To support that claim, he cites this article from the Salt Lake Tribune announcing that LDS colleges, seminaries and institutes of religion will now largely abandon the study of the standard works sequentially and individually (Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants/Pearl of Great Price) to focus instead on major "themes" identified and defined primarily by LDS Church Headquarters, namely:
- The Savior's many roles
- Select Book of Mormon teachings and doctrines (as opposed to the whole Book of Mormon)
- "Key" revelations, doctrine, people and events in Church history, and
- The eternal family and plan of salvation
This "de-contextualization" and reduction of Church history and doctrine to a few "editorialized highlights" -- detached from the scriptures and other historical records from which true doctrine and history may be deduced -- enables Church leaders to more effectively teach only those doctrines and facts they agree with and promote while dismissing and ignoring "problematic" scriptures or history which conflict with current LDS memes.
You can see this for yourself in "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young", a book largely devoid of scripture, first published in 1997. No mention is made therein of that prophet's doctrinal teachings regarding polygamy, blood atonement, Adam as God the Father, or blacks being inferior to whites. In fact, one would infer from studying that curriculum alone that Brigham Young was a monogamist! Following that prophet, if the "fullness" of his teachings were, in fact, known and practiced today, would undoubtedly conflict with what current LDS leaders now teach as "unchanging gospel principles". In fact, changing gospel principles -- and even Church history! -- is what LDS leaders have become adept at doing. Hence, currently accepted gospel truths are now sanitized, homogenized, correlated and separated from their sources to make it easier to forget what has been taught and "reinterpret" what has transpired.
You can see this for yourself in "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young", a book largely devoid of scripture, first published in 1997. No mention is made therein of that prophet's doctrinal teachings regarding polygamy, blood atonement, Adam as God the Father, or blacks being inferior to whites. In fact, one would infer from studying that curriculum alone that Brigham Young was a monogamist! Following that prophet, if the "fullness" of his teachings were, in fact, known and practiced today, would undoubtedly conflict with what current LDS leaders now teach as "unchanging gospel principles". In fact, changing gospel principles -- and even Church history! -- is what LDS leaders have become adept at doing. Hence, currently accepted gospel truths are now sanitized, homogenized, correlated and separated from their sources to make it easier to forget what has been taught and "reinterpret" what has transpired.
In other words, to preach another gospel.
Recent converts of the LDS Church may be excused for never knowing that LDS leaders succeeding Joseph Smith once required members to practice "essential" polygamy; threatened to kill those who defied or opposed them or who failed to "live up to" their covenants; vehemently supported racial discrimination; adamantly opposed miscegenation; and all but damned to hell both latent and practicing homosexuals.
Because all that has changed now.
Are there any remaining who -- like me with my children, at the current Mormon prophet's behest -- lead the charge by walking the precincts and neighborhoods of this community (in California) to appeal to neighbors to support the proposition denying "marriage equality" to homosexuals?
What a difference seven years can make!
The LDS Church now openly supports legislation banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and practice -- provided that said discrimination may still be practiced by religious organizations (like the LDS Church) -- thus opening the door to "civil" gay unions!
D. Todd Christofferson -- the LDS apostle whose brother is a practicing homosexual, the same LDS apostle whom I publicly questioned but nonetheless supported on the very day I was excommunicated (largely because of what I wrote about him!), this master-of-double-speak -- all but confessed that the LDS Church is susceptible to public opinion and "evolving" moral standards and practices.
As reported in the Salt Lake Tribune: "Christofferson further acknowledged that LDS leaders have evolved in their thinking about homosexuality, while maintaining that marriage should be between a man and a woman" (emphasis added). Quoting Christofferson: "This is not a doctrinal evolution or change, as far as the church is concerned. It's how things are approached."
Evidently.
What got my goat...what really got me fired up enough to write today...was the following Christofferson statement. As first reported on January 29 and again today under the headline "Mormons free to back gay marriage on social media", Christofferson was asked if "Mormons who support same-sex marriage privately among family and friends or publicly by posting entries on Facebook, marching in pride parades or belonging to gay-friendly organizations such as Affirmation or Mormons Building Bridges" (emphasis added) could "do so without the threat of losing their church membership or temple privileges?" His reply:
Recent converts of the LDS Church may be excused for never knowing that LDS leaders succeeding Joseph Smith once required members to practice "essential" polygamy; threatened to kill those who defied or opposed them or who failed to "live up to" their covenants; vehemently supported racial discrimination; adamantly opposed miscegenation; and all but damned to hell both latent and practicing homosexuals.
Because all that has changed now.
Are there any remaining who -- like me with my children, at the current Mormon prophet's behest -- lead the charge by walking the precincts and neighborhoods of this community (in California) to appeal to neighbors to support the proposition denying "marriage equality" to homosexuals?
What a difference seven years can make!
The LDS Church now openly supports legislation banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and practice -- provided that said discrimination may still be practiced by religious organizations (like the LDS Church) -- thus opening the door to "civil" gay unions!
D. Todd Christofferson -- the LDS apostle whose brother is a practicing homosexual, the same LDS apostle whom I publicly questioned but nonetheless supported on the very day I was excommunicated (largely because of what I wrote about him!), this master-of-double-speak -- all but confessed that the LDS Church is susceptible to public opinion and "evolving" moral standards and practices.
As reported in the Salt Lake Tribune: "Christofferson further acknowledged that LDS leaders have evolved in their thinking about homosexuality, while maintaining that marriage should be between a man and a woman" (emphasis added). Quoting Christofferson: "This is not a doctrinal evolution or change, as far as the church is concerned. It's how things are approached."
Evidently.
What got my goat...what really got me fired up enough to write today...was the following Christofferson statement. As first reported on January 29 and again today under the headline "Mormons free to back gay marriage on social media", Christofferson was asked if "Mormons who support same-sex marriage privately among family and friends or publicly by posting entries on Facebook, marching in pride parades or belonging to gay-friendly organizations such as Affirmation or Mormons Building Bridges" (emphasis added) could "do so without the threat of losing their church membership or temple privileges?" His reply:
"We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues...In our view, it doesn't really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that's a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines."
That's very different, he said, than someone who backs a group such as Affirmation.
Oh, really? What could be more "advocating" or "trying to get others to follow them" than marching in a gay-pride parade?! Or posting your support for homosexual marriage on Facebook?! Or belonging to a pro-gay organization?! You can do all that and still be a member of the LDS Church in good standing? And still hold a temple recommend? In defiance of the Church's -- and, ostensibly, the Lord's -- stand on marriage??
Forgive me if I'm confused.
I won't revisit my personal experience confronting the shifting standards and stances of Mormonism on this blog.
But as LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks was quoted as saying in this same article: "These issues with individuals are not 'resolved at church headquarters, but require the prayerful consideration of a [local] bishop."
Indeed.
I have nothing but sympathy for those fraught with homosexual desire. But changing attitudes and "evolving" perceptions among the Brethren are not limited to homosexuality alone. They encompass the gamut of LDS history and doctrine. What LDS leaders now teach slides farther and farther from the truths revealed from God to Joseph Smith.
When members of the LDS Church begin to discover these truths and "step out of line" by revealing them to others, they will be actively persecuted and punished at the local level by unsympathetic Mormon authorities. The LDS hierarchy I have met apparently rely upon a compliant cadre of willfully blind, brainwashed, or under-informed bishops and quisling stake presidents from whom they, perhaps, tacitly threaten to withhold or revoke the second anointing, thus holding eternal life itself in the balance, as a carrot to be denied, if they fail to comply with "training" from Salt Lake or fail to "follow the Brethren" in whatever the hell they teach as the gospel doctrine du jour.
Either that, or lower LDS leaders simply hand over their agency to "higher ups" or, alternatively, receive the same "revelation" from that same god who compels them to act, turning doctrine, history and the teachings of prior prophets on their heads.
What Christofferson now states about how the LDS Church deals with those who disagree with LDS Church Headquarters (except in matters of homosexuality, apparently) is laughably disingenuous. The Salt Lake Tribune quoted him as saying:
Forgive me if I'm confused.
I won't revisit my personal experience confronting the shifting standards and stances of Mormonism on this blog.
But as LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks was quoted as saying in this same article: "These issues with individuals are not 'resolved at church headquarters, but require the prayerful consideration of a [local] bishop."
Indeed.
I have nothing but sympathy for those fraught with homosexual desire. But changing attitudes and "evolving" perceptions among the Brethren are not limited to homosexuality alone. They encompass the gamut of LDS history and doctrine. What LDS leaders now teach slides farther and farther from the truths revealed from God to Joseph Smith.
When members of the LDS Church begin to discover these truths and "step out of line" by revealing them to others, they will be actively persecuted and punished at the local level by unsympathetic Mormon authorities. The LDS hierarchy I have met apparently rely upon a compliant cadre of willfully blind, brainwashed, or under-informed bishops and quisling stake presidents from whom they, perhaps, tacitly threaten to withhold or revoke the second anointing, thus holding eternal life itself in the balance, as a carrot to be denied, if they fail to comply with "training" from Salt Lake or fail to "follow the Brethren" in whatever the hell they teach as the gospel doctrine du jour.
Either that, or lower LDS leaders simply hand over their agency to "higher ups" or, alternatively, receive the same "revelation" from that same god who compels them to act, turning doctrine, history and the teachings of prior prophets on their heads.
What Christofferson now states about how the LDS Church deals with those who disagree with LDS Church Headquarters (except in matters of homosexuality, apparently) is laughably disingenuous. The Salt Lake Tribune quoted him as saying:
"Our approach in all of this, as [Mormon founder] Joseph Smith said, is persuasion. You can't use the priesthood and the authority of the church to dictate. You can't compel, you can't coerce. It has to be persuasion, gentleness and love unfeigned, as the words in the scripture."Holding a gun to one's head can be very persuasive, even if done gently and with love.
Though it's clearly spelled out in scripture, I don't recall anyone in Mormondom teaching this principle prior to Denver Snuffer. In fact, the established protocol has always been (and still remains) precisely the opposite: "Do as you're directed by your file leaders".
The men who excommunicated me, as far as I can tell, did exactly as they were told to do, as directed by their "superiors". There was practically no discussion of the facts or issues involved beyond "Will you [abandon or denounce what you believe and know to be true] and do whatever we tell you to do, or else?"
Those who continue to follow these men after discovering for themselves that they obscure, transform and obliterate the truth deserve to go to hell.
Will, at the risk of overstepping, and I really don't know you at all, you do really sound quite bitter. Let it go, brother! You are free, released from any obligation related to the LDS church. Yes, these are problems, and more and more people are waking up, but shouldn't we just be praying, may God have mercy on their souls? (reference: everything Log has written).
ReplyDeleteIt seems these days like all the blogs I have been following the past couple years have mostly turned to commenting on the current state of the LDS Church, and frankly, I'm tired of it. I want to be uplifted, to have productive discussions about the Gospel, to share what we are learning from our studies of the scriptures. At the very least, maybe we can teach positive principles that counteract some of the damage being done elsewhere, rather than just complaining about the damage?
I suppose someone has to write about what's going on and point out the problems, but the spreading bitterness just makes make me feel sad and mostly hopeless.
Julie,
DeleteOccasionally, I write things that are not bitter about the Church. I think there are others who attempt this.
We are in transition. We are trying to make our way toward Christ. I sincerely hope we come so close to Him that our written and verbal communications always reflect His love. Until that day, we struggle for the right things to say and the right ways to say it.
Julie -
DeleteYou tell Will you are "tired of it", referring to blogs that discuss the current state of the LDS Church. You tell him to "let it go" with regard to his, as you put it, "bitterness".
Wouldn't it be sage advice to suggest that if you don't find this blog uplifting to simply "let it go" and move on?
There are some of us who appreciate Will's perspective, even if he comes off as "bitter" at times. (And, frankly, I can't blame him if he does feel that way.) I want, no, need to hear that there are others who perceive the same issues I see.
Will, I appreciate your efforts with this blog. Keep up the good work.
Michael,
DeleteI hope you didn’t drive Julie away! You guys are my only “church” now and I would be poorer if I lost the fellowship of any of you!
Believe it or not, I don’t usually feel “bitter” toward the LDS Church — only when I see or hear them do or say something that is so not true that it shocks my conscience or offends my sensibilities. D. Todd Christofferson’s statement that “we” (meaning the LDS Church) can’t coerce was such a joke I couldn’t overlook it! Do they really think they can pretend that their regime is anything but coercive?
Well, I guess, since it’s all “voluntary”, you can’t say anyone is “coerced”. But “follow us and do everything we say” or “go to hell and we have the keys to put you there” is just so much coercive hullabaloo that it cannot go unacknowledged.
That being said, I want to forgive these men who (I hope) blindly and ignorantly serve the plan once proposed by the adversary. “They know not what they do” (I hope). I do not think they mean to do wrong. But I also know they willfully deny and hide the truth…whenever it conflicts with their “religion”. In that regard, they “loveth and maketh a lie”. And we all know where that gets you.
I wish the LDS Church no ill-will whatsoever. Like Julie, I mourn its downfall.
Will,
ReplyDeleteHas there ever been a time since Joseph Smith restored the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth that there was such a marked contrast between the revealed Gospel and the shifting doctrines of the Church? It looks very much like the church has lost its way and is floundering like a drowning man, flailing around trying to find something, anything! to cling to in order to keep its nose above water.
Could it be there really was something to Denver Snuffer's declaration that authority was wrenched away from church leaders last April, much as it was by John the Baptist in his day? This groping in the dark, scurrying from one path to another, certainly gives that appearance.
James Russsell Uhl
Dear Julie and Jim,
ReplyDeleteBoth your comments — taken together — are the truth.
Julie, you are right: you do not know me. And I apologize for seeming bitter. My rants are really laments. The loss of membership I suffered was a sacrifice that yet stings me— because it continues. I have seven children and a wife who remain (at my urging) in the LDS Church — for lack of a straiter, narrower path to follow. And I am separated from them every service, every ceremony, every Sunday. The LDS Church has not just taken from me my membership. It has taken from me my fellowship, my community, my culture and my family. Consequently, I cannot recommend them.
Tell Thomas Lewis, whose balls were cut off and whose fiancé was stolen by Bishop Warren Snow (in the 1850s) that “the Church is true”, etc.; that the “prophet” (Brigham Young) who “sustained” Bishop Snow’s actions was “inspired of God”. I doubt you would get Lewis’ support.
In this case, counsel to just “let it go” may be easier to give than to follow.
I have faced the monster that my wife and children soon will face, if they press forward, and for better or for worse, they can learn from my experience and example.
I wish I could recommend these men who pretend to be shepherds, but who really are ravening wolves in shepherd’s clothing and sheep’s wool. They would NOT be embarrassed if I published how many times they have called, how many times they have come by, how many times they have taken the opportunity to correct me in my faults or misunderstandings regarding the very doctrines they claim I have departed from — for they are doing their lord’s work. (And doing it very well, I might add!)
Jim is right about the Church: the flailing around from one doctrine, program or marketing plan to the next. I lament that so many men and women stand up to say “I, I am the Lord’s”, but fail to fill the role that Joseph Smith filled. I wish the world were filled with prophets such as Joseph Smith. I wish I were such a prophet, sharing “visions of glory” and hope with all. But I am not. And the one man I know who bears such fruit was persecuted and cast out by the LDS Church.
My efforts nowadays are spent striving to employ the teachings of Christ given in Matthew 5-7 and 3 Nephi 12-14. Doing so is not common, comfortable, convenient, or casual for me. It requires my ever-present focus and I fail often and miserably. But I have been blessed by the Spirit for my efforts. My only regret is that I “wasted” 35 years doing other things instead.
Thanks for the gracious response, even if I didn't deserve it. You're right, it is much easier to give advice than to follow it when in another's shoes. I do understand how you feel, at least intellectually if not literally, since I have been lucky enough so far to escape the persecution you and others have faced. I have been observing everything going on with the sensation that I am standing next to some river with a powerful current, water flowing in the wrong direction, and the only tool I have to influence its direction is a little spoon. Some of you are out there in the middle of the river wading upstream with difficulty, and I honor you! I am also grieving for the dying church, and I suspect it won't be long now before everyone sees how sick it's become. I've got to stay where I am and hope I can snag a few and point them in the right direction before they abandon hope completely.
DeleteI read D&C 45 again last night, and the phrase "and your souls not saved" keeps echoing through my head this morning. And that was addressed to Christ's church, or those who had repented and were already making their way towards Him. That voice of warning has been haunting me for a while.
Keep wading upstream--from my vantage point you seem to be holding your own against all odds, and I apologize for criticizing.
May God have mercy on us all.
Julie,
DeleteI very much appreciated your comforting and inspiring words this morning. Your river metaphor was apropos and I didn’t feel criticized in the least!
I would let the LDS Church “go” if my children weren’t still members of it. When the Lord makes clear to me what to do on their behalf, I will do it. Meanwhile, here we are…with them going to Church…and me staying at home.
I am grateful you took the time to comment here. Your input is welcome and encouraged. Thank you for sharing.
According to such diverse sources as David Whitmer (one of the original three witnesses of the Book of Mormon) in "An Address to All Believers in Christ", and more recently Richard and Pamela Price in "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy", and Daymon Smith in "A Cultural History of the Book of Mormon" this alleged changing and shifting of doctrines has been going on since the beginning of the Church, with plenty of evidence for it in the Church's own D&C (i.e. the whole church being under condemnation for not following the Book of Mormon, having lost a fulness of priesthood by or before Nauvoo, etc. etc.). As for myself, I have my hands full just trying to keep up with studying the Book of Mormon and learning to ask for and have charity and equity according to its teachings.
DeleteYea, Will sometimes gets on rants, so does Denver, Elder Holland, Elder Oaks, myself, and probably most members of the human race.
I often pray that I will have strength and be able to stand up for what is right when it is right to do so, and to also keep from getting all stirred up going round-and-round in being offended and critical when it would just be my pride and following the contentions of the adversary.
Something about waiting on the Lord and for the Holy Ghost before opening my mouth to preach, and yes, someone even wrote a parable about waiting on the Lord before trying to ascend to the mountain of the fathers, that can also apply to learning to have patience in preaching to and judging others.
Excellent observations and comments, MarkinPNW.
DeleteWe could spend ALL DAY finding fault with the LDS Church, its leaders, doctrines, history, members, our spouses, children, bosses, employees, friends, neighbors, president, country...even God!
And get where?
The "perfect" man will come close to NEVER finding fault with others and ONLY finding fault with himself. There is a LIFETIME of work to be done in striving to do JUST THAT.
Now, in this telestial world there are many cares that seemingly run counter to being the "perfect" man. But that is what we are called upon to do.
I appreciate those "friends" here who have uplifted me with comments and gentle encouragement to "get back on the right path".
I have always been impressed by the wisdom of the aged, who seem to be unsurprised when an "unexpected" turn, twist or "revelation" rears its head. They've been there, done that, knew that already.
In my blog here, I've often manifest the naivete of a youth "coming to terms" with many things. I figured since they were "new" to me, they'd be new and interesting -- even thought to be "important", perhaps -- to others. (They were certainly important to me!)
But while not stepping in poop along the trail may be important to everyone...and pointing out the poop to those who come behind may be doing many a service...focusing on the poop is a BIG mistake. I don't think God intends for us to keep our eyes cast downward, looking for the poop, looking at the poop, always remarking about the poop.
We've got to look elsewhere, aim higher, and embrace a broader, more expansive vision (as Julie intoned).
The truth is, I've been an idolater. And ceasing from idolatry requires smashing the idols that once pretended to have power and authority...or realizing, once and for all, that they are powerless.
What we took for granted ("the Church is true", "the Brethren will never lead us astray", "they have the keys", etc.) isn't, can't, and won't "save" us independently of our coming unto Christ personally, for ourselves. God simply never intended to "farm out" salvation to subordinates who "save" others in lieu of Him. EVERY prophet and saint who testifies boldly in the Book of Mormon testifies of Christ, meeting Him, coming unto Him, being saved by Him. With few exceptions, they DON'T exult in "worshipful" homages to mere men.
And the exceptions are glaring and instructive. First there's Nephi. He becomes the "ideal" leader after whom other leaders are named. But this kind of "trust in the arm of flesh" is another example of "wanting a king" and the people swiftly apostatized.
General Mormon was rather taken (understandably) with Captain Moroni, whom he regarded as almost a perfect man. Still, it wasn't Captain Moroni who brought spiritual salvation to the masses, but temporal salvation (something Mormon himself regarded as a grave challenge for his own time).
We "tie" ourselves to this telestial world inasmuch as we bind ourselves to men and things. We ought to wake up and be inclined to serve God and listen to Him above all else, living by His every word.
Where else can we find salvation?
No where else.
And being quiet and patient and unassuming -- waiting on the Lord -- is critically essential to doing that. (It also happens to be the antithesis of "stream of consciousness" blogging -- of the type I am wont to do!) So in many respects, blogging (for me) is the antithesis of what I need to do.
Maybe I need to just be quiet...and enjoy the view...and as Julie enjoined, point out only the marvelous vistas when I see them...instead of focusing on the poo.
Leaders have evolved in their thinking, eh? What about just getting their instructions from the Lord, and doing what He says? Where is there room in that program for mental evolution?
ReplyDeleteWill, I so appreciated this piece! I feel your sadness and anger. What was done to you was shameful. Rock and I love and support you always! When I pray for you, I pray for you to feel peace and be whole again, in spite of "them". May you and your family be blessed.
ReplyDelete