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.

From my thread the other day: http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/54151-there-room-genuine-dissent-board.html Thank you, Eowyn, I will do precisely that. I have for years counted several Mormon people among my closest friends. Some of them are regular churchgoers, partaking weekly of the sacrament, some are "Mormon" in name alone, and others fall in between. I know there exists a good deal of prejudice against the church, but fortunately for me, I never encountered any of this until well after I had met and befriended several people from an LDS background. Therefore my personal experiences with them, discussions regarding Church and Doctrine, etc, colored my opinions of the faith before I heard a lot of the ignorant, propagandist, anti-Mormon rhetoric. To make a long story short, a few years ago, for several months, I began attending services with some of my Mormon friends. I was and still am a naturalist, but for whatever reason, at that time in my life I felt compelled to get in touch with some form of spirituality. My attendance of LDS services was largely a function of the only church going friends I had being Mormon. On the whole, the experience was overwhelmingly positive. I was welcomed with open arms, treated with respect and courtesy, and felt like I was deriving real benefits from my attendance. Despite never believing any of the Church's supernatural claims about the universe, I thought that the religious aspect of the faith was a positive force in my life. I began to consider Sunday mornings and afternoons a time specifically devoted to self reflection, gratitude, and meticulously considering my mistakes from the previous week in order I could avoid them during the next. The experience was so positive, and I would even say powerful, that I began meeting with the missionaries outside of Church service times. The missionaries with whom I met were friendly, courteous, respectful, and decidedly mature for their ages. I enjoyed and valued the time I spent with them. Again, I could never accept any of the spiritual or supernatural claims made by the church, but for me its value was that of a community of positive, similarly goaled individuals who were accountable to themselves and one another. Eventually, I saw that my involvement in the Church had stagnated. I recognized that I could not be convinced of the Truth of the Church, and the missionaries, while I enjoyed their company, having the primary goal of baptizing new members, would better spend their time working with others. This concluded my formal involvement with the Church. So, having been forthcoming with my many praises for the Church, and having received candid/documented permission to voice dissenting opinions within the rules from a senior moderator, I will now do so. Here are a number of my concerns, I will move from least to most significant: 1. The bizarre/arcane sounding terminology Not a huge deal, but off putting to some to be sure. It struck me as obvious that a group already (wrongly) considered by many to be some sort of dark cult, would do better to use designations such as "mens/womens group," rather than "Relief Society" and "Elders' Quorum." On that note, referring to teenaged boys as "elders?" Come on! 2. The Book of Abraham Despite its demonstrable nature of not being what Joseph Smith claimed it was, it is still regarded by the faithful as divine revelation. 3. The absolute lack of any genetic (with regard to the heritage of American Indians), linguistic (with regard to the language of the American Indians), or archaeological (with regard to artifacts/animals that would be expected to exist were the Mormon texts historically accurate) evidence supporting the historical claims made by the Church. That whole Black Thing. I am not here singling out the LDS church as being unique in its mistreatment of any group as it pertains to race, sex, or creed. It is the lack of acknowledging/apologizing for this mistake that sits so poorly with me. As I said, nearly any organized group, whether political, corporate, or religious, has in the past or in the present mistreated marginalized groups. However, the better part of them have adapted to the changing world, made apologies, and moved on. The LDS stance regarding the refusal of granting black men the highest level of priesthood, as I understand it, is not that the Church had made an enormous mistake in the past despite its later and necessary reformation, but that it was in fact divine revelation from God stipulating this position, and a later divine revelation from God following the Civil Rights Movement that finally granted the ability for black men to obtain the priesthood. Again, Come on! 5. All or Nothing, and the Culture of Shame and Dishonesty This was probably the hardest pill for me to swallow with regard to the beliefs and practices in the LDS Church. I'll start with a story from one of my closest friends. He grew up in the Church, treated everyone well, served a mission, and was universally liked and respected within the Church. In his young adulthood, being the intelligent and cordial individual he was, he was recruited to take on more involved callings, and possibly being groomed for a position of leadership. What put his involvement in the Church to a halt? His honesty. Being interviewed by the Bishops, he spoke with them candidly, and much to their dismay, about his life outside of Church. Without going into any detail, he did some of the things most men in their early twenties do that would make them ineligible for Temple attendance or good standing in the LDS Church. They asked him if he was trying to stop doing those things, he said no. They asked him if he WOULD stop doing those things, he said no. He told them that he loved the Church, loved its members, and wanted to continue his involvement as he had to this point. He was dressed down, brow beaten, screamed at, and essentially told he was no longer welcome. What followed was the ugly ostracizing far too common among apostates. I also had experiences with some of these issues. Taking Church services and rituals very seriously, I took supreme offense at members claiming to be in good standing and taking the sacrament when I knew this not to be true. The standards are just too unreasonable. The fact that even tongue kissing or groping (as they bring on sexually explicit thoughts) are off the table is shocking. Making this worse is that even masturbation is disallowed, discouraged, and described as sinful. These circumstances put young Church members in a hideously unenviable position, ie, admit to being human, and subject to their biology, pass on the sacrament, and label themselves "the bad kids," or lie. My friend took what was in my opinion (and I hope you will agree) the moral high ground, and paid a heavy price. This made it even harder for me to watch dozens of Church members claim to be in good standing and taking the sacrament despite my knowing this to be untrue as a result of their violation of any church standards (R rated movies, substance use, sexuality, etc). So those are some of my concerns with the Church. It is not my intention to insult anyone or hurt their feelings. I would just like to hear your thoughts on these observations. Only the Best, - Helmer

Fair enough. I hope that is all true.

Perhaps I should have worded that more carefully and stated it, "When compared to the insight I have gained from non G rated material, the amount of insight I have gained from G rated material is nearly nonexistent." That should be self evident, as G rated material, by its very nature, cannot meaningfully address an enormity of the most important issues with which we humans grapple. Additionally, please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I never said I didn't like the rules here, and I never said I intended on breaking them. I just wanted to make sure that I will be allowed to give my ideas voice, no matter how controversial, provided I play by the rules.

I see. That is certainly your choice, but I see it as a great shame. When I consider all of the books I have read, music I have listened to, and films I have watched, the amount of insight I gained from the G rated stuff is almost nonexistent. That was the concern. I know we are not to discuss the particulars of bans and infractions on the public board, but I have also seen people taken out without seeming to have broken any rules. I guess I just wanted to get this out there, so if I do go down for engaging in a spirited discussion, without breaking any rules, we can all recognize it for what it was.

Thanks, Eowyn. I'll give them another reading. You never did get back to me with regard to A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of thrones. I know you like fantasy, but you also seem to take your faith and the standards thereof seriously. Have you read the books or watched the show? They Are Incredible.

There are a lot of ideas floating around that really don't jive with me, and I'd just like to know whether I can discuss their specifics without fear of getting axed. I've seen a few people seemingly get banned for respectfully expressing unpopular views. I'd like to believe I am free to do just that, but will not if that means getting banned. It seems to me if people here truly have courage in their convictions, they would not fear subjecting their beliefs to authentic scrutiny.

So do you think I have the skills?

"I like it." Yikes. This seems a slippery slope. Would you care to add any qualifiers before I point out why I find this notion so problematic.

What if the wearer is not balding? Well I put myself out there, do you count me among them?

I've always thought the comb over got a lot of unnecessary hate. I'll go as far as saying it's a viable style even for someone who hasn't lost their hair.