lostinwater

Oh, and i forgot to mention. This is a book that bishops handed out like candy - for years - to anyone coming in admitting sexual indiscretions.

Thanks. Nope, statements like these ones. But those are just two tiny passages from a giant book. The whole arc of the book though is one which, in my opinion, would leave most of the people who read it feeling a kind of hopelessly devastated self loathing that would prevent the person feeling like they are redeemable. i've witnessed a tiny portion of the destruction sentiments like these leave in their wake. Anyways, that's just my opinion. Not every person sees or feels the same thing reading the same words. "Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please, young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives." "Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle."

@Telemantros i think it largely depends on the person, and what's going on around and inside of them at the time. Some feel crushed, and others feel challenged. i've found many of the former type to be the kind of people who have already pushed themselves to the edges of their endurance. The crushed feeling comes from being told (usually by someone with good intentions) that their present maximum is insufficient. Honestly, i have found people who are good and bad in all the ways that matter both inside and outside TCOJCOLDS. For that matter, i know atheists who i consider some of the most Christlike people i've ever met. Beyond that. i use the word "hate" very rarely, but i'll gladly use it to describe my feelings towards much of the content in and overall tone in this book. In my opinion, it embodies the most caustic aspects of TCOJCOLDS. There's a really good reason it's out of print. Kimball's own son regrets that his father is remembered by so many because of this book. i find it to be much less about forgiveness than about a wholesale condemnation of sinners. "The Miraculously Motivating Power of Shame" seems a more apt title. Indeed, i've lost friends (some of the best, kindest, most generous people you'll ever meet) because they actually believed that Kimball was right when he said people were better off dead than having "sinned". Any time i see a copy in a thrift store, i buy it just to get it out of circulation.

@Taylor Richards i have left, but i have family who has not. So i guess i'm in the position of your sister - though i take more nuanced views of some of the topics you mention. i'm coming to acknowledge that religious belief is something we "choose" based on our emotions and justify based on our reason - but believe is the exact opposite. Trying to fix an emotional sense of betrayal and rejection with indignation, disappointment, appeals to the past, and intellectual arguments is not something i've seen work. As in not ever. Maybe that's not true for everyone, but it seems to me to be true more often than not. The suggestion i'd make (having never thought i'd have to stoop to something so cliched) is to stop trying to change her. It's been helpful to me to focus on the relationship. Or at least view it that way. That encourages healthy boundaries/respect and good interactions, rather than trying to change the other person - which almost inevitably poisons the relationship. i'll send you one interview i thought was good. i'm not allowed to post it directly, but not because of content - just because of the source. It's one with Phil Barlow. It's just a really thoughtful interview that acknowledges the realities both sides face. Though it might be good to wait several months before sharing it. It takes a very long time for most people to get over the feelings you've expressed your sister as having experienced. The odds of her watching anything you send her are going to be very small for now. Remember, ex-Mormons have stereotypes as to how Mormons treat someone who has left that are just as strong as the ones Mormons have about how ex-Mormons behave. We'd all be better off if we broke one another's stereotypes. Sorry to hear you are dealing with this. It's painful for everyone. All - sorry - i know i'm not supposed to use the term Mormon, but i couldn't make that sentence make any kind of sense to a person who is new any other way. If you want to see it formed another way, let me know, and i will be happy to change it.

+1 There's a lot of subtle messaging (ie image below, focus on temple marriage, having "good" friends, etc.,) that makes clear statements more or less unnecessary. And, if there is a culture in which most people believe that the evil world is out to get them, things are getting worse, people are persecuting us, that the end of the world is just around the corner - then ever and ever more subtle statements can be used while achieving the same effect. In fairness, i am not sure it's possible to have an "ideal" to which any kind of importance is attached, involve human beings, and avoid having something that feels like shunning happen every time that ideal is breached in ways the group deems as an unacceptable. And if the person believes the ideal is God-sanctioned, you can gain some super serious leverage with verses like Matthew 10:37. i'm not one who advocates throwing out ideals and societal norms (though anyone is welcome to accuse me of this again if they really just have to) - but the more you focus on the ideals, the more alienated people who don't adhere to them are going to feel. That's not a criticism - just an observation. i mean, i have ideals just like everyone else - and i don't except myself from my own observations. And the idea that people accept the person but not the sin presumes there is consensus on the part of both parties in terms of what constitutes person and what constitutes sin - usually not the case, from what i've seen.

Vort, Carborendum, and The Folk Prophet i disagree with you. However, i don't think any of you are naive or blind, or that we'd be better without you in this country. If (not saying you do) anyone can look at 150 some odd million of the people in the US and believe that about them - that's a sentiment i have a hard time understanding. And one whose fruits (historically speaking) have been pretty much exclusively disastrous.

Dup

Dup

Dup

@Vort Do you really believe this? Does anyone here really believe that one side shows any more hypocritical bias than the other? That this country would be better if only republicans or only democrats held positions of power? i mean, have we not read any of the history books? It's happened a thousand times before. France, Russia, Germany. Polarization and a lack of communication creating an "evil other". Let that perception fester for a decade or two, something horrible happens. Rinse and repeat.

Just sitting, or walking - depending on where i'm at - in public places (i know, hold on, keep reading). Discretely studying people's faces - especially their eyes - and just overall interactions with one another. It's seriously interesting - especially if you ponder on the why of it. You pretty much always come out of it with an improved state of mind. Especially recommended for introverts for whom the world is a confusing place. Don't worry, it's not *that* creepy. By the nature of the thing, nobody stays for long. i blame my starting to do this on videos like the one below (no, i never say anything to anyone). And i'd only recommend doing this if you are in a very, very, very large city. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZP6uJtgM34

That's very neat - and fascinating. Do you make either of them also?

The 11th Commandment. It's my favorite one to break - because whenever i break it, i can break all the others and not even notice.

So here is an interesting question - or perhaps more a conversation starter, because the answer is so subjective and depending on the circumstance, i don't think there could ever be a single answer. But what's the standard at which we (us, ourselves) say something happened? Do we need a judge in a courtroom to say it? Do we need to have seen it ourselves? Do we need to have a taped confession? Or a confession in video? Or a signed confession? Or do we need 3 separate people videotaping them signing their confession so we know that one of them didn't photoshop the whole thing together? i mean, none of us saw Jesus' crucifixion. There's actually some pretty crazy inconsistencies in the accounts of Jesus' life - gospels that never got included in the bible (for good reason). Does that mean Jesus didn't exist? Does that mean we need to withhold saying Pilate did anything wrong? Or did Judas really betray Christ? i mean, maybe one of the authors of the Gospel stole some figs, or forged some roman coinage. Saul had a pretty colored life - so can we really trust anything that Paul wrote? i mean, if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody was there, did it really make a sound. Like really, did it? i'm not saying that we toss every person in jail that gets accused of anything - so please don't accuse me of that. Just saying that both sides are definitely capable (and perhaps a bit culpable) of taking their point of view towards an illogical and extreme conclusion, or lack thereof.

Personally, i agree. Denson and Bishop seem to have transformed from human beings into symbols of "church" and "not church". And many/most are just advocating for their preferred symbol. i'm not sure that can be avoided. Our whole legal system seems to have recognized that with very serious cases, no one person can see the situation objectively - so both sides have legal counsel and then a jury decides. Perhaps the bias is inevitable, given the nature of the case. Though i dislike the message this sends to women who are abused (ie even if you have a taped confession, prepare to still not be believed). And also - if you abuse someone - even a taped confession won't be enough to convict you, as long as you can dig up some dirt to call the morality of your victim into question. i fully acknowledge there is a lot of unknowns about this whole thing, but i think those messages will be what most people hear. If anyone wants to know why most predators have multiple victims - you need look no further. Well, that, and our statute of limitations.

Thanks. And i guess that's all i am hoping for - that people can interact with one another from a starting place of respect, rather than one of negative, often inaccurate, generalizations. And that sword cuts both ways. It sounds like your friend is projecting their own negative generalizations about how society treats people like their child onto you. And that's wrong. Despite that, it sounds like you've handled your specific interaction with your characteristic grace and kindness. Props to you for that.

It's a good thing when people can do/talk as they wish. But i'd recommend you decide what you do based on the person, and not based on the usually unfounded associations you might have made between that person and the hyped up extreme youtube videos you've watched about people who are suing cake bakers, pushing through federal legislation advocating compelled speech, trying to desegregate bathrooms, and encouraging the kids in kindergarten to not decide what gender they are yet, etc.,. There is a 99% chance the person you are talking with has about as much to do with those movements as the average member of TCOJCOLDS has to do with the FLDS and Warren Jeffs, the current practice of polygamy, and blood atonement. And yes, i also agree that intersex people are very real and much more common than most people assume!! Great to hear them mentioned! Regardless, i am sad when i hear of cases where people either are forced, or feel forced. The people who ask/demand with both pistols drawn generate far more ill-will than they do genuine respect and acceptance. The latter i think is what most are really looking for - and that simply cannot be created through force.

Good questions! For your first query, the most satisfying answer i've found was from when Howard Storm asked Jesus why He created us. Howard said Jesus told him something that didn't make any sense - or that Howard was not able to understand. So Jesus came back and said that we were like flowers in God's Garden - and that God "planted" us so we could be beautiful. i suppose that's not the most sophisticated of answers, but it was the one that has made the most sense to me. Or i guess it was a motivation that made sense to me. For the second question, personally, i believe that everyone will be saved. The person will have to want it (and i am assuming that trillions of years of pain with an exit door to the wonderful nature of God's Love will bring the person around eventually), and the road will be rockier for some than others, but i think in the end, everyone will be. No idea on the third of the hosts of heaven, or if that is even real. Obviously, this is not anything close to TCOJCOLDS theology. For the third question, that one just makes my head hurt. How can God be our creator, our father, despite us being eternal beings that have always existed - all at once? i guess you could say He organized us, but to your point, why in that process of organization did He not organize us the way He wanted us, rather than organizing us in an inferior way and then seeing part of His creation go to hell as a result. Perhaps a person's essence is as much process as end result. And maybe the development/process part of a person is so complex that not even God Himself can create it. The fourth way, i guess that one i can understand why neither God nor us were pro-slavery. But i might be oversimplifying your question here. And if so, sincere apologies. i think that maybe some things were made unknowable on purpose because the thing that is desired is not knowledge (i mean, i know lots of people with knowledge in their brains that i am not all that fond of), but the process of wrestling with the unknown and actually becoming something. There really are questions our intellect can rail against with all their might, and yet never find an answer that really makes complete sense. It's as if the world was designed to ensure that. Like @anatess2 - i'd recommend some of Jordan B Peterson's books/thoughts. He really does a pretty spectacular job of reasoning through these questions. And even if you don't agree with his conclusions, the man lays out his logic really well. It's helped me specifically realize that just because many scriptural texts simply cannot be literal, that there is a value and even a kind of abstract reality on alternate planes to mythical stories. His 'debate' with a Sam Harris about 2 weeks in Vancouver BC is good - he lays that out there a lot, and his book Maps of Meaning is one i'm going through and finding pretty amazing.

Thanks @MormonGator And i hope nobody sees that as a whiny "that's not fair" complaint. Any belief is perfectly fair - i just don't think that what i perceive to be an overly reductive view of the nature of atheists/agnostics is particularly accurate. i think people really miss out on some beautiful people and unique, however occasionally infuriating, insights when they hold it. And, i'm not referring to myself. i'm referring to some of the most maligned names here - like Mr Dehlin, and many of the people whose stories he's told. And i'll also say that non-members who write members off as uneducated idiots (which sadly is a prevailing and at least as inaccurate view) are just as wrong and worse for not knowing many of the wonderful people here and in the thousands of wards all around the world!

Totally respect that!

i really think in the realms of belief it's at least as important *how* a person thinks than it is *what* a person thinks. i really dislike the stereotype that people who don't participate in organized religion/belief in the post-Nicene-creed version of God are somehow eat, drink, and be merry degenerates who can't see beyond the end of their noses. i'd really recommend that anyone who thinks that talk to one of these people. Give them 20 minutes to explain their "why" and "what they believe now" and i think you'll be really surprised. It is typically something bearing a lot of resemblance to the beatitudes of Jesus. If anything, i think the people who really take a nosedive after leaving their faith (whatever that might be) are the people whose actions were lashed exclusively to that dogma. Because when that turns out to be a facade, there is absolutely no logic, no reasoned belief that centers them in anything at all. And a lot of times that reasoned belief that is capable and willing to evaluate and reject what does not pass the muster of one's conscience/executive thought processes - that is called being a lukewarm Christian when you are in a faith. And for the record, i can't think of anyone here who strikes me as being this kind of shallow extremist - other than perhaps myself. And FWIW, i know very few atheists. There are far more agnostics than there are atheists. i'd say 90% or more of the people called atheists are agnostic. People who saw something they know evaporate right in front of them, and when that happens once - your ability to think that you "know" anything is shattered. It's not an easy thing to pick up the shattered fragments of your absolute knowledge and hobble something together that can still hold water.

Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond - a series of hypothesis about why and how the world developed as it did. Obviously, this is not written from the perspective of an orthodox Christian, but just hearing the author's thought processes and how our history about what the ancient world was like developed - i'd highly recommend. The Witness Wore Red - a autobiography of one of the wives of Rulon and Warren Jeffs. All i can say is, "wow", or maybe just "sad". What goes on in the name of God is truly horrific. i've read a bunch of books on the FLDS, and this is one of the most heartbreaking. The Polygamist's Daughter by Anna LeBaron - a story about one of the daughters of Ervil LeBaron - a fundamentalist "mormon" or orchestrated the murders of some of the people who left. Not sure what to say about this one, other than that it is sad. i guess i see stories like these as the "fruits" of polygamy. Troublemaker - Leah Remini's account of her association with Scientology. It's everything you would expect, with some interesting commentary on Hollywood stars like Tom Cruise. i think i liked the book by the leader's dad a bit better (Ruthless). In The Days of Rain - about a girl growing up in a faith that transitioned into something widely considered to be a cult as she was in it (The Brethren). Just to hear her dealing with it's effects on her - even after she exited is really sobering. It leaves me more convinced that one can believe just about anything, on a really deep level. Makes me frightened to believe anything - or ever get to a headspace in which you have enough fear to do things that don't feel right. Les Miserables - reread this one, unabridged (had read it before, but a long time ago). My recommendation to anyone else reading this is to read the abridged version. You could pull 3-4 50 page sections out of the text and lose absolutely nothing in terms of the original story. Hugo goes off on tangents about everything from Napoleon to the Paris sewer systems - and then you suddenly dive right back into the original storyline. i love this book though. There are parts of it that are just spectacular. One thing that really struck me this time was how different Eponine is in the book from the 2012 Movie. The Lucifer Effect by Phillip Zimbardo - don't read this one. i started it thinking it would talk about how to avoid being evil. This was the guy who ran the Stanford Prison Experiment But about a third of the way in, it just kept going deeper and deeper in to the ways in which the people were evil in his experiment. i had to quit reading it. The Swerve by Stephen Greenblatt - i wouldn't read this one either. It was the author's comments about Lucretius' "On The Nature of Things". i am probably simplifying the message, but it seemed to me to be a argument about how the recovery of this document allowed atheism to make the world the modern and sophisticated it is today. The Wisdom of Sundays - Oprah bringing several of her favorite self-help authors on and doing short interviews with them. If you want a really concise summary of the main new-age sort of self-help authors out there, this would be a great listen. Discrimination and Disparities by Thomas Sowell - a treatise on why what we call discrimination isn't actually discrimination and why disparities are not bad - with the 1-2 punch being that politicians shouldn't try and change what they don't understand. Definitely makes some good points about the incorrectness in the way the statistics justifying such actions are gathered. Jesus Before The Gospels and Forged by Bart Ehrman about how Jesus was not like many people think, and also a description of how the Bible was made. i liked the second of these two books a lot better. The first one he sort of looks at what other documents are available at the time of Christ about how other people/Roman leaders did things and then invalidates much of the gospels by saying that Jesus would have acted in the same way. It seemed sort of a weak argument. But, the second one i recommend reading. i'm amazed at how little i still know about how the religious texts we ascribe so much meaning to were actually written, compiled, refined, etc., - decision made as to what was included/excluded, Ben Behind His Voices by Randye Keye - the story of a young man who develops schizophrenia. It is written by his mother, and details the whole journey - development, diagnosis, setbacks, and how life looks in the long term., Anyone who is touched by schizophrenia in any way i think would benefit from reading it. 12 Rules for Life by Jordan Peterson - a little too "cold" for me. He makes some amazing points, and there is a ton of wisdom in the book. It's hard to argue with anything he says - there is just an incredibly preciseness and clarity of speech. But i think if a person lived exactly as it recommends, you'd not feel much warmth. i am listening to Maps of Meaning - and i think i wish i had listened to this one first. Inferior - How Science Got Women Wrong by Angele Saini - i am not sure all her arguments fit together. Part of it is talking about how women are superior to men on many levels because they are different (true! ) and the rest of it about how women actually are no different than men at all, but are actually more man-like than the men are, and then how we shouldn't have any gender stereotypes at all. Fear: Trump In The White House by Bob Woodward - i try to approach these books with a degree of skepticism - but just looking back and remembering the headlines - it sure seems to make a lot of sense. It paints a very bleak picture. i think most of what's in there is true - but i am sure there are plenty of good things they are not reporting. If I Can't Have You By Gregg Olsen - a book about Susan Powell. Our family was in their ward, and i knew her a little (she was much older). This one is a tale of depravity. Unless you are looking to hear about the worst kinds of depravity or have some personal tie to this story, i wouldn't recommend it. The story needed to be told, though.

Thanks @SilentOne i am just speaking for myself and the experiences of many of the people i've known. i've tried to say that many times, but will happily repeat it in this response again.

Thanks @zil Well, i must admit, i am baffled. The idea of a child (or young adult) being probed with questions like that, usually alone, with a man they very often barely know, but are told speaks for God seems to sprint past anything that resembles acceptable (in any situation). But that's just me, and i respect that others may see it differently.

Thanks @Fether No, it doesn't. Maybe i'm thinking wrong, but i guess if one assumes the people are being honest, whether they are members of TCOJCOLDS shouldn't matter. i don't imagine many of people who were abused by Catholic priests are particularly huge fans of the Catholic church - but i hope that doesn't mean the Pope discounts them as lying sour-grapes degenerates. And if one assumes they are being dishonest, then could you trust how they identify themselves?