On October 10th (2009) a new documentary will debut at the Exmormon Foundation Conference in Salt Lake City. In the Shadow of the Temple by Pepita Productions promises to provide 55 minutes of interesting and insightful glimpses into the lives of people who have chosen to leave Mormonism. From the producer’s blog site:
Documentary Film Explores the Mormon Culture of Control
“My mother wishes I was dead!”
This plaintive account of a true believing Mormon mother’s response to her 42 year-old son, the father of her six grandchildren, who doubts the validity of the LDS church, is replicated in themes of fear, rage and renewal in the documentary, In the Shadow of the Temple.
Through dozens of interviews with active Mormons, trapped non-believers and with Ex-Mormons who have left the Church and view it as an oppressive cult, this…production explores, delineates and challenges the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ power to exploit the family as a weapon against those who choose to no longer accept what the Mormons believe to be “the One, True Church.”
For more than a year, we (Karen and Dennis, the film’s producers) have peeled away layers of LDS public relations to find a stone cold resistance to free will, exemplified by the Mormon Church’s ability to use the family as a weapon of control. We thought we were going to do a film about Mormon theological principles, but we found that this is a story about personal and family tragedies.
It’s understandable that those leaving the LDS Church may be angry when they discover the thing to which they have devoted their entire lives turns out to be a fable — a great hoax perpetrated (they may feel) by people they thought they could trust.
But at times deep anger and suspicions are exhibited against those who leave, these unrestrained emotions coming from Mormons who choose to remain in the Church. Parents, siblings, spouses, friends — sometimes they “wish” their loved-ones were dead. Sometimes they think those who have left the Church are the “bad guys.” Sometimes they won’t speak to ex-Mormon family members for years, or they go to their graves never reconciled, never accepting a loved-one’s decision to leave Mormonism to embrace a different faith. What drives such a response? What drives such a tragic wedge between those who really do love one another?
—
Watch the documentary’s trailer:
To see short outtakes from In the Shadow of the Temple visit the Pepita Productions You Tube Channel.
———————-
Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.
———————-
Sharon,
What comes to mind for me when I watch videos like this is that there are two parts two Mormonism. There’s the doctrinal and then there’s the cultural. Sometimes Mormons get turned off by one, the other or both and find themselves having to make a decision as to staying within the group or leaving. There are Mormon folks who are just happy as clams within the culture of Mormonism. It’s “normal” to them. They have nothing with which to compare it to. We see this with dysfunctional families. We see some Mormons for whom it takes a couple of years to exit and several more to adapt to a new “normal”. We can only hope that the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will shine brightly on Mormonism providing a sharp contrast so that those folks can see with spiritual eyes and be delivered.
I just went out to watch the snippets of video at the Pepita site. The one woman said something I’d never thought before, but makes perfect sense. She said the church and it’s members are codependent… like the family that circles around the family member that has a drinking problem to hide that member’s secrets, etc.
Wow.
She’s right.
And not only that, but membership and belief in the church fosters that kind of relationships in Mormon families/marriages.
Before any LDS says I’m trashing on you, look around and see if you don’t know a family/marriage in your LDS community like that.
Maybe it’s even your own…
I really hope that there’s at least one pretty girl in this vid. (Lately, I’ve been pretty disappointed w/ the EV expose vids in this regard. Well, actually, I guess I’ve never been all that impressed.)
As for your observations, falc, I think those are broad enough to apply to every conservative religious community. My first post-mission girlfriend at BYU was from a very conservative So. Baptist family in No. Carolina, & your observations pretty much fit her situation as well–in her transition from Baptist Christianity and community to Mormon Christianity and community.
Not to downplay your sensitive observations, just wanted to give them a little broader context–which I think they deserve. Mormon families and Mormon faithful–just like families and faithful everywhere–often exhibit dynamics (sometimes good, sometimes bad; sometimes right, sometimes wrong) that invariably lead to the departure of people from the family and faith. It’s human nature. While your pinning the blame on the substance of Mormon faith may be legitimate, your observations themselves don’t prove this at all.
Sincerely, mutu.
mutu,
Your sexism is showing with your remarks concerning the physical appearance of the women in the video…….which is pretty typical of Mormonism. Keepem bare foot and pregnant and behind the old Mormon plow, huh?
Here’s the problem as I see it. SLC Mormonism likes to do the Readers Digest advertisement promotion of this perfect little family supported by clean cut religious folks. It’s really typical of abusive situations that everything has to look perfect on the outside. There’s the “no talk” rule and really no opportunity to confront either systemic or personal problems. I’ve read too many accounts of people leaving Mormonism with their reports of emotional and spiritual abuse. Talk to me about the use of prescription drugs and incidence of child abuse and divorce in the Mormon corridor. All families face problems, that’s true, but my sense is that there is something inherent in Mormonism, that is the pressure to be happy and perfect and if you’re not there’s something wrong with you. There’s certainly nothing wrong with the church. It’s perfect. It’s all those people who just aren’t striving hard enough.
falcon,
Mormons have their share of problems. My family has its share of problems. I have my share of problems.
But I count myself very fortunate to have had a mother wise enough to let Mormon missionaries into our home, and a father wise enough to take the Book of Mormon into his hands and find out for himself if it were really a revelation of Jesus Christ as the young missionaries had claimed.
I still have a mother and father who are faithful to their original spiritual confirmation over thirty years ago. While there are a few “what might’ve beens” I contemplate of myself and my family then (as my family now), I’d rather not think what my parents’ and my own lives might have been had they not made that decision to embrace the restored church and gospel in 1976.
Nor do I want to imagine where my life might be had I not embraced it myself as a teenager in 1987. Some very wonderful and joyful consequences have followed.
Sincerely, mutu.
I find it odd when I hear a TBM say, “The gospel is perfect, but people are not”. But in reality, in any organization, it is the sum of the people who make up the organization that they represent. Religion was not made for God, it was made for people, and people (men), run the organization.
I personally know someone who felt the disappointed, angry, let down… when they found out the church has lied, exaggerated stories, misled people. Now that person is taking what they learned and preaching it to all who will listen.
The LDS org. has been on the opposite side of equal rights on just about every, if not every equal rights issue in America. They fought against womens rights, blacks rights, gay rights. So I would have to ask, why does the LDS god discriminate against some of his children? I would think that the church would be at the forefront of equal rights movements.
I have learned that LDS friendships are contingent on the membership of the church, it is conditional friendship. The LDS people only love the LDS people, except when the LDS org. needs some good publicity. Then they throw on the Helping Hands T-Shirt and do some public service. When an LDS person does some good, you know about it, they love to brag about it.
As Mantis Mutu said,
This article is more about human nature than a religion. In my experiences on my mission in Finland most people who left the Lutheran church to join another religion, especially LDS, JW, SDA or non-Christian, were disowned by their families and friends. I knew many people in the LDS church who tried to contact their parents, siblings, children or spouse after joining only to be stone-walled and rejected every time. I am sure it happens in every community because it is just that – human nature.
As observed by someone in an earlier blog, things may also be different here in Australia compared to either Utah and/or USA with the LDS mannerisms. I do hear stories about the ex-members as mentioned above, but it mainly comes from the USA especially the predominately LDS areas from what I understand. From my own experiences here in Australia, most of my age group became inactive and some have either been excommunicated or removed their names from the rolls. I have kept in contact with the ones I was good friends with, but most of them are shunning any contact with any members whether old friends or other.
2 of my sisters went inactive, one still is. She lives in Wales at the moment but the whole family keeps in contact with her via internet. The same goes with all the other families I know who have inactive members, they still keep in contact with their loved ones. Including the parents of a young man who is now a drag queen.
So maybe its more a cultural thing (ie Australia vs America vs Finland), not a relgion thing. But it definately human nature, not something taught by the LDS church. In fact as you all know we teach the opposite. But the members are not perfect, we’re only human – but this has nothing to do with whether the LDS church is true or not.
Ralph,
I like your thinking, and I don’t mean to single you out with this reply, but…
Can you, will you, go to the logical conclusion of that?
If human nature is crappy, why would ANY human-run organization be Christ’s true Church?
Don’t you think it more logical that God, who can “see the heart”/”read the mind” of every person on earth, would take those for His church the ones who He could make into people who, for instance, would follow the lead of Jesus by loving the sinner?
One other logical continuation: if the LDS church is the one true church on earth, God’s great restoration of all that He wants us to have, should they have the same problems as all other organizations? Shouldn’t they, for pete’s sake, be a step above every other thing on earth in all areas?
Please think those over a bit, please?
What a heartbreaking video! From the people I’ve talked to and the stories I’ve read, this documentary is all too common. A Mormon family I’m close with has an unmarried son in his late twenties. His mother says she would still see him even if he chose to get married outside of the temple or even leave Mormonism. I wonder if it’s true, especially as he nears 30 and the pressure to marry is mounting. I pray that he (and mom!) comes out of Mormonism and God grants strength and healing to withstand the reaction of family and friends.
Setfree,
I don’t see that as the logical conclusion to my observations. I don’t see it as meaning anything about a church or organisation being true or false or right or wrong.
If you want to know what I see as logical conclusions about a human-run organisation being Christ’s true church, then I logically see that He wants/needs/organised one. If we go through the Bible we see in th OT that He organised the Israelite religion. In fact He made it a theocracy while they were wandering around the wilderness for 40 years with Moses as the head of the church (ie Prophet) and the head of the government. The Jews (one of the 12 tribes of Israel) kept this organised religion and still have it. So God did institute an organised religion on the OT.
The NT is more difficult to show, but we do have the Roman Catholic church claiming to be the original organisation from Jesus and His apostles, tracing back to Peter. But there are the teachings of Jesus where He says that His house (ie church and Heaven and Kingdom) is a house of order; a house against itself will fall; and no man can serve 2 masters; He called 12 apostles, then when the work load got heavy He called 70 more to assist the 12. Then there is the scripture saying that He instituted apostles, prophets, priests, teachers, etc to help all to come to a unity of faith. It all points to a unity with only one master. This master is Jesus, but when you have 12 denominations teaching different doctrines that’s 12 masters, so God would logically have only one spokesperson on this earth at a time to state His doctrine – hence one Prophet. This is my logical conclusion to the Bible.
Yes we are imperfect but God uses what He has, so no I do not concur with your statement about there being no reason for a religious organisation being the logical conclusion to my observations.
Not that it matters, but if you listen closely enough her words are slurred. Could be a physical problem, who knows. Having been a High Priest Group Leader once, I ran across problems all the time that indicated that more then just inactivity was a issues, but often there were word of wisdom problems and we would do all we could to help that person to overcome the temptations of the world.
Regards, Richard.
You gotta be kidding me! Her words were slurred? You Mormons are too much. That comment is a perfect demonstration of the impression I’ve gotten about Mormons. People don’t leave because the culture is smothering, controlling, guilt producing, petty and manipulative. They don’t leave because they figured out the Joseph Smith story is a total sham. NO it’s because of personal moral failings. You Mormons are something else. Absolutely pathetic!
The Mormon poster needs to repent for bearing false witness.
Falcon,
I agree. However, HS/R once referred to himself as being in his sunset years. I find it important/helpful to recognize this when I read what he writes/respond.
Get me?
Ralph,
Your reply doesn’t answer my question, but for sake of argument, would you please give the verses you are referring to?
Ralph, as Christians we don’t serve different masters. We serve Christ and God. We also look solely to the bible to reveal doctrine, not to a man, although some learned men are better at exegeting difficult passages based upon their knowledge of the original languages or history. Like I have said before, if you put the same bible in four rooms and have four men read it, you are likely to get at least two, and maybe three different opinions on some of the more difficult doctrines such as free will vs. election.
So it is man who is fallible and has interpretations. The bible is an inamimate object, is neutral, and does no interpreting, nor does it influence anyone “spiritually” to a specific interpretation. There are words on pages constructed in grammatical form. It is our responsibility to look at those words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books, etc. in their grammatical historical context, and in the context of biblical doctrine as a whole, and make our interpretations from there. We keep in mind that God’s word is not contradictory. There are also non-salvation issues like drinking alcohol vs. abstaining, eschatology, the order of salvation, etc. Many Christians agree to disagree on those issues, but are still Christians none-the-less.
Some of the areas defined as heresy are left to subjects like works-salvation and the denial of the Trinity, but the one constant taught very clearly in the bible is salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. I don’t think I need to give a list of scriptures again.
The Smithian organization likes to pretend, just like the Roman Catholics, that there are no “denominations”, and everyone is united under the current Prophet. Tell that to Warren Jeffs, the RLDS, etc. Your “representatives” have always taught doctrine that contradicts the bible, which is God’s word, so they are not God’s spokesmen on earth.
Richard,
You’re pretty to quick to size-up the woman in the video. Do you think you may be in violation of Matthew 7:1? What would your High Priest Group Leader now say about someone like yourself for basically implying that the woman in the video has an alcohol problem? I guess it’s only a one-way street, huh?
The LDS faithful are always quick to point at some sort of sin issue or Word of Wisdom issue for someone leaving the church. They tell themselves that to make themselves feel better while deep-down knowing it’s rubbish. Many people leave because they’ve grown tired of rehearsing and stating a taught/learned testimony of something they have found to be an absolute lie. They’ve grown weary of Joseph Smith and the LDS spin-clean up of his life to make Mormonism believable. Many have tested Mormonism by the Bible and found Mormonism to be heresy – which it is. They have a real testimony of the real Jesus now. I have a testimony of Jesus Christ and what He has done in my life. Mormons can’t deny what I have.
For all you know the woman may have a speech disability, a learning disability or been in accident where her face is disfigured (maybe that is why it’s blackened out?) and can’t speak clearly or, better yet, her TBM husband has recently punched her in the mouth for wanting to leave Mormonism knocking out several of her teeth and she has damage to her mouth which prevents her from speaking clearly! I guess none of that is a possibility, eh?
Lastly, I was asked recently by someone who reads this blog what kind of a person would post smiley faces at their end of their posts…what age or maturity level they would be on? My point: you wouldn’t want people to draw conclusions about you because of something they have no clue about and then post their findings on the internet for the world to read in an attempt to malign you, correct?
Falcon I agree with you. Often times TBM cannot face the facts and real reason why some people leave the LDS org. TBM want to blame it on everything except the real reasons, like, issues with the w.o.w. I don’t know anyone who has left the Mormon Org. due to the W.o.w.
The claim that there is a deeper issue, although is accurate, but the larger issue is the false prophecy, the lies, the mind control, etc.
I do know people who have left, then over time have decided to have a few drinks, or heavens forbid for the women, wear tank tops in public. Understandably, they are no longer under the control of SLC, they are free, and they are not doing anything wrong. I have been liberated for a little while now and I would say that I follow the W.o.w more than a TBM.
As far as the W.o.w is concerned, I know of active members who are more like cafeteria members who, on occasion, will throw back a double mocha, one is even the relief society president in California. Really I don’t know of a single Mormon who follows the W.o.w fully.
But that’s not the point here, right? The point is a lot of members use slander to justify their position, and discredit someone who chooses to leave; I think it makes them feel better.
This ties in perfectly with the topic subject of control, for instance, Milieu Control, “When non-members are labeled as ignorant, unspiritual, satanic, etc., group members conclude that outsiders have nothing worthwhile to teach them. Thus members are unlikely to look outside the group for information, especially spiritual information.” Mystical manipulation control, “Similarly, any thought or action which questions the higher purpose is considered to be stimulated by a lower purpose, to be backward, selfish, and petty in the face of the great overriding mission.” The sacred science, “the man who dares to criticize it (LDS org.), or to harbor even unspoken alternative ideas, becomes not only immoral and irreverent, but also ‘unscientific.” (Lifton)
Well, well, what a wonderful reaction I created. I notice that Evangelicals read very fast and skip much of what is said.
1). I questioned what I thought was a slur to her speech, adding that it could be a physical problem.
2). I also added that through experience in dealing with in-actives, word of wisdom issues where pretty much obvious at times.
3). I also stated we were concerned first for their welfare, noting that worldly problems often created in-activity.
Since she is obviously not a member anymore, I suppose that she has pretty much found whatever truth is out there, and replaced it for the truth she once believed in. Why, I have no idea, but I noted a slur which is typical of either a physical difficulty or maybe some substance abuse. It matters not.
I find it humorous that when it comes to faulting Joseph Smith, anything goes. Such as being a adulterous man, pedophile, magic worker, gold seeker, liar, false prophet and con-artist. Hmmm, interesting when all I did was point our a slight slur in the video, which could be just bad recording or maybe a speech impediment. How would I know with out any hard evidence. Hmmm, HARD EVIDENCE.
Ralph wrote
(Matt 12:25, Mark 3:25, Luke 11:17, see also 1 Cor 14:33, though it relates specifically to prophesy)
(PS, I’m not quoting Bible verses to show off, its just that I can use http://www.biblegateway.com)
…but the history of the Mormon Church is all about a house that’s divided against itself.
I’ve got to hand it to MRM. Their strategy is really quite simple – bring to light what the LDS movement teaches and has taught (need we go into the curse of Cain, Adam/God, BoA all over again). And what about the “divergent paths of the restoration”. Perhaps, in the LDS universe, confusion is stability, in Orwellian kind of way (you know, “War is Peace”, etc)
LDS teaching is about as stable as a hooker’s underwear in a brothel.
I know that LDS propaganda is all about how disorderly the competition (Christian Churches) is, but, come on, you can’t even agree among yourselves how many Gods there are.
Documentary Film Explores the Mormon Culture of Control
Control in the life of a aging Mormon man, one who is looking at the sunset of his life.
Each and every morning, I kneel to the east and say three Joseph Smiths and one Thomas S Monson. Exactly at 7 A.M. I receive a call, stating that a new email has been sent for me to review and follow. In it there are three pages, the first is always the same, it spells out what, why and how to be MORMON, always the same and never changes, kind of like a chant. Next two pages outline control issues, follow everything to a tee and you will work your way to heaven. Nothing very hard, but always in the framework of strictness to everything the Prophet states and tells us to believe. It begins with the loyalty prayer and ends with a allegiance of commitment, done with the hand over the heart and one foot held high to show that balance is possible in all things, replacing faith with obedience, that now controls one not to question anything outside the circle of acceptable Mormon Scripture.
That be me. 🙂
R.
What is TBM?
Something to point out for Bible Literalists-Shunning, excommunication etc…isn’t limited to the LDS church. In fact I believe the word excommunication is catholic in origin, denying access to communion.
Isn’t there a scriptural basis for that? JW’s really take that to the extreme, from what I heard its way more difficult than anything LDS folks dish out.
TBM – True Blue Mormon or True Believing Mormon.
Ralph,
Just for comparison, the Hindu religion. I was so suprised to learn that its NOT organized at all. Some have complained that its theology is ‘a mess’, but that is from an outsiders point of view.
“Hinduism is God centred. Other religions are prophet centred.”
http://www.hinduism.co.za/founder.htm
There is the feeling expressed in the article that its just between you and god, no need for a third person, or more.
Would it be fair to say that Christians may not appear to be ‘organized’ but are god-centered, as revealed through jesus christ?
Hanksaint,
Thats a bit of an exageration, but to outsiders, it does appear that the LDS church members look to the leadership for what to feel, and believe. They also see the church often voting in a large political block, as if following a directive from salt lake, almost as you spelled out.
That is perhaps one of the appealing things of joining up to an organized dogmatic religion, you don’t have to think and make difficult choices. When I was an LDS church member, I literally thought that someone ‘in charge’ was even going to hint about what I should do professionally.
That was certainly not part of the deal, a serious misunderstanding on my part. But it wasn’t far from how much I was encouraged to fall in line, believe approved doctrine, and NOT think for myself. As a child I was opposed to the idea of plural marriage…that was quickly knocked out of me. I refused as much as I could to ever getting my hair cut. I was forcelly pinned down to get a hair cut. At eight years old I DID NOT want to get baptized. My father baptized me, but I can tell you that I resisted physically. I was NOT relaxed. I was very stiff, like a board. I professed reincarnation, which of course was very quickly labled as error to the highest degree. I didn’t know the term, but I did describe the idea of multiple lifetimes, and transmigration of the soul. I found that interesting because I wasn’t taught that.
Enki, there are a lot of commands to put disobedient Israelites “out of the camp” for violating God’s commandments. Especially for crimes such as sexual immorality, etc. But I think the idea of excommunication stems from Pauls teaching in 1 Corinthians 5, especially 1 Cor 5:1-7 where a son is involved in sexual immorality with his father’s wife. Apparently the church was tolerating this, allowing the son to fellowship with them, thereby letting him believe he was “saved” and one of them. Paul says,
The idea being that cutting him off from fellowship would:
1.)Preserve the purity of the church (verse 6).
2.)Cause the man to repent and ultimately be saved.
Later, in verses 9-11 Paul says that they should not have fellowship with anyone who calls themselves a “brother”, but is living an immoral lifestyle.
I think this is good advice to keep them from influencing others in the church, and to not stain the image of Christians. Paul describes how he did this to two “brothers” in 1 Timothy 1:20.
I know people who are ex-LDS and their families are still trying to get them back in the church, just like I would if one of my children left Christianity. I don’t think I would cut them off though, unless they were involved in some gross immorality, hoping that God’s grace would lead them to repentance. I think this is one area where there is a biblical model. It just depends on how one interprets the act of leaving the church: idolotry? gross sin? If the break in fellowship is done out of love and concern for their loved-one’s soul, even though I don’t think the Smithian church is true, they believe they are doing the right thing and may have scriptural support.
Coming from a JW background I know what it’s like to see families torn apart by the dis-fellowshiping process. The JW’s follow the biblical model of asking the offending party/s to repent. Members of the church are sent to convince the straying sheep to return, but when those chances are passed, the consequences are severe. I remember my father, who was raised JW, seeing his lifelong best friend in a grocery store several years after he left the church. Nathan walked right by him like he wasn’t even there. It crushed my dad, and along with the rejection from other family members it contributed to my hatred of God and religion until I was 30 years old. I know professing Christians who live immoral lifestyles, but I don’t shun them. I’m cordial with them, and I council them. I have to work with them, but I don’t hang out with them outside of work. If I see Christians who have left the faith, because they were never truly in the faith, I’m genuinely happy to see them and truly concerned for their well-being. I pray for them when they come to mind. To trash talk them would be wrong, and it would portray Christians in a very bad light.
I don’t ever want anyone to think that Christianity is an organization, or that we are like doble’ eme’ or the Mormon Mafia, as it is affectionately referred to where I live. And in case you take offense, the Smithians are the ones who started using the phrase first to describe the influence they have in the community and amongst each other at work.
Like I said above. This is a hard one. Where is the person’s heart and what are their motives?
Our Mormon poster gives a list of the charges leveled against Joseph Smith and then suggests that there is no evidence to support the charges. This ladies and gentlemen is another example of the depth of denial folks will go to in order to maintain faith in a belief system that is not only seriously flawed but is from the land of OZ. The information about Joseph Smith is well documented and accurate and comes from Mormon sources. I posted the link previously of the presentation by John Dehlin (a Mormon) that substantiates the information regarding Joseph Smith. It’s titled “Why people leave the LDS Church” and can be found at: http://mormonstories.org/?p=50
The reader can also look to Fawn Bode, Richard Bushman, Michael Quinn, Grant Palmer and Sandra Tanner who document all of this information. To say that evidence doesn’t exist is a type of mind bending that is characteristic of Mormonism.
What we are talking about here is basically spiritual abuse. It can happen in any religious organization and has specific characteristics. Churches are meant to be safe places however this is not so in systems where leaders use their spiritual authority to control and dominate others. These leaders and even other members use the right “spiritual” words to manipulate and shame church members into complying with certain behaviors or performance that ensnares them in legalism, guilt and begrudging service. These organizations have deeply ingrained spiritual codes of written and unwritten rules that control and condemn people. Folks are enslaved to a system, a leader, or a standard of performance that exploits and robs them.
Spiritually abusive situations are a psychological trap. Why do people stay?
1. There is too much at stake to leave-friends, the years invested, people’s opinions.
2.They are afraid. They are terrified by the perpetrator’s threats.
3. They have become so dependent on the abusive system that they don’t know if they could leave and survive emotionally or financially.
4. Just about the time they decide to leave, things improve for a while so they keep changing their mind.
5. They believe things about themselves, their relationships, or God that are untrue.
In these shame based religious systems, victims are created through various techniques used by the leaders and other members. Shame and guilt are two different things. Guilt is an emotional indication about wrong actions or attitudes. Shame is a destructive signal about you and your worth. It is the belief or mindset about yourself-that you are bad, defective or worthless as a person. Shame is the glue that holds the spiritually abusive relationship together.
1. Out loud shaming-the message-there’s something wrong with you.
2.Focus on performance: the message-how people act is more important than who they are. You are accepted by your ability to live up to the groups expectations.
3. Manipulation: relationships and behaviors are manipulated by very powerful unspoken rules. The “can’t talk” rule keeps people quiet. People learn to talk in code. Coding is a form of verbal manipulation. “Triangling” is sending a message through another person rather delivering it personally.
4. Idolatry: The “god” served by the shame based relationship system is an impossible to please judge, obsessing on people’s behaviors from a distance, whose mood is dependent on them. It is a god invented to enforce the performance standard and to keep the system intact.
5. Preoccupation with fault and blame. The shame based system wants a confession in order to know whom to shame-whom to make feel so defective and humiliated that they won’t act that way anymore.
6. Obscured reality. Members have to deny any thought, opinion or feeling that is different than those of the leaders.
7. unbalanced interrelatedness. enmeshment-no clear boundaries between people.
(To read more see: “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse” by David Johnson & Jeff VanVonderen)
LOL as we consider the following: “The reader can also look to Fawn Bode, Richard Bushman, Michael Quinn, Grant Palmer and Sandra Tanner who document all of this information. To say that evidence doesn’t exist is a type of mind bending that is characteristic of Mormonism”.
Mind Bending is the complete denial that even your own scholars, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, think your above sentence is not characteristic of Mormonism and its high qualify of Scholarship to the degree they even admit, “Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?
In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be “the definitive” book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors’ integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.
Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists.
Sincerely, Richard.
Richard, I’m pretty sure that that argument has been covered by now… but just to reiterate, your buddies Mosser and Owen say Mormonism is a cult. Like em now?
Mormon scholarship (currently) falls under the Dumb and Dumber quote of “more like one in a million”… and Mormon love of such scholarship replies “so you’re saying there’s a chance!”
Ralph, I’m hoping you’ll give verses support for your church organization stuff, still, but I have to warn you… it’s a long argument that doesn’t end well (in LDS church organization favor). For one thing, the 12, and then the 70, were sent out by two’s to preach the gospel. For another thing, they were actually preaching “Christ, and Him crucified” as the end-all, be-all need to know for salvation.
Why do you come to Mormon Coffee? Do you wish to learn the truth about God/Jesus/Bible/Salvation? Or do you just wish to learn every contra-claim and then try to refute it and/or ignore it? You know, you do a good job with arguments, but there are some you don’t try. I want you to know, nobody else is getting those arguments answered either. So, the big question, what about those arguments?
I think an LDS apologist’s job is a lot like a dude in a snow plow in them middle of Alaska. You can push back at the snow until you’ve cleaned off a little area for yourself, but you cannot get rid of the snow…
Thanks Setfree,
I’ve been down that rode of “Mormon scholarship” with our friend before, but he keeps bringing up that quote. It’s the only thing he has in his tool kit. The fact of the matter is that there’s a big difference between Mormon “authors” and Mormon “sources”. Christian apologists tend to stay away from Mormon “authors” because their work is so dreadfully awful. And BTW who really wants to interact with the Mormon hacks at FAIR and FARM. Their work is beyond embarrassing. When we look at Bodie, Quinn, Bushman, Palmer and Tanner, (all former or current Mormons) their works are heavily documented and from Mormon sources. There revelations have proven to be troublesome for the TBMs because it blows large holes in their testimony.
I know for example when Andy Watson does his apologetic work with Mormons, he has his rather large messenger bag stuffed with all Mormon source materials. It’s a real trip when he has the Mormons read from their own periodicals and other publications. It’s defib paddle time when they start going into cardiac arrest.
Our Mormon friend is flailing about trying to keep his head above water. His Mormon life vest has several slow leaks and can’t keep him afloat.
Hank, Smithian apologetics and research do not touch on the subject at hand. We are talking about human relations within the organization’s structure, not about research into whether the org. is true or not. Many of the Smithian women my wife associates with in the PTA are on multiple anti-depression and anxiety medications. I can relate what I would describe as emotional neglect of women in the various callings that are handed out from Bishops who disregard whether or not these women have the time or desire, or ability to perform these tasks. Most of these women are trying to raise children, run a household, pacify their husbands, and hold full-time jobs to keep up with the Jones’. Being overworked is not an excuse, because “working for the Lord” is what it is all about. The sense of inadequacy is great. The women put on happy faces for a show, but in casual conversation they admit how tired they are and half-let-on that they are not happy with their callings, or their lives.
Another friend of mine hates being bothered by his callings because he just does not have time, and it takes away from time with his family. Another man I know of was given the calling of Boy Scout troop leader. He has 5 children, including a newborn, and a demanding full time job. He has no desire whatsoever to lead Boy Scouts, which consume two nights a week and one weekend a month. When I asked my friend why the man didn’t decline the calling he said, “You can, but when you get a calling, you don’t say, ‘no”.
Church service is about true desire to serve Christ out of love, not compulsion. This is love of the “church” not love for Christ. It is coercion with the threat of eternal spiritual consequences. Christ does not need your church’s works. The Organization needs the works to make the org. appealing to the un-initiated. The Smithian church looks pretty from the outside, all smiles and a blur of activity, but the human toll of keeping the show going is enormous.
Now, to be fair, I’m not so blind to believe that Christian churches don’t sometimes treat their members the same way, but I would say that this is not the biblical model for running a church. Even if it has become the norm, it is still wrong, and should not be tolerated.
I served as an Elder under a pastor who was just as manipulative. His goal was church growth, and he used a person’s love of Christ as a weapon against them to get them to participate in ministry, participate in church functions, and to give money. I was called by him to be an Elder before I had any business filling that position simply because I was young, a professional, and had a wife and children. I fit the profile of who he wanted the people in his church to be, but it quickly became apparent to me that only one of the 7 Elders was qualified. We all loved Christ, but only one of us had the all of the qualification laid out in 1 Timothy 3. Over the years I grew in faith and knowledge and realized that this man had no business being a pastor. He pitted ministry leaders and members against one another through deceit. He had a cold heart towards his flock and a love for authority. When I questioned his motives and his handling of the church his true colors showed. I became the catalyst that ended in his removal, because he would not repent and let go of the reins for a period while he got his spiritual house in order. Unfortunately this also destroyed the church.
So when I tell you that your organization spiritually manipulates people I know what’s going on from first-hand experience. I saw the same stress on the members of my flock as I see in my Smithian friends. I’m not blind to spiritual abuse, and you should be honest with yourself and at least admit that it is a problem.
liv4jc,
I’m willing to bet money that neither the religious organization you were in, nor the one you ARE in, claims to be the one and only TRUE church, right?
One wonderful thing about having a personal relationship with Jesus, is that the relationship soon bypasses the need you have to esteem another person (to put them between yourself and God). Also, you begin to see people how God sees them, which gives you the ability to condescend (have sympathy) rather than condemn those who are not so far along their walk with Him, and respect (recognize but not revere) those who are further along. It’s not a competition anymore, because Jesus is the One leading you, calling you, placing you in a ministry. (One that He built you for, gave you interest in, and gives you every other resource you need, btw).
I really doubt that anyone who hasn’t got the personal relationship with Him understands what I’m saying, especially because of my apparent inadequacy to express myself, lol, so I’ll leave it there for now.
Setfree, there is only one true church, and that is the invisible church, the eklesia, the called out ones, the body of Christ throughout the world, and throughout the ages. No organization is “The Church”. You and I are both in the same church.
My current pastor asked me to become an Elder. Although I believe I am qualified, I graciously told him that I would not have the time, due to work and family commitments, to adequately perform all of the duties the office entails. This was an honest answer that I believe honors God. I do however teach in the church and fulfill some other duties when I am called to do so. My current pastor is a very patient Godly man and understands that a willingness to serve is more important than service for the sake of commitment itself.
liv4jc,
Exactly
The book I referenced “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse” was written specifically for Christians. It’s easy to slip into hero worship with leaders that goes beyond due respect. There’s something about wanting to be led that happens with humans just as it does with a pack or a herd. We can recall the words of Paul admonishing the believers for starting a cult of personality wanting to be known as belonging to Cephas or Appolos or Paul. Paul asks them who was crucified for them. That pretty much puts things in order.
I guess being the age I am and the fact that I’ve seen enough to turn me off when it comes to controlling religions, that I have a real suspicion of anything that smells of legalism or control. I’m also a Baby Boomer with enough of a rebellious streak that while I’ll treat those in authority with respect, I’m not going to blindly follow (anyone).
A woman I know was recently going to a certain flavor Baptist church. It was very heavy duty legalistic and the members were self righteous to the max. In a subtle manner, I told her to dump it and get into a church in which she could breath and think like an independent adult. She did and is much happier and free now.
Mormonism is a controlling religious cult. Members are told that the church holds the keys to their salvation. Once folks get by that lie, they can be set free to grow and mature and be an individual not a clog in some man’s organization. The mystical Body of Christ is the only “church” anyone needs to belong to. Salvation comes through Jesus Christ, not some organization.
So folks and all you visitors and guest lets look at the following remark, “Their work is beyond embarrassing. When we look at Bodie (BRODIE), Quinn, Bushman, Palmer and Tanner, (all former or current Mormons) their works are heavily documented and from Mormon sources. There revelations have proven to be troublesome for the TBMs because it blows large holes in their testimony”.
Recommended reading for all lurkers, visitors and guest, answering the the suggestion, “Their work is beyond embarrassing” — 🙂
The Legend and Legacy of Fawn Brodie Louis Midgley http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=1&id=373
It seems that Brodie longed to produce enthralling literature. She did not understand that “intuition” (coupled with skill as a writer) was not a substitute for grounding accounts solidly in the available textual sources or for dealing critically with those sources. Brodie’s reliance on intuition seems to have been constant during her literary career. Dale Morgan, her early mentor and role model, was like her in this respect, though he was also more clearly aware that his stories had to be grounded on textual evidences and not merely based on intuition. He warned Brodie about the dangers of merely following her hunches. Others have noticed this penchant on her part, and it led some of those friendly to her endeavors to see her as a fine writer, a kind of frustrated novelist, but as a less than genuinely competent historian.
A Response to D. Michael Quinn’s Homosexual Distortion of
Latter-day Saint History Rhett S. James, and George L. Mitton
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=1&id=280
Very good reading my Lurker friends. The truth about another author which, ““Their work is beyond embarrassing”
“D. Michael Quinn is a former Mormon historian now turned homosexual apologist.2 His Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example appears to be, among other things, another attempt to generate tolerance and perhaps even acceptance for the notion of a special homosexual identity. This highly controversial book also seems to be Quinn’s attempt to talk Latter-day Saints into ceasing to view homosexual acts as immoral. It follows that if there is a homosexual identity, either genetically grounded or socially constructed—he seems to want to have it both ways—then apparently he thinks Latter-day Saints should cease being what he considers homophobic and make a place for homoerotic behavior within the church.”
Bushman’s, Rough Stone Rolling
Recommended, read it myself.
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=27&num=4&id=515
“Louis Midgley likewise focuses on Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling in his review of that book, considering the reactions to it from within the LDS community as well as without and, again, speculating what greater significance these reactions hold for LDS scholarship. Midgley analyzes the book’s strengths and weaknesses, particularly in regard to its approach to Joseph Smith from a faithful perspective. While Midgley believes that Bushman could have made his faith in Joseph Smith more transparent throughout the book, he concludes that overall the book is an exceptional work and important to the larger progress of Mormon scholarship.”
While I do think any organization can ostracize anyone who leaves, the impression (far too many stories saying otherwise) is that Mormons are a lot harsher than others.
That said, I know Christians can certainly be closed to people leaving. There are strong examples that suggest this is true…
Is it just me or do our LDS friends listen? Reading through these posts I was amused to read that Hank has so quaintly brought up Mosser and Owens… There is another exemple, by the way, of finding a quote that suits their purposes but ignoring the rest of their message. The more I think about it, the ironic that becomes when quoting something out of context is something LDS love to criticize us for.
Alas…
Asked and Answered: A Response to Grant H. Palmer
James B. Allen
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=1&id=533
Just some more information for our guest and visitors to see both sides of the coin. I’m sure that another opinion is not to be feared.
R.
Not my words, just some musings by Mosser and Owen.
“Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be “the definitive” book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors’ integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.”
Regards.
Tanner? You got to be kidding. Anyone still quoting from their antiquated blunderings, should think about getting some new source materials. What a joke amongst us LDS TBM’s.
R.
Yes, and they also say you’re in a cult.
Go figure.
Liv4jc,
About LDS church callings. What do you think of the LDS church calling every young man to serve a mission? I almost used the word ‘worthy’, but I believe they also mean that they should make themselves worthy.
I have an aunt (by marriage)who was a christian missionary for 10 years with her husband in an african nation. Her two sons were born there. Anyways I really got a very different sense of what it was to be a missionary.
She didn’t talk about it too much, but she mentioned that she functioned more like an elementary school teacher, teaching students how to read in general so that they could read the bible. Of course it sounded like they lead their lives pretty much as usual as they did in the united states. Her first husband is now dead, and she remarried my uncle after his divorce. Hes not LDS and has never been. I feel happy for him because I think she is really, really good for him. But hes good for her also.
Michael, who cares what they say, they are irrelevant.
Truth is truth, no matter what someone else wants to believe.
Book of Mormon is true, not one person yet, has out of the many theories yet come to only one solution of the what, how and why of its origin, interesting indeed.
r.
You care what they say. This is why you quote them.
Some bold claims follow, though I agree that truth is truth. BoM, not so much.
I don’t get your comment regarding the BoM. I don’t think it makes any sense. I am being sincere here. I really do not understand your sentance. Can you restate? I think you are saying that the BoM is true because no one has been able to explain its origin, but I am not sure.
I’ll wait to respond until I hear.
Not anyone yet has come up with a single theory of the origin other then to state it is a fraud or fiction. There must be at least 10 or more supposed ideas of how Joseph was able to produce the BOM, why is it that you all can’t settle on just one theory? It makes your criticisms seem pretty lame compared to the actual reality of it being exactly what it proclaims, a record of those living on the American Continent thousands of years ago. If you have found the one and only theory, please produce it.
R.
HankSaint,
That is so absolutely ridiculous! Why does there have to be only one alternative solution to criticize something? How are you coming up with 10 or more theories? What are these, can you name these ten seperate theories, and then debunk why they are false?
Reguardless of these theories, the Book has so many repeats of text found in the Bible, written in the KJV language. It even repeats translation errors made in the KJV, and outdated language which could have been updated to 1830 language use.
Its supposed to be a new revelation, so why all the repeats? Its supposed to provide the fullness of the gospel, yet additional scriptures were required to round out or fill out many ‘plain and simple’ things which were left out of the BOM.