Does the Church Instill Paranoia in Members?

[_Ray A]

Hmmm...airfare might be a problem. And don't you live in a place that has oodles of poisonous animals? Snakes, spiders, jellyfish? I'd never leave the house.

What we have is too many cockroaches! And these days nothing kills them. The cities are fine, and no more dangerous than anywhere else in the world, but if you go outback you have to watch for brown snakes, the taipan (which is the deadliest snake on earth), red back spiders and the funnel web (which also inhabit cities but deaths are rare). Red backs can give a nasty bite but seldom kill, and the male funnel web can kill but an anti-venom has been developed. Just avoid trying to ride sting rays off the Barrier Reef and you should be fine.

[_Mercury]

All this from a guy who lives in mortal fear of a very small and obscure Church committee that is essentially nothing more than a news clipping service. Can you say "PROJECTION"? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, stop using insults I used on you. It makes you look like an even bigger tool.

[_Mister Scratch]

Your opening post on this thread is rife with supposed problems and contrived sources of paranoia.

You site Elder Featherstones talk as evidence the induction of paranoia in regards to peoples sins being made public, so they had "better watch out".

You obvious lack of regard for scripture and spiritual understanding can be seen as a root for your desire to start a thread on this subject, so in that regard i'll forgive your ignorance and its results displayed here. Hopefully in the future you'll devote your reading to the search for divine undertsanding and set aside your wallowing in the worldly opinions of supposed scholars and dimestore philosophers.

??? The only source I relied upon was Elder Featherstone's talk.

There is a pattern to heavenly learning. It comes through a slow, and sometimes painful, sluffing off of the things of the world and a focus on the things of the spirit. That there is a process is manifest in the record of John found in D&C 93:12-14

12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;
13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;
14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

I think you have misinterpreted the text. Nothing in that passage suggests a "sluffing" [sic] off of "the things of the world." What you have cited is a passage praising patience, which I fully agree with.

What this process is often refered to as is called repentence. This means a turning away from the things of the world, or a turning towards God. In either case this means a change.

Because of Jesus Christ we are able to cleanse ourselves from the sins of the World, or the breaking of commandments that God has perscribed. God gives us commandments to introduce good habits into our lives, habits that allow us to understand Gods character by imitateing his actions.

Because of the nature of our Father in heaven no unclean thing can dwell there. (Alma 11:37) A disobedient and rebellious soul constitutes an unclean thing. It is the desire of nearly all mortal men and women to return to the presence of our Father.

If someone feels guilt because of sin then they are on the road to repentance, having recognized the fault. Once they regain the Spirit and enjoy the company of the Holy Ghost, they can know they are forgiven and forget the former crime, promiseing never to do it again.

The Paranoia you speak of stems from those who live in a state of rebellion, the guilt of their knowingly commiting sin and shutting themselves off from the Holy Ghost.

No, my friend. That simply isn't correct. If the "paranoia" were simply a function of a person "knowingly commiting sin," then there would be no need for Elder Featherstone's hypothetical "scroll." There also would be no need for the Brethren to keep Church finances so secret, or for the SCMC, or for the BYU spy rings, or for the excessive secrecy surrounding certain aspects of the Church Archives.... The list goes on.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that the paranoid behavior on the part of the Church is due to institutional sin.... Tell me, Gaz: is the Church's paranoid behavior indicative of sin?

When the Spirit of the Holy Ghost is removed from a person they are quick to take offence, they feel empty and hollow, defensive, secretive and evasive. They question others motives and take delight in others problems. Until they return to the ways of God these feelings will remain. Along with this is a strong sense of criticism towards those in authority, which may cause a false sence of paranoia.

Also note, that all mens sins will be made apparent in the resurrection when they receive their bodies. (D&C 88: 11-63)

Again I ask you: is the secrecy which is such a prevalent part of Mormonism a function of the Spirit being in absence?

[_MormonMendacity]

...would the LDS equivalent of [Catholic Guilt] be "Mormon Paranoia"?

I mulled this over for some time and tried to remember whether this concerned me as a member. I think my answer would be "No".

I believe that it was entirely about personal introspection for me. I think that I was not afraid of what others would say or think or whether I would be found out, as much as I was afraid I would miss the mark, so to speak.

I thought that the secrecy was because of sacredness and I believe that is how I viewed the temple, etc. Now, however, I do not think that the leaders instituted the secrecy for sacredness sake. I believe that they were afraid of the effects of open discussions. The temple ceremonies that included oaths of vengeance were certainly not kept secret because of their sacredness. The changes eliminating the symbolic death penalties were absolutely done because of the repulsive nature of the "penalties" -- their word, not mine.

But what sickened me in your post was the guilt that Featherstone tried to heap on us...for purely private acts. Insinuating that god would care how people thought about sex when god supposedly originated the human sex drive. The notion that the Omnipotent Being of the Universe concerns him/herself with what type of light enters into the human eye and how the brain translates it into meanings.

It boggles the mind that humans use this kind of manipulative guilt ON OTHERS. Feel free, ye apologists, to punish, hate and rebuke yourselves because of your human desires ... but how about staying out of everyone else's brains?

Oh...right...you believe in fairy tales and the fairy-tale-tellers ORDER you to guilt your neighbor...I keep forgetting that.

But, in short, Mr. Scratch, I guess I didn't personally worry whether I was being watched...but I sure believed Leaders, Inc. that God cared about masturbation.

His fan club is a bunch of pervs. That's for sure.

[_Mister Scratch]

...would the LDS equivalent of [Catholic Guilt] be "Mormon Paranoia"?

I mulled this over for some time and tried to remember whether this concerned me as a member. I think my answer would be "No".

I believe that it was entirely about personal introspection for me. I think that I was not afraid of what others would say or think or whether I would be found out, as much as I was afraid I would miss the mark, so to speak.

I thought that the secrecy was because of sacredness and I believe that is how I viewed the temple, etc. Now, however, I do not think that the leaders instituted the secrecy for sacredness sake. I believe that they were afraid of the effects of open discussions. The temple ceremonies that included oaths of vengeance were certainly not kept secret because of their sacredness. The changes eliminating the symbolic death penalties were absolutely done because of the repulsive nature of the "penalties" -- their word, not mine.

Huh. Some really good observations here, in my opinion. What this leads me to suspect is that the bulk of the paranoia is actually located within the institutional Church, and that paranoia in the rank-and-file is the result of a kind of "trickle down" effect.

But what sickened me in your post was the guilt that Featherstone tried to heap on us...for purely private acts. Insinuating that god would care how people thought about sex when god supposedly originated the human sex drive. The notion that the Omnipotent Being of the Universe concerns him/herself with what type of light enters into the human eye and how the brain translates it into meanings.

I agree with you that this talk ranks as amongst the most appalling in the entire LDS "canon". In my view, the bit I cited is not even the most offensive part. Get a load of this:

Another problem: an overweight girl from Ogden went to see her bishop. In the purity and goodness of charity, trying to help the girl, he counseled her that it might be a good idea to lose a few pounds. Pitifully heartbroken, she went home and told her father. It had cankered her soul. The father, of course, negative toward the Church all of his life, waiting for something like this, sprung like a cat on the bishop’s back, and they came down to see me and wanted their memberships transferred out of the bishop’s ward. I asked them why, because I didn’t know all this background, and they said, “Well, our bishop suggested to our daughter that she might lose a few pounds and make herself a little more attractive.” Now I want you to know that I defended that great bishop. I said to this family, “You are wrong. That sweet bishop, out of purity and love for your daughter, felt and did that which he was impressed to do. I am sure it was a message from God to your daughter, and she let it canker her soul. The strange thing is that she was probably up in her bedroom the night before praying, ‘Heavenly Father, I am lonely. I need someone. Please help me. Help me to find someone so I won’t be so lonely.’ ” And yet oftentimes we are offended because a sweet bishop gives us some instruction which is hard for us to live.

It's just layer upon layer of heartlessness, insensitivity, and siding with "the man" in this. I really see this bishop's response (and Elder Featherstone's affirmation of it) as being no different from him telling the girl, "You are a fat-ass." To my mind, there is nothing "great" about this bishop at all. Moreover, Featherstone's attempt at mindreading here is just flat-out offensive.

It boggles the mind that humans use this kind of manipulative guilt ON OTHERS. Feel free, ye apologists, to punish, hate and rebuke yourselves because of your human desires ... but how about staying out of everyone else's brains?

Oh...right...you believe in fairy tales and the fairy-tale-tellers ORDER you to guilt your neighbor...I keep forgetting that.

But, in short, Mr. Scratch, I guess I didn't personally worry whether I was being watched...but I sure believed Leaders, Inc. that God cared about masturbation.

His fan club is a bunch of pervs. That's for sure.

Heh. Well, in any case, I think even your mention that "God cared about masturbation" serves as yet another piece of evidence that yes, indeed paranoia is rampant in the LDS Church.

[_Gazelam]

me: your wallowing in the worldly opinions of supposed scholars and dimestore philosophers.

You: ??? The only source I relied upon was Elder Featherstone's talk.

This was in reference to your other posts on other threads.


You: I think you have misinterpreted the text. Nothing in that passage suggests a "sluffing" [sic] off of "the things of the world." What you have cited is a passage praising patience, which I fully agree with.

I did not misinterpret. For Christ, he no doubt did not need to sluff off any sins. Bu tthe rest of us in following his example do. Patience in what scratch? In regards to the scripture cited, what are we to have patience doing?

In regards to your institutional remarks. Look at your conspiricy theories. Your ridiculous accusations and mind twisting non-sence. How about the fact that the finance are none of your bussiness? How about the fact that if they did publish them it just invites nutjobs like you to criticise something new. I don't know what SCMC stands for, but I don't have a problem with the church looking out for false doctrines being taught in various areas. BYU is a big symbol for the church, and watching out for nutcase proffesors or rouge students isn't really a problem either now is it?

Secrecy is not a prevalent part of the church. Where is it, in your opinion?

Gaz

P.S. The girl should've just lost the weight.

[_Mister Scratch]

me: your wallowing in the worldly opinions of supposed scholars and dimestore philosophers.

You: ??? The only source I relied upon was Elder Featherstone's talk.

This was in reference to your other posts on other threads.

Ah, I see. So you were hauling in some completely extraneous material. Very well. Nevertheless, I am unaware of any "dimestore philosophers" or "supposed scholars" I have ever cited. Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me?

You: I think you have misinterpreted the text. Nothing in that passage suggests a "sluffing" [sic] off of "the things of the world." What you have cited is a passage praising patience, which I fully agree with.

I did not misinterpret. For Christ, he no doubt did not need to sluff off any sins. Bu tthe rest of us in following his example do. Patience in what scratch? In regards to the scripture cited, what are we to have patience doing?

The passage says, "And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not the fulness [sic] at the first." The point being, of course, that Jesus was required to walk the earth and live an actual life. To interact with other people, and to endure and learn. At least, that is the lesson I see embedded in the text. Please feel free to explain how and why you think this passage justifies ridiculing and guilt-tripping people. If anything, I see the text as a plea for tolerance and patience.

In regards to your institutional remarks. Look at your conspiricy theories. Your ridiculous accusations and mind twisting non-sence. How about the fact that the finance are none of your bussiness?

Lol... Why are they "none of my business"? These "finances" are money that both I and my ancestors have been contributing to for generations. What does the Church have to hide?

How about the fact that if they did publish them it just invites nutjobs like you to criticise something new.

Such as what? If the Church was perfect, it would be impervious to criticism.

I don't know what SCMC stands for,

Ah. So you're arguing from ignorance. Bravo, Gaz!

but I don't have a problem with the church looking out for false doctrines being taught in various areas. BYU is a big symbol for the church, and watching out for nutcase proffesors or rouge students isn't really a problem either now is it?

I don't know... I can't say that I personally see much problem with "rouge" students, unless their "rouge" begins to rub off on others in unpleasant ways.... And for what it's worth, I don't have a problem with the Church looking out for "false doctrines" either. The trouble is, as FAIR will be happy to tell you, that the Church tends not to rely upon a "systematic theology," meaning that doctrine, by and large, is totally up in the air, and subject to revision at any time.

Secrecy is not a prevalent part of the church. Where is it, in your opinion?

---Bishop interviews
---The temple
---Church finances
---Portions of the Church archives
---the Holy of Holies
---the First Presidency's Vault
---the SCMC
---the division between priesthood holders and women
---the principles underlying the "milk before mean" philosophy
---the approach to history sanctioned by BKP
---the way missionaries teach investigators

Gaz

P.S. The girl should've just lost the weight.

Nice to see such rampant insensitivity, especially given the fact that: A) we have no idea whether or not she *was* genuinely overweight, or whether it was merely function of this particular bishop's fantasy of the ideal woman, and B) we have no idea whether the bishop's remark was contextually relevant. I.e., he told her to "lose weight," but why? Did she say she was lonely, as Elder Featherstone goes on to speculate? Ultimately, we don't know. Thus, Elder Featherstone's comments are unbelievably devoid of the Spirit.

[_keene]

Hmmm...airfare might be a problem. And don't you live in a place that has oodles of poisonous animals? Snakes, spiders, jellyfish? I'd never leave the house.

What we have is too many cockroaches! And these days nothing kills them. The cities are fine, and no more dangerous than anywhere else in the world, but if you go outback you have to watch for brown snakes, the taipan (which is the deadliest snake on earth), red back spiders and the funnel web (which also inhabit cities but deaths are rare). Red backs can give a nasty bite but seldom kill, and the male funnel web can kill but an anti-venom has been developed. Just avoid trying to ride sting rays off the Barrier Reef and you should be fine.

Ultimate cockroach cure: 1 part powdered sugar to 1 part quick-dry cement. Leave it out in lines across the countertop or floor, in the morning you will have a pile of cockroach statues. Always works.

[_Mephitus]

BYU is a big symbol for the church, and watching out for nutcase proffesors or rouge students isn't really a problem either now is it?

Gaz

P.S. The girl should've just lost the weight.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, youve never had the missfortune of living within "BYU approved housing" have you? I did for a time, (housing here can be difficult to find) and ill tell you, i was regularly spied on. I just refused to take any sniping they leveled towards me. As one such example, they can throw you out if you drink. Now, i DO drink now and then, but it would be STUPID to do so within the housing. So i don't. One day comming home from work there was a beer can sitting just outside my building, so i picked it up, and threw it away inside. My roommates went FIRST to the apt management and told them that i had been drinking inside the apt before asking what was up from me. I nearly was thrown out over this. Of course, needless to say, rumors popped up a short time later that i was a drunkard. (never been drunk in my life before)

It was also within my lease from BYU to agree to "watch out for questionable behavior, and report it to the management or school leaders"

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

BYU is a big symbol for the church, and watching out for nutcase proffesors or rouge students isn't really a problem either now is it?

Gaz

P.S. The girl should've just lost the weight.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, youve never had the missfortune of living within "BYU approved housing" have you? I did for a time, (housing here can be difficult to find) and ill tell you, i was regularly spied on. I just refused to take any sniping they leveled towards me. As one such example, they can throw you out if you drink. Now, i DO drink now and then, but it would be STUPID to do so within the housing. So i don't. One day comming home from work there was a beer can sitting just outside my building, so i picked it up, and threw it away inside. My roommates went FIRST to the apt management and told them that i had been drinking inside the apt before asking what was up from me. I nearly was thrown out over this. Of course, needless to say, rumors popped up a short time later that i was a drunkard. (never been drunk in my life before)

It was also within my lease from BYU to agree to "watch out for questionable behavior, and report it to the management or school leaders"

Knowing a few people from BYU myself that is funny...
My friend got kicked out because her skirts were to short and she told 'em to go stuff it.
She is 56 so this wasway back when....
She is the most exmormon you will ever meet she stills lives in Utah actually...and she and I had some wild times together..

Now SONO you know that one drink makes you a drunk through Mormon eyes....
In my parents eyes I am just a big Lush....we told them we visited the Rum factory on our vacation and I could just hear in their voices the distaste....though like you I have never been drunk in my life....my children have never seen me drunk nor will they...