Mormonheart

Jane Doe, I just tried to explain how it all began. And what I think about some things. If it hurts your feelings (or someone else's), I'm sorry. But since I wrote to the bishop, I feel a freedom in me that I did not know before. As everywhere in life, and as a German proverb says, "the tone makes music", or, in other words, with another German proverb: "How to call into the forest, so it echoes." This means, in the plain text, that if everyone is able to adapt to a friendly and subtle level, and criticism can be voiced and discussed, I am there. An example: Let us suppose that in the media there was a report on child abuse in the church, hidden by local church leaders (bishop or stake president) before the judiciary, and which had now been made public. And I would address the topic "child abuse" in the forum. If I would to accuse the local Church leaders, and you want to defend or relativize them, I would not have a problem with them, provided that everything remained at a factual and not insulting level. By the way, the subject of child abuse was chosen as an example because I myself was affected (father and uncle), and then (in the seventies), the bishop blamed me. .

I tried to explain that? Do not you listen, or is my indulgence so bad? At point 2, please complain to Google Translate. Maybe another reason is that I already miss the church. I criticize the church, but I miss it. Sounds strange, right? I have had many wonderful experiences in the church, and I have met many wonderful people, which I shall never forget! But is it worth the price to remain in a church that deceives its members, manipulates them (Proposition 8 in California), and excludes all those who make this public because of "apostasy"? Definitely not!

I wanted to prove myself. I wanted to prove that the influence of the Church in my thinking is no longer so strong. I was wrong. But to err is human! I am bisexual, so find both men and women attractive. I thought in my naivete, I could go into a lesbian bar, and get to know lesbian women. When I stood outside the door of the lesbian bar, I got conscience. Not because the HG told me something, but because I thought about my family in the LDS church. I went back. I am still critical of the church. Do you know how it all began? I researched about Helmuth Hübener, and found out that the church had lied about Nazitime. My first thought was that the Church can not lie, so my sources had to be wrong. I checked everything a second, a third, and a fourth time. Then I had to recognize that the church in the case of Hübener lied. If she lied in the case of Hübener, then perhaps in other cases? I began to deal with the history of the Church and came upon many inconsistencies and lies of the Church, but also of their opponents. I was confused, fasted, and prayed, and asked God for enlightenment. She did not come. No "burning in the bosom", no sudden thought, only a great emptiness. I wondered if I had asked the wrong questions? I tried again. And lo and behold, everything suddenly became clear before my eyes. And I knew that, as one says in Germany, "the fish stinks from the head". And I must leave the church. I wrote a letter to my bishop, explaining my reasons. So if I can stay here, I will critically comment on the things that I have found in my research. And otherwise I will answer as I think it is right. In the case of Savannah means that I support her. I've seen on TLC an interesting story about JAZZ, a transsexual girl. Her parents support her unconditionally. I wondered what would happen if Jazz and her family were members of the church? I'm sure Jazz would not be a member any more, and everyone in the family who supports her, too. And why? Because the Church has something against the subject of transsexuality because the theme would lead the entire system of belief in pre-existence and the established gender roles ad absurdum. There are transgenders already in ancient times! Another example of the fact that the Church is mistaken and science triumphs. If that is, then German members have made it all the decades wrong. An example: About three years ago, I was not as critical as I am today, I was in a testimony meeting when an old woman got up to give her testimony. She said that she had had flatulence for days, and had to fart a lot, which was unpleasant for her and others. She had prayed to God, and suddenly the flatulence and farts ceased. She concluded that God answered prayers. I thought it was funny at the time to imagine that God would take care of the flatulence and farts of old women. Then, at least in Germany, only a few would turn to the microphone. Mostly, I always hear phrases about the gratitude to be in the church, or that God helps one to get through the tithing despite the tithing. Or, the HG warned one before reading church-critical books. Such a nonsense.

A testimony meeting has only one purpose: sharing one's own feelings and experiences with the gospel, and their teachings. Correct? What Savannah did was exactly the purpose. Should she have been silent, or should she be blessed as a member of the Church? Have you ever seen Savannah in her face while she spoke? I lift it up! I have seen a frightened but brave girl, excited, because of the testimony, anxiously looking at the reactions of the mostly bored listeners (the body language has betrayed it), and hurt and sad when the microphone was turned off. Children, like all people in the Church, want to be loved and accepted. They want to be accepted as they are. Savannah is possibly lesbian. So what? I see NO PROBLEM, except, she is practiced it. I love irony and pointy remarks, but I feel this as out of place because there is no connection between Savannah's case and the quote from the Book of Mormon. Where has Savannah sinned? Because she was a lesbian? Because they did it in a testimony meeting? And thus something critical has said? The world is not just white or black. It is colorful. There are not only heterosexual people, not just people who follow stubborn rules, no matter if they are good or bad (in Germany, we've gained more than enough experience)! I do not know if Savannah and / or her parents are still members of the Church. I think they are no longer. But I hope they have not been excommunicated, because such people need the Church! People who say what they think. People who are free in themselves, and question things to come to a better understanding of the Gospel. This is my opinion in any case. I have no problems with other people's opinions, provided they are factually founded. "Because the church says," I do not admit, because the Church history of mankind, and our church has repeatedly shown that religion can be wrong (see the example of Galilei). And Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other prophets of the church were also wrong sometimes. To err is human, it is said here in Germany. As I have been critical of our church since December last year, I note that I no longer want to be a member of the Church. That is why, on Monday, a month ago, I had written a letter to my bishop asking for my resignation from the church. Today a letter from the church (from my bishop) has come. It says that I was excommunicated for spreading false doctrines. To my reasons, which I called him, he did not answer. So now I am officially no longer a member of the Church. I'm sure my Account will be blocked here. Therefore I would like to take the opportunity to give you my testimony: I know the Church is true, but I also know that the Bishop acted because he was afraid of the consequences I would talk with members about it. I never wanted that. I just wanted to go quiet. No one in the Church would know anything about the real reasons. And I say this in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen PS: I'm still bisexual, but now I can live it. But it is too late for it.

Never heard of the law of "cause and effect"? An example: Two children are playing in the sandbox. One child (A) takes the bucket away from the other child (B). Child B wants his bucket back, child A wants to keep him, whereupon child B hits child A. What is the cause (child A has stolen the bucket)? What is the consequence (child B hits back)? Anyone who claims that a homosexual member of the Church is himself responsible for suicide without taking into account the circumstances leading to suicide is either blind, ignorant, or without compassion. It is polite to let a man talk. After his speech one can show his own view. Imagine if we were both in a discussion round, and I would interrupt you continually, because I do not like what you say? It is a sign of good behavior to let a man talk! I know a testimony is not a discussion! But here too, as everywhere in the Western and Christian world, it is rude to interrupt someone who is talking. In my opinion, she has not proclaimed "false doctrines", but only said what is in her heart, even if she had to write it down before. This can not be used to wipe historical facts from the table! A prophet can tell us that women TODAY must not have the priesthood, but he can not say that it was so in early Christianity. In the University Library of Vienna, Austria, there is a fragment from Paul's letter to the Romans. Dated to 89 AD. In it a woman is called an apostle. Her name is Junia. John Chrysostom, a well-known Catholic church, says about her; "To be an apostle is something great. But famous among the Apostles - remember what great praise this is. How great must have been the wisdom of this woman that she was worthy for the title of Apostle. " But women were not only apostles in the early Church. They builded house churches and lead them, were bishops and deacons. In the Catholic Church women could be deacons until the 6th century. But I notice that I revert to my favorite subject. The reason I was concerned with the biblical passages on homosexuality was, on the one hand, this discussion here, and on the other hand, because I really wanted to know what the Bible says. Does the word "TO'EBAH" tell you something? Also known under the name ABOMINATION, is often cited in Leviticus. To'ebah, however, does not describe any sin, such as murder, robbery, rape, but what is socially and morally objectionable. What made you impure. To get back clean, you had to take a ritual bath, the so-called "mikwe". After that you were again acceptable. This is just one of many examples. This requires no revelations from God, not a prophet, but just a good ancient-Hebrew dictionary, and common sense. For me, this dictionary is worth gold! Because the authors who have worked on it are all scientists who are well versed in the ancient Greek language. Another example (just as good as driving): Tell you the term "Malakoi" (Malakee) something: Luther translated it correctly as "catamite". It is very closely related to temple prostitution. Many in the US translate the word as a (passive) homosexual. This is nonsense! I quote: John MacArthur admits that the context of 1 Cor 6 was temple prostitution. Describing Corinthian Christians in the first century AD, he writes: "They also lived in a society that was notoriously immoral, a society that, in the temple prostitution and other ways, actually glorified promiscuous sex. To have sexual relations with a prostitute was so common in Corinth that the practice came to be called "Corinthianizing." Many believers had formerly been involved in such immorality, and it was hard for them to break with the old ways and easy to fall back into them... it was also hard for them to give up their sexual immorality." (he is a conservative Calvinist Pastor. What does this word really means? I quote (same source as above, Link): However, that malakoi means male prostitutes in Paul's usage is unlikely since Paul has already mentioned pornoi, meaning male prostitutes, in this vice list. Because Paul's reasoning is tight and his writing style spare, it is unlikely Paul would repeat himself by using malakoi with the meaning of male prostitutes. English translations did not translate malakoi to mean homosexual until the Amplified Bible in 1958. Interesting, isn't it? Malakoi was before translate as "weak" effeminate", yes, also as "masturbation" by English Bible Translators. There was, I do not know whether you know it, two apostolic colleges in ancient Christianity. The inner circle was the twelve apostles known to us all. The "outer" circle included both men and women. Among them was Junia. Everything has long been scientifically proven. So, Junia and other women were APOSTLES. I do not blame you before; that you do not know better. I did not know better before. Then I found in a bookshop, a book whose title attracted me magically. It was the book "God, a woman?," by Elga Sorge. She gave me titles of scientific books, where I could continue to research. The book itself was worthless for me. If you love someone, feel attracted to someone, the desire, have sex with that person, comes mostly naturally. But is is OUR CHOICE, if we did it, or did it not!

This young girl, Savannah, did not want to proclaim "false doctrines," but merely say what she feels. Not more but also not less. I have looked at some biblical quotes on homosexuality on the basis of the discussion and I come to the conclusion that the authors of the Bible understood something else under the topic, than we did. I have, as a reference book, the standard work of the theologians, "Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament", which I possess (a lot of books!), to see; what some words really mean. Very interesting, and a new light is also on my own bisexuality! I criticized my former bishop years ago because he had no idea of a topic, but pretended to have eaten "the wisdom with spoons", as one says in Germany. He criticized me because I have convicted him as a priesthood holder, what would a woman of the church never done. What an A ***! But I had to disagree, because this birthright of male intelligence meant that women never had authority in Christendom, that is, the priesthood. I made it clear to him, by means of theological and historical researches, that women were even apostles in early Christianity, and I mentioned the apostle Junia, who became Juneas in the twelfth century. My former bishop, whose first name should be Bernd instead of "ignorance," said to end the discussion that God had told him. This weakness misuses God to justify his own ignorance. Yes, you understood correctly. I am in favor of giving women the priesthood, as in the first centuries of Christendom. By no means did Savannah say that church doctrines were wrong. She said what she felt, no more, but not less. To put it in my words, your main intention, in addition to her confession of being gay, was that she would like the members of the church not to shun her, or to think that she is a bad person. This is NOT Church criticism, this is chritisism of how members handle this topic. This transsexual woman, of whom I had already spoken, was able to talk because German people in the church are polite to each other, even if we do not share the opinions of others. I'm not sure about that. My former Bishop was very interested in "sexual confessions" Once again, for all the countrymen, Savannah expressed only two things in this fast and testimony meeting: on the one hand that she is a lesbian (or she thinks she is); And on the other hand, that she do not want to be discriminated in the church.Two reasons for me. Love knows many expressions. Physical / sexual, is just one of many. I know two Catholic nuns who love each other, but both hold the chastity-vow of their coven. So, Savannah can also be lesbian, love someone, and be loved, and still comply with the rules of the Church. To be a lesbian does not mean to fall as a vampire on other women, and to suck them out. To make it clear to you from the US: I do not condemn Savannah. Not because she's lesbian, not even because of the video, for a simple reason. She is young, still needs to find her place in the world. Maybe she is happily married to a man in ten years, has four children, a house and a dog? Or, on the other hand, she is in ten years a lesbian, and had leave the church. It is HER CHOICE, not our choice! Among my clients were children who stole, children who raped other children, and a child who lit a dog when he was sleeping. I've tried to understand why they did that. And often I found out the cause. "My" clients, whom I looked at as my children, I have always made clear that their actions harm them and others, and therefore can not be tolerated. On the other hand, I tried to do everything to help them. Not to justify them and their deeds, for there was nothing to justify; But to change their behavior. So that they can see why they are doing something (frustration, contempt, as a child, being victims of violence / rape), and develop strategies. Sometimes I was successful, sometimes not. Would Savannah have been silent? The usual phrases to say a testimony meeting? Maybe it was? Perhaps I could even agree with you? On the other hand, this video also presents a problem. Homosexual people have it hard in the church. In my former Ward, there was once a priesthood holder who said he is gay. Just that he is, not that he has practiced it. He was married, father of three children. As a result, he was shunned by the members, and young people (at the time I was 20 years old) were no longer allowed to give dance lessons. His marriage was divorced; he could neither see the children nor send them anything. One day I heard that he had taken his own life. I learned from his former wife that he had left a farewell letter in which he wrote that he could no longer endure the exclusion of family and church. Since then, I have often wondered whether the Church is not complicit in the homicide/suicide of homosexual members? Whether not a better deal with the subject, would prevent suicide? I, too, was on the verge of suicide, because I loved it-in the eyes of the church, the wrong person. Another woman.

Life is hard, but I'm harder!

A church / chapel, is not a temple! It requires the courtesy of letting people talk to the end. It also shows respect. One does not have to be the same as a speaker, but by letting him finish, I pay him respect, and I can expect it from him. In Germany is our attitude different from members in the USA. BTW: What do you think about the latest revelations about Donal's "Fake News" Trump, and the connection of his son to Russia?

I have, when I was still professionally active, worked for a while in the social welfare. There I had much to do with neglected children and young people. A difficult but also fulfilling time. Children in Savannah's age do not think about the consequences of their actions, they only think about what they feel at the moment, and want to do. In the Tribune I saw a picture of Savannah, who participated in Christopher Street Day (also called Gay Pride), in SLC. When she is a lesbian, I wish her the best of luck and support in her life, and that she will find people who accept her as she is. And I would wish; That the Church and their members do not shun or excommunicate Savannah and her family but learn from it. In Germany we have a proverb: "Children and Drunk say always the truth".

I hope so! In the script, I am mainly concerned with what is so beautifully described in the musical "The Book of Mormon," in the song "Turn it Off". The ability to hide things from themselves. So Brian gets to know a former member that gives him criticism about the Church, and he tries to ignore what he has heard, but can not. With the "turn it off" it works. Or Gerd, who learns that his mother will soon die of cancer (which she has concealed), leaving the mission without permission from the mission president because he did not make the "turn it off" and is disguised from the mission. And his girlfriend separates from him. BTW, it is not all fiction, some parts are based on own experiences.

A 12 year old girl who loves his parents, the church, and himself, wants to say something. Something that is very dear to her heart. She is a lesbian, at least she believes that. Maybe she is, maybe not. She just wanted to say what is in her heart. For this, a testimony meeting is in fact as well! For me, it is a brave little person who tries to do the right thing for herself, regardless of how it affects others inside and outside the church.

Have you ever been twelve years old? Thrilled by something? Savanna wanted to hold that testimony, not her parents, not an organization for homosexuals, just Savannah. And the parents helped her because they were good parents. A question: Can not you have your own opinion in the church? Is it forbidden to think independently in the church? Just as I understand the rules of the Church, and, as the gospel is taught, I think that we are very right. We can disagree with the church or the prophet, but it is up to us whether we want to follow the prophet or someone else. An example: Years ago there was a large court case in Germany, including members of the church (including bishops and a former stake president), the so-called "WABAG" Trial. People, members of the church, bought shares from WABAG, Buy WABAG's products, because the local Bavarian leaders of the church wanted to. Today, we know that it was a fraudulent company, and the members of the Church who were campaigning for it were both perpetrators and victims. Joseph Smith once said meaningfully that he was a prophet only if he were acting as one, otherwise he would be a faulty man, as we all. Is it good to be gay? As an identity, it is not bad (not as good as heterosexuality, but okay), but whoever lives it is on the wrong side. After all, in addition to the negative gospel effects, exuberant homosexuality brings one thing: loneliness and misfortune, coupled with suicide thoughts and hatred for the church. I know what I'm talking about! I've been through it all at a young age. Not the parents, Savannah wanted to give this testimony. I want to tell you a story. A true story. She stood in the tribune of Salt Lake City years ago. A gay member of the church, a teenager aged 15, told his parents that he is gay. The reaction of parents? The father beat him, and threw him out of the house, leaving the boy homeless. To survive, he had to sell, prostitute himself. In doing so, he is addressing a man, whether he is a member of the Church or not, because I know the case is fifteen years ago, who raped him and killed him. What would have happened if the parents had acted differently? He would still be alive, would not have to prostitute himself. When I said we should love and support our children unconditionally, I do not mean that we should be good at their deeds if they are bad in our eyes. It means that we help our children, but always consider them as independent beings, just as Kahil Gibran expressed it so beautifully in his poem "The Prophet". How about: "I love you because you are a wonderful person with many talents, you say you're gay / lesbian / transsexual, well, I do not understand it and it's against everything I believe in And I will give it to you because I love you.If you are old enough and find someone who loves you and whom you love, I am glad for you, but I will I am very happy to accept this love, because it is against the commandments of God, and there is a time when things change, when you, with me, with God, there is enough time to think about it again. " That would be loving, supportive, but also clear and honest. If my son were like this, I would call the police, get him a good lawyer, and make it clear to him that I would still love him, but his crime would be abominable, and he must stand straight for his action.

And best of all, it is evidenced by facts! I am not writing a screenplay about Helmuth Hübener because I read that a film exists, or is to be prepared (with H.J.Ormond as Helmuth Hübener). The script I'm working on is about three missionaries. A woman from Austria, Sandra, a man from Germany, Gerd, and an American from Utah, Brian (so called my former mission president in Vienna). A script, like a book, lives from conflicts, internal as well as external conflicts. And all three missionaries have conflicts. With himself, with employees, with the mission president. And history shows how conflicts they have, and how these are solved. I only reveal so much: a person is excommunicated, a person leaves the church, and a person remains in the church.

The devaluation of the traders from the Temple of Jerusalem had a completely different background from the speech of a twelve-year-old girl, who had cut off the microphone. Jesus acted rightly, for it was his house, and that of his father. And there should be no enrichment. Neither the merchant nor the Pharisee. The man who exhibited the microphone would have had to have it put to an end (or is there no freedom of speech in the US since Trump no longer?), And then to answer it by loving the position of the church in a loving manner , That's what I criticize! The problem is, that you see the term "bisexual" as a political term. I see it just as a word, which describes me. I guess, that, what you mean is "bi-gender/bi-sex", that we got both sex/gender in us. And the way, whe are trained in our live, shows us, if we are more male, female, or "in between". Sounds more like a lesbian than a bisexual woman. On the other hand, love knows many forms of expression, and physically attracted to someone is only one of many choices.

Church members are people, and like all people, they sometimes make wrong decisions. I'm writing movei scripts as a hobby. There is a storyline, a tension curve, which keeps the viewer at line. I would like to write a screenplay about Helmuth and his "Gang". For his life is very interesting, and shows us how it was then in Nazi Germany for the church. Did you know, for example, that the Scout program of the church was not closed until May 1934 (by force of the Government), the scout programs of other churches much earlier (from September 1933 to March 1934), and that missionaries trained the German basketball team for the Olympics 1936? Or, that a mission president in the "Volkischer Beobachter" (Nazi newspaper) wrote an article about the church, which was later given as a brochure by the missionaries? Or that the church helped the Nazis with their genealogy program? All this I found out as a supplementary information when I studied the life of Helmuth Hübener. By the way, the branch president, who excommunicated Helmuth, went to Utah after the war, where he taught football to young people. During his lifetime, he was afraid that the Jewish secret service had kidnapped him (because of the Schwartz siblings). An unjustified fear.