between the two -- because I believe they are worlds apart -- but not everyone here does.

There are many aspects of LDS church history that can genuinely cause someone to question whether the origins are indeed divine. It doesn't have to be an "excuse" for leaving. John Doe's statement implies that there is always a "real reason for leaving" when someone states they have a problem with church history. I'm just challenging his assumptions. He has a lot of them.

John Doe's attitude is fairly typical in Mormonism -- people who leave have done something wrong, are lying to themselves, and will find "excuses" to leave so that they don't have to face themselves. One should never let actual people get in the way of stereotypes!

When I prayed for a witness of the Book of Mormon, nothing happened. Absolutely nothing. Not that day, not ever in the 10 years I continued to be LDS after that. It broke my heart.

You're right. I was thinking polygyny. Sometimes I forget which is which.

It is a historical fact that Joseph Smith had multiple wives. The LDS church's own family history website lists multiple marriages. This is not a topic to debate.

I've written about why I'm here, Elphaba's written about why she's here -- and that's been in just the few threads I have read over the past week. My guess is that this is a pretty common question on this board. Elphaba and I are hardly "compelled by an unknown drive to participate." We have both explained why. What's so puzzling?

This is a specious argument that so many Mormons use, and it's one part of a circular argument. If something goes smoothly for the LDS Church, it's because it's God's church and He is clearing the way. If there are difficulties, it's because it's God's church, and Satan is fighting it. Using this "logic," Scientology is a lot closer to the truth than Mormonism.

jimuk, I believe it was simple for you, but you cannot possibly know what will happen for someone else.

Vort, You're doing a good job of trying to dismiss a valid complaint about common -- yes, common -- Mormon behavior that goes directly counter to what GBH told members to do. And if I know that he gave a talk on this very thing, it has to be common knowledge among Mormons in Utah, because I read it in the Salt Lake Tribune. I have had several friends who are non-members with school-age children express puzzlement at the number of their kids' friend who could no longer play at their house because the friends' parents found out they are "non-members." My father was in the army when I was growing up. We lived a number of different places, including the deep South, and I was never barred from being friends with anyone because of my religion. Not once in 17 years. I think fours time is a LOT for such weird behavior.

This is a really good thread. I haven't logged in since Sunday because I have had a very busy week at work and have been working overtime to get everything done. It is not easy to explain in this kind of setting how I came to be an exMormon, and my own understanding of how my spiritual life has unfolded (and continues to unfold) evolves as I mature. I can tell you exactly how Moroni 10 came into it, and what my very first step out of the LDS church was -- though I certainly didn't know it at the time. When I was 15, I read the Book of Mormon for the first time. I read it in conjunction with home-study seminary. I remember the chart I had from one of my seminary workbooks: block letters spelling out "I've read the Book of Mormon," divided into 239 small blocks. As I read each chapter, I filled in the block with my yellow highlighter. I had thought reading the Book Mormon would be kind of boring. I had always gotten stuck in the Isaiah chapters of 2nd Nephi before. But I discovered that after 2nd Nephi, it wasn't hard. It really does contain epic stories, arresting images of events, people, and places. I was comfortable with the spiritual teachings, and had planned to read the Book of Mormon for a long time. It was finally reaching a very important goal. I finished the Book of Mormon mid-week, and I decided that after church the next Sunday I would spend some time alone and follow Moroni's counsel in Moroni 10:3-5. (I don't have to look up the scriptural reference, even after all these years.) That afternoon, I knelt down beside my bed, as I had so many times before. I had received a lot of guidance through prayers, and I had absolute faith that I would receive a witness by the Holy Ghost of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. I prayed sincerely and with humility and with an open heart. And what happened was . . . Nothing. It is the closest I had ever come to having a sense of a "stupor of thought." Many years later, I realized that this experience broke my heart. It is absolutely one of the most painful and confusing experiences of my life. But please don't think I concluded the BoM was untrue or that the Church wasn't true. No, I concluded that there was something wrong with me or with how I had approached Moroni's promise. I had faith in the Church; it was the foundation of everything I believed and everything I planned to do in my life. I had always been taught to pray that the the BoM was true -- not to pray about whether it was true. That it wasn't true was genuinely an unthinkable thought to me then. And please don't think I was expecting a "sign." I had truly expected only a quiet sense that this was right -- the same kind of quiet guidance I typically had in answer to prayers on things I had "studied out in my mind." I never got that sense about the BoM or the truthfulness of the Church. I had guidance in many other things, even a couple of answer to prayers that were fairly dramatic and showed stunning synchronicity. But never to that prayer about the very cornerstone of Mormonism. I kept attending church, and believing, and praying, and journaling, and having callings, and doing service projects, and attending seminary, and going to stake dances, and . . . everything. I attended BYU for 7 years, and when I did stop attending church knowing that I would never go back, I was a temple-recommend-worthy adult who had never even tasted coffee. In those 12 years, I did a lot of searching and soul-searching, and had a lot of answers to prayers and a lot of spiritual guidance -- and it all led me out of the LDS Church. That's my testimony of my experience with the Book of Mormon.