Already the fallout

[_Nevo]

To state that 'The Glory of God is Intelligence' and to then weed out your membership any willingness to make use of their intellect must surely be one of the main paradoxes of Mormonism.

I think you overstate matters somewhat, but this is one of the central paradoxes of Mormonism. Terryl Givens treats the topic at length in his book, People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture. Faith and reason may be in tension at times, but I think both are necessary. I don't believe God wants us to check our brains at the door of the chapel, but neither should we abandon the perspective of faith. As Pope John Paul II put it, "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth."

[_bcspace]

Fast forward now and her asking the Bishop why Boyd Packers spoken talk and written talk are different. He, being an honest sort asked the Stake President who wanted to know 'why the question'. SP was told who and was then he directed the Bishop to call and inform the 'intellectual' they were no longer a Sunday School teacher.

Being over the Sunday School (among other things) as I am, I'd have to say that if this is a real example, then there must be a lot more to it than what was stated.

[_Joseph]

mr space, your ward and wards and branches in many places are not the same. They may have the same manuals but not all teach the watered down pap contained in them. They teach the lesson but supplement from sources above a third grade level.

This individual is a good teacher and was bringing in information to supplement and support the lesson. The visitor was more worried about something that was not from the manual than the point of the lesson.

So, my friend is actually better off for having been released. Now doesn't have to drive the 40 miles one way to church each Sunday as they have been doing for a number of years while teaching the lessons and attending meetings.

One troubling aspect is that the information on definitions was pertinent as well as helpful to those in the class.

lds-inc does not believe what Joseph Smith taught. It is more a mind control cult than a religion encouraging believers to seek truth.

[_moksha]

Here is a good quote, even if I had to make it up:

"You cannot have genuine faith without first having genuine doubt."

[_ajax18]

A Stake visitor was there and asked pointedly "Where did you get that, it is NOT in the manual'?

This is truly ridiculous. Dr. Wooley informed outgoing senior missionaries at the SMTC of the distinction and what was meant by the terms, "Christiain," and "NonChristian," by opponents of the Church who use the term. He said it irritated him when well meaning LDS spoke ignorantly on the issue.

Fast forward now and her asking the Bishop why Boyd Packers spoken talk and written talk are different. He, being an honest sort asked the Stake President who wanted to know 'why the question'. SP was told who and was then he directed the Bishop to call and inform the 'intellectual' they were no longer a Sunday School teacher.

A lot of bishops are just honest Christian men. This is truly the biggest issue I have with the Church. Because it's not just a case of a disobedient or ignorant leader. This is the standard policy sent down from on high in Salt Lake. I know every corporation is like this and I have gotten myself into trouble in my own profession for asking difficult questions in an effort to learn and as a result been attacked by lazy, arrogant, and stubborn old men not willing to look at the data. And I'm not a lawyer, I'm a doctor. The same thing happened when I was a teacher. I knew that truth didn't matter in law or teaching, only authority. I was surprised to find it true of medicine. Granted someone had to be very astute to catch this change in the talk, but in my view when you claim to be the mouthpiece of God like Boyd K. Packer authoritatively does, you deserve this kind of scrutiny, and you owe it to those who you are preaching to, to admit that you may not have the absolute truth yet. I can accept that he once thought that people could not be born with same gender attraction. I believed it once too. But what I can't accept is this inquisition-esque cover up and rattle snake defensive posture. If having an organized religion means you have to have that, I'd rather have no organized religion. To be fair, I'd also do away with the AMA and the National Bar of Lawyers and every ignorant leftist fantasy ever inculcated in those subjected to teacher training curriculum.

This friend is worried now about being called an 'intellectual' in LDS speak and feels insulted by how it was used towards them.

It really is disgusting that intellectual has a negative connotation in modern Mormonism. Intellectual means failure to ignore doctrinal problems that cannot easily be answered. Softballs only please. It might as well be CNN interviewing Barack Obama.

Joseph, Brigham and many leaders taught members to question and gain their own faith rather than blindly following along. That is no longer the case, is it?

Well Joseph did. I know Brigham made statements like that but it seemed that by the time Brigham came around it was more about growing converts by reproduction and pediatric inculcation. Do you think Boyd K. Packer or Jeffrey R. Holland could have restored the Church that Joseph Smith did. It seems to me the only converts we can get under their leadership are impoverished souls who heard the Mormon Church gives out checks to new converts.

[_ajax18]

I think you overstate matters somewhat, but this is one of the central paradoxes of Mormonism. Terryl Givens treats the topic at length in his book, People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture. Faith and reason may be in tension at times, but I think both are necessary. I don't believe God wants us to check our brains at the door of the chapel, but neither should we abandon the perspective of faith. As Pope John Paul II put it, "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth."

Just don't disturb the sheep though right? Keep it all to yourself. If it weren't for online anonymity they'd probably have killed me by now for thinking out loud so much. But you know, God knows I thought it, I can't see the harm in me coming here for help to sort it out in my mind, especially when help is not available at Church.

[_TAO]

Just don't disturb the sheep though right? Keep it all to yourself. If it weren't for online anonymity they'd probably have killed me by now for thinking out loud so much. But you know, God knows I thought it, I can't see the harm in me coming here for help to sort it out in my mind, especially when help is not available at Church.

I agree, sometimes the stance the Church takes on this issue is a bit cloying, and yet, I understand also; there are certain things which are not to be talked about; they are those things that are sacred, and are only between God and you and perhaps your wife. And it's not only temple stuff... other mysteries too, are not to be talked of.

Luckily, there is plenty of mysteries which can be talked of =D. Sometimes I open my mouth up a bit too much though.

[_ajax18]

Anyone who has served a mission knows the Church pushes prospective converts to take the plunge into the waters of baptism along with all the socio-religious covenants/commitments that it entails.

We weren't even allowed to give more discussions if no committments were made. We couldn't answer any questions about coffee, chastity, tithing, nothing until the fourth discussion. We didn't teach many fourth discussions. There are a lot of problems with what is done on the mission. But I don't think that precludes the existence of spiritual knowledge and I do believe that a believing heart is necessary especially with moral/existential/nonscientific questions. I personally just get more out of the scriptures and written statements because talking to other people means argument and disagreement.

This conclusion has to be acquired via a "spiritual witness," which is a fancy way of describing self-induced emotion based on what you want to believe to be true.

I can see a difference between what I want to be true and I what I know to be righteous and want to be true.

Robert Millett's notorious 2006 video says essentially the same thing. It is a tactic used by the most dishonest professions known to man, particularly politicians and attorneys;

You forgot doctors. I'm coming to learn I'm in a very political profession. Sadly my father is an engineer still and can't seem to get away from it either. You can quit going to church but you still have to put up with it at work. All authority, no truth. I guess that's why we have the Dilbert cartoons.

You're just reinforcing the obvious point that Mormonism is not an intellectual faith because its members enter it via anti-intellectual means.

But Kevin I don't think this was always as true as it is today. It's almost like the church arrived t a crossroads somewhere and they had to decide whether they wanted to be big and try to fill the world, or be true and answer the hard questions. I think Joseph Smith was the last one to really do both with much success.

[_ajax18]

I cannot think of a single issue, not polygamy, not seer-stones, not temple masonry, not the racist teachings, that speak to me more clearly and with more power that the LDS church is false than this very one

It bothers me the worst too but what does it mean for the church to be false or the church to be true. There can be both true and false things taught together. The issue that grates me more than anything is the attempt so many Mormons and often leaders make at mind controlling other people. If you were not subject to error, than you might have a right to this somewhat, but you're fallible like the rest of us, and you really don't have a right to tell people otherwise. If it turns out that this kind of dishonesty exists to the extent I've seen, I do believe in an afterlife and I pity those who have done this.

I learned it quickly at the MTC. I came in trying to learn how to answer hard questions. Roleplay time! My companion asks me, "Do you believe in God?" I give him a 3/4 batting practice answer, not even close to a curveball and he just gets extremly pissed off and immediately shouts, "Look I could come up with problems with your questions too." Then he started with, "Well if you believe in this than you have to believe in God or you're wrong." The observing elder said to try not to be too manipulative. Then he really got pissed and started screaming at us, Boyd K. Packer style. I wondered how he would ever make it as a missionary. But you know who they made zone leader and assistant to the president? Better believe it. I don't think he ever baptized anyone who could still walk, talk, or hear but the Mission Presidency sure liked what they saw out of him. This was the kind of leader they wanted. And I guess to the Church that was really all he was good for anyway was brow beating other missionaries. And that's what he liked to do best as well. For some people the mission was not worth serving if they didn't get to tell other people what to do. They called it progression.

[_ajax18]

Being over the Sunday School (among other things) as I am, I'd have to say that if this is a real example, then there must be a lot more to it than what was stated.

And what if it all turned out to be true. How would you resolve the issue then? That's not being disrespectful to you. I'm just asking because I believe you could find a way around that. I can sort of see a way around it but not quite yet. Stuff like this was the first and among the only things that really bothered me about any of these organizations because it's existence certainly is not limited to the church. Lawyers, doctors, school boards, politicians, I think I've ranted about it sufficiently that you get my point.