Some of my Concerns with the Church

[Klein_Helmer]

From my thread the other day:

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/54151-there-room-genuine-dissent-board.html

Keep the rules, play nice, and everything will be peachy.

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

Edited June 18, 2013 by Klein_Helmer

[Wingnut]

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."

When conversing with friends and acquaintances who are not LDS, I make a point of using more generic terminology, so as not to alienate or confuse. I have a friend who is the exact opposite, though: she only uses the culturally-specific terminology, in an effort to make people ask her what it means, which then gives her teaching opportunities. I prefer to talk with my friends, not at them.

[Connie]

I'm not sure how much you have been taught about the priesthood, but Elder is an office within the priesthood. Not sure if you knew that or not, but that is why so many men are frequently referred to as Elders, that's the office they hold within the priesthood.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Connie

[Klein_Helmer]

When conversing with friends and acquaintances who are not LDS, I make a point of using more generic terminology, so as not to alienate or confuse. I have a friend who is the exact opposite, though: she only uses the culturally-specific terminology, in an effort to make people ask her what it means, which then gives her teaching opportunities. I prefer to talk with my friends, not at them.

That would be my approach. Thanks for the response.

I'm not sure how much you have been taught about the priesthood, but Elder is an office within the priesthood. Not sure if you knew that or not, but that is why so many men are frequently referred to as Elders.

Right. My point was that when these "men" are teenaged boys, it strikes some people as bizarre and hard to take seriously.

[Backroads]

1. To each his own. I figure they are called what they are called, no sense in changing it.

2. I have no strong opinions on this, other than there seems to be a lot of claiming that it was claimed something.

3. You can't base a whole history as existing on what you happen to have on hand.

4. There are a million and one theories on the whole black thing.

5. Your friend was treated very poorly. Unfortunately, we don't care for the whole "lukewarm" thing where hypocrisy is celebrated. The fact is, your friend willfully chose to disobey commandments. This has no bearing on all the good he is and that he has done, but he can't turn down his nose on certain things and deem them "not important".

[skippy740]

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!

I have a lot of posts on this subject in the forum. However, I will only post the updated introduction to OD2

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church.

During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood.

Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent.

Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

This was shared in March of this year. Is it an apology? No.

Has the Church ever 'apologized' for anything? The closest I've heard of is the Mountain Meadows Massacre... 150 years ago. Maybe we'll have to wait 150 years before something more formal is given? I don't know.

[Klein_Helmer]

1. To each his own. I figure they are called what they are called, no sense in changing it.

2. I have no strong opinions on this, other than there seems to be a lot of claiming that it was claimed something.

3. You can't base a whole history as existing on what you happen to have on hand.

4. There are a million and one theories on the whole black thing.

5. Your friend was treated very poorly. Unfortunately, we don't care for the whole "lukewarm" thing where hypocrisy is celebrated. The fact is, your friend willfully chose to disobey commandments. This has no bearing on all the good he is and that he has done, but he can't turn down his nose on certain things and deem them "not important".

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.

[Wingnut]

What put his involvement in the Church to a halt? His honesty.

Sorry, I didn't read all the way to the end on my first pass. I will make a comment about this specific part of the story about your friend, though.

His honesty is in no way what brought his involvement in the Church to a halt. His refusal to obey the commandments of God, his prideful and unrepentant attitude, his apparent disregard for commitments and covenants he had made, and his choice to not do what it took to change any of that, are what brought his involvement in the Church to a halt.

[Klein_Helmer]

I have a lot of posts on this subject in the forum. However, I will only post the updated introduction to OD2

This was shared in March of this year. Is it an apology? No.

Has the Church ever 'apologized' for anything? The closest I've heard of is the Mountain Meadows Massacre... 150 years ago. Maybe we'll have to wait 150 years before something more formal is given? I don't know.

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?

[Backroads]

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.

1. That's fair and I can see your point. Then again, we've had other faiths using the term "pastor" for two thousand years. And that's just one example. Is it really a huge number of people bothered by these terms?

2. I honestly don't know enough about the Book of Abraham's coming about nor even care enough about it to answer this. Sorry.

3. I'm just saying that people in times past did far more than leave behind evidence. You can't say "we found three pots at this historical dig; therefore, these people only made three pots in the existence of their culture."

4. I have no theory. There are too many with not enough evidence for me to pick one.

5. I agree that staying with people and helping them serve would be a good asset, but that does not make it okay for them to break commandments. Again, I think your friend's situation was badly handled. I'm also not saying people should lie, but I don't think they should expect the same perks as those who keep the commandments. Why have standards for certain things if you aren't going to honor them? Basically, you're saying I should be allowed to have a driver's license even when I repeatedly break traffic laws.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Backroads

[Klein_Helmer]

Sorry, I didn't read all the way to the end on my first pass. I will make a comment about this specific part of the story about your friend, though.

His honesty is in no way what brought his involvement in the Church to a halt. His refusal to obey the commandments of God, his prideful and unrepentant attitude, his apparent disregard for commitments and covenants he had made, and his choice to not do what it took to change any of that, are what brought his involvement in the Church to a halt.

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.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Klein_Helmer

[Klein_Helmer]

1. That's fair and I can see your point. Then again, we've had other faiths using the term "pastor" for two thousand years. And that's just one example. Is it really a huge number of people bothered by these terms?

2. I honestly don't know enough about the Book of Abraham's coming about nor even care enough about it to answer this. Sorry.

3. I'm just saying that people in times past did far more than leave behind evidence. You can't say "we found three pots at this historical dig; therefore, these people only made three pots in the existence of their culture."

4. I have no theory. There are too many with not enough evidence for me to pick one.

5. I agree that staying with people and helping them serve would be a good asset, but that does make it okay for them to break commandments. Again, I think your friend's situation was badly handled. I'm also not saying people should lie, but I don't think they should expect the same perks as those who keep the commandments. Why have standards for certain things if you aren't going to honor them? Basically, you're saying I should be allowed to have a driver's license even when I repeatedly break traffic laws.

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.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Klein_Helmer

[Backroads]

Did you friend want full perks of membership on his terms? If so, he was indeed being prideful. If he wanted to contribute to the church to a lesser extent, knowing that his other choices were not in line with church principles and rules but still wanting to take what he could, then I can kind of see your point. However, you seem to be wanting our church to be more casual about such things to its very core. You seem bothered by the idea that the church does not bend to meet the whims of the people.

[Wingnut]

I've never heard of anyone who was specifically asked by their leaders to stop attending church, due to sin or anything else. I've heard of people who were disinvited from attending certain age-specific congregations, and instructed to attend a more appropriate congregation for them, but that's it. So if your friend stopped attending church, it was highly likely his choice to do so. Perhaps he didn't feel comfortable because he wasn't willing to do what was asked of him. But it was his choice to walk away.

[pam]

5. Your friend was treated very poorly. Unfortunately, we don't care for the whole "lukewarm" thing where hypocrisy is celebrated. The fact is, your friend willfully chose to disobey commandments. This has no bearing on all the good he is and that he has done, but he can't turn down his nose on certain things and deem them "not important".

Then again we don't really know for a fact that this is what really happened.

[Backroads]

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.

1. Yeah, I can see that.

2. I guess we're done there. :)

3. Have you looked at FARMS or similar things? I'm not saying they're 100% right, but that's the type of stuff that might interest you on this matter.

4. Done there as well. :)

5. I disagree sexual and drug-using desires are nearly involuntary. By that definition, you can see raping someone is excusable because they couldn't control themselves. If you can control yourself enough to realize that raping someone goes against cultural and moral standards, you can control yourself to realize such-n-such group has certain rules that many, many people are able to follow and that if you wish to participate in the full sense you ought to follow those.

[Klein_Helmer]

Did you friend want full perks of membership on his terms? If so, he was indeed being prideful. If he wanted to contribute to the church to a lesser extent, knowing that his other choices were not in line with church principles and rules but still wanting to take what he could, then I can kind of see your point. However, you seem to be wanting our church to be more casual about such things to its very core. You seem bothered by the idea that the church does not bend to meet the whims of the people.

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.

I've never heard of anyone who was specifically asked by their leaders to stop attending church, due to sin or anything else. I've heard of people who were disinvited from attending certain age-specific congregations, and instructed to attend a more appropriate congregation for them, but that's it. So if your friend stopped attending church, it was highly likely his choice to do so. Perhaps he didn't feel comfortable because he wasn't willing to do what was asked of him. But it was his choice to walk away.

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.

Then again we don't really know for a fact that this is what really happened.

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.

[Klein_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.

[skippy740]

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?

Neither.

I have a PERSONAL opinion that it was due to internal forces and attitudes within the Church. I believe that when we look at history through today's societal norms, we will look at most people back then as racist. The Church was not immune to this. Heck, everyone back then was a CONVERT! We were bound to get some things 'not quite right'.

Then, how do you correct a past-prophet of the Church? This was why it required a revelation to clarify the Lord's will concerning who can hold the priesthood of God.

If we just 'changed policy' without "the new light and knowledge that has now come into the world" (Bruce R. McConkie)... then we would be adapting only to social pressures.

The problem is that there were no classes after the revelation in 1978 to directly address this. The closest we seem to have is: Speeches

New light and knowledge WAS given. It was just buried within the footnotes of the new 1981 edition of the LDS scriptures. Who authorizes the footnotes and chapter headings? The brethren do... through various committees.

I invite you to review the links in this thread: http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/45876-scriptures-church-history-racism-blacks-scriptures.html

Now, I've had many discussions with others (particularly JAG) who disagrees with some of the conclusions. This information is not 'official' from the Church. However, I believe it to be scripturally and doctrinally sound.

You can come to your own conclusions.

[pam]

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.

Are you sure that many wouldn't find it unbelievable? For one thing you mention Bishop(s). There would have only been one Bishop. Another thing, I think you would find it extremely rare that a Bishop would scream at, brow beat, belittle anyone for being honest and confessing any sexual sins.

[Backroads]

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.

You brought in the term "sinful" here. Now, keep in mind: Our church has rules. I'm a firm believer that if you don't like the rules and aren't willing to follow them, go do your own thing because no one is stopping you. But don't try to have it both ways. You don't have to like our rules or the rules of any organization, for that matter, but why demand the rules be changed? You have other options. Your friend was not willing to abide by all church rules. You don't like the fact those rules existed. You are expecting the Church to bend to whims.

[NeuroTypical]

Hi Klein!

Kudos for knowing Mormons. Sometimes we can be hard to know. Sometimes, just the act of knowing us or being friends with us, and you feel pressured to take sides, but you're not sure which side, or even what the fence is supposed to be separating. :)

I'm glad you're having a mostly positive experience with us. I'll take a brief shot at your concerns/observations:

1. The bizarre/arcane sounding terminology

Yeah. We also walk around calling each other "Brother so-and-so" - that raises some eyebrows too. Briefly, the name of our church, the titles priesthood offices, and the ages thereof were all given by revealation. But the rest of it I think could change if we wanted.

It's easier if you think about it like this: When a Catholic feels the call to join the priesthood, they have rites of ordination, vows of celebacy, join holy orders, put on special clothing, get Masters of Theology degrees, and all that. And nobody bats an eye, because they're Catholic priests, right?

With mormons, if you're a male of a certain age, you are in the priesthood. Just about all of us. So since we're part of the priesthood, a lot of the terminology applies to us.

2. The Book of Abraham

Understandable. But consider the nature of egyptology. It's not like science. It's barely like archaeology. To a certain extent, it's a personality-driven cult of it's own, with battling leaders, each with their own group of fervent disciples who like to duke it out on who is right and who is wrong.

There are many widely accepted facts in such circles. Some of these facts are difficult for mormons to grapple with. None of them prove Joseph a false prophet, or my church as untrue.

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.

Regarding genetic/linguistic evidence, there are several scholarly papers published on the issue, explaining why we would not expect to find any. There's a big difference between "Cherokees don't have Israeli DNA, therefore the Book of Mormon is false", and what DNA science actually looks like. If you have a few hundred hours, go nuts. Start with Butler, Roper, Whiting, and Sorenson.

Regarding archaeological, consider the nature of archaeology. Any honest, self-respecting archaeologist will tell you openly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Hardly a year goes by, without half a dozen totally unknown city complexes being discovered in central and south america. Jungles aren't known for their preservative qualities.

That whole Black Thing.

Understandable, but consider a few things. This church was restored in the 1800's. It was the time most all of civilized planet earth was gearing up to fight over the issue of slavery. Our history spans the Civil war - and LDS folks stood with the North. More than one LDS missionary was harassed, run out of town, beaten, for supposedly "inciting our slaves to revolt".

God doesn't radically alter a culture when he organizes His people. One would be equally justified in finding fault with Christianity in general, for it's Old testament practices of blood sacrifice, slavery, brutal deadly justice, and arcane laws regarding marriage and property.

5. All or Nothing, and the Culture of Shame and Dishonesty

...

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.

As a former apostate, who told the mormons in my life I wasn't interested, I can honestly say that I've only had the exact opposite experience. As I openly left the church for 6 years, I was loved, accepted, included, invited, and loved some more by the mormons in my life.

However, I know that my experience is not everyone's. I believe your friend had the experience he describes. I'm sorry. On behalf of my fellow LDS, who are supposed to let the light of Christ shine from them everywhere, I apologize to your friend.

My church is full of sinners. If you think about it, that's sort of the whole point.

I took supreme offense at members claiming to be in good standing and taking the sacrament when I knew this not to be true.

Learning what is righteous judgement, about things in your stewardship, and what is unrighteous gossipy judgementalism, is a good skill to learn and apply. Lots of mormons need to learn the skill. I daresay your life would be blessed if you'd learn it to a greater extent as well.

Here is a link to a story. It's worth a read.

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.

Well, no. Learning how to admit that you fall short of perfection, need to repent, and how life is a constant striving to be better, is a wonderful thing. Again, the church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum to display saints. I share your frustration that more saints need to realize this.

God bless you Helmer. I'm looking forward to your next musical production. (Blatant honesty time: your next video production, not so much. Please forgive me.)

[Just_A_Guy]

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."

Those particular terms, I think, give more of a sense of purpose than the generic "men's/women's group". The Elders are a governing quorum in the Church. The Relief Society is a century-old organization intended, first and foremost, to alleviate suffering in the cities where these women live--historically, of a piece with other secular benevolent "relief societies" that were established at the same time.

Sure, it's different; but nothing that can't be adapted to by a healthy understanding of and respect for the institutions' respective histories and/or roles.

Despite its demonstrable nature of not being what Joseph Smith claimed it was, it is still regarded by the faithful as divine revelation.

Agreed; the underlying source documents (the portions of them that still exist, anyways) don't appear to be what Smith thought they were. On the other hand, Mormons hear the voice of God in the "translation" Smith produced, and some of the historical assertions in that translation happen to line up with information that Smith simply couldn't have known in the 1830s. Mormon apologists are coming up with a lot of interesting explanations for how this may have happened.

So while I don't claim to know all of the answers, I am by no means ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one.

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.

Our secular friends have quite a history of moving the bar on this one. "There's no written language! (Wait--there is?) Well, they certainly didn't have wheels (wait--they did?) But, there's no advanced civilization. (Wait--there was?) There are no massive construction projects (Wait--there were?) No significant military activity! (wait--there was?)"

Again, lots of interesting stuff coming out of LDS apologists, that ends up leaving plenty of room for belief.

. . . 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.

As Skippy says, there's some diversity of thought within Mormondom about this. Even if you're a relative hard-liner like me, though: Our scriptures are full of instances where God commands something, then revokes the command and implements something different. (Polygamy? Check. Mission calls for specific individuals to serve in specific places? Check. Animal sacrifice? Check. Dietary codes? Check. Liturgical rites? Check. Construction of specific cities, or houses of worship, in a particular location? Check.)

God is a pragmatist. Meh.

They asked him if he was trying to stop doing those things, he said no.

I'm going to be more hard-line and less politic than many other Mormons would, I think, but here goes:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was intended as an institution that facilitates the process of an individual changing him/herself (with the Lord's help) into the kind of person that God wants him/her to be--to wit, Godlike. If a person isn't willing to engage in that process--then, frankly, yes; that person isn't going to get a lot out of Mormonism. The LDS Church preaches a Jesus who saves people from their sins, not in their sins. It's one thing to embrace the process imperfectly. It's quite another to make a big show of not even trying and then expecting accolades for your "integrity".

And, yeah, that creates some social pressure for false compliance and double-lives. But, you know what? The fact that some people do it wrong, doesn't mean there aren't lots and lots of people who are doing it right.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Anddenex]

1. The bizarre/arcane sounding terminology

I have honestly never regarded our terminology as bizarre or arcane; although, I was born within in the covenant, my parents are converts to the Church. My mother a Methodist previously and my father an athiest (although I would have described him as agnostic). They never had any problems with the terminology.

People will continue to think we are a "dark cult" no matter what terminology we use. Within any organization, within any degree, even as a naturalist

Even if we were to use mens/womens groups to define different auxiliaries, I am sure someone would define the terminology as discriminatory because we mention different genders.

2. The Book of Abraham

Revelation is very interesting within its own parameters. To understand revelation a person themselves must receive it. Without receiving revelation and understanding its parameters this may be hard for some.

Although, I would disagree with the sentiment provided by others that the Book of Abraham is demonstrably proven inaccurate.

The notion is easier to understand once a person understands revelation and they, themselves, have received revelation pertaining to the truthfulness of the gospel.

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.

This argument I find intriguing understanding that proving or disproving by genetics is not an exact formula like others would like to admit.

Example: My father had his DNA tested to verify what type of people we come from, as did my younger brother. My father's test resulted in us being 92% European decent and 8% African American. My brother's test resulted in us being 92% European decent and 8% "unknown."

The results are clear we are 92% European decent, but non-conclusive as to our African American decent.

EDIT: Shh, but don't tell, I am also of a Jewish heritage through my grandmother, but the DNA didn't mention any break down of middle-eastern, or semitic ancestry. My Jewish lineage is through Saltiel which is mentioned in the bible, different spellings throughout the years though.

Let's add in the knowledge that we don't even know who Joseph's wife was that lived in Egypt, nor do we know her nationality. This family left Jerusalem 600 B.C, before the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon. How is science to determine anything genetically conclusive when parentage is unknown, and when science is still unable to conclusively determine my heritage?

Although we have grown in our understanding of our genetics we are still but infants when seeking to determine the true heritage of any populace.

According to my history book, the population of the Americas has been estimated once at 10 million, some say 50 million, while others postulate it was actually 100 million or more. The population then due to war, disease, went to, if I remember correctly 2 million, or less.

The real question does our DNA specify "all" of our ancestors or just a portion? The loss of a population, if our DNA doesn't carry all our ancestors, dramatically decreases with interracial marriages / unions. We know the children of Israel were not the only people in America.

That whole Black Thing.

Yes, the revelation was indeed divine revelation. If the President Kimball did not receive the revelation blacks would still not have the priesthood, unless, another prophet since Kimball received the revelation.

My personal belief, if Joseph Smith wasn't martyred our black brothers would have received the priesthood long before.

History within scripture is evident on how different prophets were able to implement practices and provide different revelation that other prophets did not, or were not able to bring forth, or accomplish (e.g. Moses, Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith). This may however be the result of too many variables to even begin to pinpoint the correct reason, or multiple reasons.

5. All or Nothing, and the Culture of Shame and Dishonesty

Your friend was honest with himself, but not with the Lord and the covenant he made at baptism.

Thus this argument regarding honesty is a double edged sword. As members of the Church we take upon ourselves "covenants" these covenants are promises we make with God. These promises result in greater association with God when we obey, or punishment, chastisement when our promise is broken.

When a law is broken, a consequence will follow. Our leaders are not perfect, and to judge one experience, or multiple experiences in this manner is unjust. Why, because even bishops and other leaders act inappropriately. What you are having trouble with is not the Church per se, but as the Book of Mormon specifies, it wasn't the Church that was prideful, but pride entered into the hearts of members of the Church. Unfortunately, as disciples how we act affects the organization we belong to, although this isn't the organization. What you attribute to the Church is not the Church, but the people who profess to belong to the Church.

The Lord doesn't appreciate hypocrisy either. As a young man in the Church, our Teacher's quorum president and then our Priest Quorum president who was unworthy to be such, however, it is not necessarily the responsibility of the bishop or any leader to call out an individual, unless there is more than one witness against the individual. If the person is unwilling, and other people are unwilling to come forth and speak up, the bishop is not required to call people out, nor any other leader.

We have proper methods for these to come forth, only if others are willing to "oppose" or the individual is willing to repent. Either way, the person continues as they are.

Thank you for being frank in a "honest" manner.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Anddenex

[MarginOfError]

Yeah. We also walk around calling each other "Brother so-and-so" - that raises some eyebrows too. Briefly, the name of our church, the titles priesthood offices, and the ages thereof were all given by revealation. But the rest of it I think could change if we wanted.

The name of the Church and the titles of priesthood offices are contained in our canonized revelations, but the ages are not. Ask Gramps did a segment on this a while back

http://www.askgramps.org/3970/when-was-aaronic-priesthood-mormon-church-first-given

Truthfully, we could change the names of the offices if we wanted to. We don't because they are very traditional names, but are becoming less familiar to the general population because the general population is becoming less familiar with religious terminology.