Klein_Helmer

This will have to be my last post for the day. Thank you again, everyone for your thoughts and time. Leah, I am going to break my own rule and bump you to the front of the line because you seem to be stuck on the same points, and hopefully my addressing them will save you the time of raising them again. The same thing I hope to accomplish in any conversation or any other forum: a lively exchange of ideas. Again, I was pursuing what I thought might be an interesting conversation, and I have not been disappointed. If there were a “Klein Helmer Forum,” where every single poster agreed with every single thing I had to say, it would be devastatingly boring and entirely pointless. That seems like an extremely dangerous way of thinking. Let’s say the entire world decides to follow your above-mentioned premise, as I understand it, “Do not concern yourself with that which does not affect your life.” That sounds like a terrible, cruel, amoral, animalistic world in which to live. I am deeply glad that there are individuals, and social and governmental organizations who reject such a cruel premise. If there were not, I cannot imagine the horrors that would go untended. Where would this leave the victims of starvation, genocide, genital mutilation, etc, who have been greatly helped by the kindness of outsiders who took it upon themselves to make such injustices their concern? I do not post at an Orthodox Jewish forum, but if I had a dozen plus Orthodox Jewish friends, and had attended countless Orthodox Jewish services, I absolutely would. Most of the people here have made me feel welcome. I hope I am welcome here so far as you are concerned as well. Plenty of people who were not in good hands have said this very same thing with absolute certainty. My concerns are based on ethical objections coupled with deeply rooted, longstanding connections with both the Church and its members. I do not know anyone in the Westboro Baptist Church. If I did, I would not shy from sharing with them my opinions regarding their chosen religion. No. It is not. The point was, if people are being asked to do things to themselves I regard as harmful (whether modest or extreme), I have a right and responsibility to say something about it (even if these harmful events have no effect on me). It seemed that this was not being appreciated, so I used an extreme example to better illustrate the point. My understanding of the Church has precisely no bearing on my ability to understand such a simple concept. Please elaborate.

Cheers! I have been blessed to have known the people I have within the Church. They have nearly exclusively been friendly, respectful, altogether great people. I always try my best to tell it like it is. If someone is saying derogatory, untrue things about the Church, I am the first to correct them. At the same time, when I encounter teachings or beliefs within the church I find objectionable, I do not hesitate to object. OK. My only point here was that the terminology struck me as strange, as it does others, and this being the case, may not be the best approach when the Church is already so misunderstood. I remember specifically recoiling from being called “the investigator.” It sounds weird, and is likely a contributing factor to some of the public’s misunderstanding regarding the Church. However, if you believe this terminology to be inescapable revelation, I suppose it will have to remain. Of course in Egyptology, as in any other field of study, there are differences among scholars. So far as I know however, there are no contemporary secular scholars (possibly not even any Mormon scholars) in the field who would make the case that the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith claimed it was. This does not necessarily prove Joseph Smith to be a false prophet, nor the Church untrue. However, from my point of view, when I was attending Church and learning about the LDS faith, it was a major road block. As soon as I knew that Joseph Smith had claimed as revelation a series of writings that turned out to be something entirely different, it cast into doubt the rest of his revelatory claims. My problem here is the same as the issue I take with FARMS research. It is coming out of a religious institution with an agenda, they conduct their research knowing what it is they are trying to un/substantiate, and have arrived at their conclusion before the study even begins. If there were to be a legitimate, peer reviewed study, acknowledged by secular scientists, that established a link between the DNA of ancient Israelites and American Indians, it would be impossible to miss, and would already have been posted in this thread. It would have set the fields of Biology, Anthropology, and History on fire. It would be a massive victory for people of the LDS faith, and their seemingly counterintuitive claims about the History of the Americas could no longer be ignored or diminished. As it stands, no such study exists. I am no DNA expert, and as such, my only option apart from an additional lengthy education, is to delegate these issues to the field’s foremost experts, all of whom seem to be in agreement here regarding the lack of DNA evidence supporting any genetic link between ancient Israelites and American Indians. I did not see anything in your link regarding linguistic evidence, ie, evidence providing a link between ancient Hebraic languages and languages of the American Indians. This is another matter I see as enormously problematic for the Historical claims made by the Church. Would you care to speak on or provide any information regarding this issue? I agree entirely with your assertion that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. However, I cannot imagine a situation in which I would take as truth a claim for which there was no evidence. The best I could do, regarding a claim for which there was no evidence, would be to concede that it may be possible. I think you are here selling God short. If such abominations were occurring, such as slavery, blood sacrifice, genocide, or arcane laws regarding marriage or property, why would God not radically alter a culture? This sort of thinking seems to lead to the premise that God’s will, and the revelation/imposition thereof, is dependent on human culture. Are you suggesting that God was only willing to make clear his feelings on allowing black men the priesthood when our understanding of civil rights had reached a point at which we would popularly receive his new revelation? I am glad that was your experience. I appreciate that. Although I believe I sufficiently steered clear of the latter. I never pointed out to any of those people their hypocrisy; I never spread that information around. I was not necessarily judging them, but took their actions to be indicative a larger, systematic problem, which compelled many people to choose between shame/being ostracized, and dishonesty. Thank you for sharing the story. It was touching. I agree, I think this needs to be an issue of greater focus within the Church. As it stands, I do not think it is reasonable to expect young people to be so forthcoming about their departures from Church Standards when it comes at the cost of being branded a black sheep. Perhaps if the leaders were more upfront about just how difficult it is to follow the standards, and it was expected that a small minority, not a vast majority, would be eligible for the sacrament, that would create a more realistic environment. Bless you right back. Of course you are forgiven before asking; I know some of my videos are bad enough to make the Pope weep. I will say in my defense however, I had to this point been working with extremely limited resources. I now have access to close to industry level equipment with regard to cameras, microphones, lights, and video editing software, and my next project will far surpass all previous endeavors.

I don't think I did. Does the church not consider the previously discussed actions to be sinful? I was merely objecting to that designation. Not being a member of the Church, my concern was more for members than it was for myself. I don't think the rules not affecting me is a convincing reason for me to not care and walk away. I'll use an extreme example to illustrate my point: What if the Church required members to cut off their dominant hand? I certainly wouldn't sign up for anything like that, but I would feel a deep concern for my friends (and indeed complete strangers) involved in such an organization. I am not expecting the church to bend to whims. I am not asking for the Church to change with regard to their whimsical (your word, not mine) stances, eg, the position on R rated movies. I am suggesting that deeming as sinful behaviors that are completely natural is highly problematic.

I wish I had time for more, but that will have to do it for the night. Please take these responses as a show of good faith that I will be back to address all other comments and questions. Thank you for all of your time, - Helmer

Yes. I am quite sure that most reasoning people would have little difficulty believing a story (told by someone who had never shown himself to be untrustworthy) about an individual in a position of authority modestly abusing his power. Thank you for the clarification regarding the number of Bishops. I was aware of that and misspoke. I should have said "The Bishop and other senior members." I do imagine the behavior I described would be rare, but that is hardly a reason to believe it never happened.

But were these admittedly racist beliefs and practices not handed down from and sanctioned by the then prophet? If that is the case (his getting things "not quite right," would that not establish that his words were not true revelation? The problem I see here is this: Will future generations not judge us in the same way we have judged previous generations? Will we not appear to them as primitive, bigoted, and misguided as those from centuries past seem to us? This is the corner one paints oneself into when they claim the mind of God is to them accessible. True divine revelation from God would not need clarification, nor would it ostensibly change with cultural attitudes. I would contend that not allowing black men to hold the priesthood was exclusively the result of contemporary racism rather than a divine mandate. I think the later revelation, as you put it, "clarifying" the previous, was also the result of contemporary social attitudes rather than an additional, rather different divine mandate. I think your designation of the later revelation as "clarification" is far too generous - it wasn't a clarification, it was an overhaul. I would expect a similar occurrence in the not too distant future as it pertains to the recognition of homosexual relationships. Perhaps it will be claimed as an additional, "clarifying" revelation, but I will understand it to be the Church (as it should) changing with the times.

3. I have looked at FARMS. I was referred to their work while I was involved in the church and raising questions regarding the aforementioned lack of genetic, linguistic, or archaeological evidence that would be expected were the historical teachings of the Church accurate. My reaction to FARMS and similar apologetic organizations is this: I am immediately suspicious of any of their findings simply because their science is done in reverse, ie, they already have their conclusion, and they then gather what they call evidence to support it, rather than objectively forming conclusions following said gathering of evidence. If you can provide for me a peer reviewed article, from FARMS or elsewhere that could verify any of the historical claims of the Church that fly in the face of conventional history and science, you would have my attention. 5. I agree that the desire to use drugs is not involuntary, if I previously insinuated as much I fully recant. If you believe that sexual desires are anything but involuntary, I think, with all due respect, you may not fully understand human biology. I also think your sweeping comparison between rape and other more socially acceptable forms of sexual expression is disingenuous. I do not know of any society or culture, past or present, in which rape was not roundly condemned as immoral. It follows then that the LDS church would condemn it as immoral. I am more specifically referring to masturbation, tongue kissing and groping. These things have not been condemned by every society past and present as reprehensible (I imagine because they are largely natural, biologically driven behaviors). My objection is telling young men and women that if they do such things, or even have thoughts of such things, they are morally transgressing.

Hi everyone, thank you all for your responses. I've been really busy these last few days and I haven't been able to post. I have read everything in here though, and I will get back to each and every one of you (hopefully this weekend). Anyway, just dropping in to let you know I hadn't forgotten or abandoned the thread. Best, - Helmer

I have to take off for a while, but I will certainly be back later. I see there is a response from Backroads I have not yet gotten to, and that will be the first order of business upon my return. I just want to thank everyone again for their open and informative responses. I am glad we can have a measured and mature dialogue here even in the presence of stark disagreement.

I don't believe recoiling from what is in my mind the ludicrous designation of "sinful" ascribed to premarital sexuality (even as it pertains to tongue kissing or groping) and masturbation is remotely analogous to expecting the Church to bend to the whims of the people. He was not explicitly told he could not attend services, but like I said, he was belittled and berated. He was made to feel extremely unwelcome. Alright? But I doubt I have said anything that would strike anyone as flatly unbelievable. If we are going to have a discussion here I suppose you will have to take my word for it.

1. I don't know about "bothered," but like I said, a lot of people have misguided ideas about the Church and it being strange or alien. My suggestion was the terminology can reinforce those notions. 2. No need for an apology. You are welcome to any position you like on the issue. 3. Right, but it is those pots, coupled with other artifacts, literature, paintings, biological remains, other tangible, empirical data, etc, that tell the story of history. Conclusions can be deduced from evidence, but they cannot be pulled out of thin air. 4. Fair enough. 5. The distinction I would draw here is that traffic laws are reasonably able to be followed, and do not counsel against biologically driven, nearly involuntary actions.

No problem, take your time. I think being so much closer to the situation than you were, I can address it with greater clarity. His honesty was what brought his involvement in the Church to an end. He wanted to continue to attend Church, derive from it the lessons he could, and be a contributing member of the community. He also wanted to pursue more earthly desires, and was not the type to lie about it. My criticism of the Church teachings here is that they push people into a corner with only two routes of escape - bad standing in the church, or dishonesty. I can also tell you that the individual in question is the among the kindest, most modest and humble people I have ever met. He is the antithesis of prideful.

Thank you for your response. What for you, personally, makes more sense/is more believable? 1. God reveals at one point in history that that black people cannot hold the priesthood, then later reveals that they can. or 2. The position of black people in the Church was and is the result of external social/cultural pressures. If you prefer not to answer the first phrasing of the question, ie, which is more believable, would you answer which of the two you believe to be true?

1. To me, the sense in changing it would be the potential broadening of the Church's appeal to outsiders, and the lessening of perpetuating false stigmas. 2. Could you speak more on this point? My objection is this, does not the recognition of the Book of Abraham as something it objectively is not cast into doubt the validity of other Church scriptures? 3. I would argue that history must be understood exclusively based on what we happen to have on hand, ie, evidence. Will you please clarify your opposing notion here. 4. Would you care to offer yours? 5. Right, that's what I see as the problem. The Church is shrinking its tent and casting out people who could be to them great assets because they are honest about being human. In my opinion, those people would serve the Church and its interests better than those being dishonest.

That would be my approach. Thanks for the response. Right. My point was that when these "men" are teenaged boys, it strikes some people as bizarre and hard to take seriously.