New Magazine section

[Jeff_Ricks]

In addition to Brad's new article the Magazine has been updated to include a new section called Letters. The new section will be primarily for letters we receive that we, the staff of PostMormon.com, have permission to publish.

However, to start things off I decided to publish a series of letters to the editor including two related essays, which were published in a Cache Valley newspaper regarding Native American DNA vs. the Book of Mormon. I hope it provides some insight into how typical Mormons deal with the issue – at least those who are even aware of it. :rolleyes:

The formatting of the new addition needs fine tuning, as well as a few typos needing fixing, but that will be corrected over the next few days. My 16 year old daughter typed it up for me and proofed it herself. Another set of eyes is always helpful but I've not had time to go over it yet.

Jeff

[peter_mary]

The letters were great! We have similar debates raging in our local newspaper, who can't seem to win no matter what they do. In fact, just yesterday there were a whole spate of hateful letters accusing the paper of being anti-Mormon, including one lady who just went off because there was a front page photo two weeks ago of some Melaleuca employees hanging Christmas lights, under the heading "Ladder-day Saints." (There was a ladder in the photo, on which they were standing.) The owner of Melaleuca is a prominent Mormon here in Idaho Falls, who has been sharply critical of the Post Register for being biased (which is nonsense). Anyway, the letter writer was just convinced this was a jab at the Church. Funny, but I wrote a personal e-mail to the publisher of the paper accusing him of sucking up to Melaleuca and the Church! Like the song says, "A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."

Mostly it is fascinating to watch the debate, because in the eyes of Morminism, you are either singing their praises, or you are "anti-Mormon." There is no middle ground. That is also, by the way, the reason why debate with the Mormon community is so futile...they are convinced that you are either one of them, or you are of the Devil, and anything you say is evil. Period.

I get tired of being evil... :cool:

Paul

[Unregistered]

The letters were great! We have similar debates raging in our local newspaper, who can't seem to win no matter what they do. In fact, just yesterday there were a whole spate of hateful letters accusing the paper of being anti-Mormon, including one lady who just went off because there was a front page photo two weeks ago of some Melaleuca employees hanging Christmas lights, under the heading "Ladder-day Saints." (There was a ladder in the photo, on which they were standing.) The owner of Melaleuca is a prominent Mormon here in Idaho Falls, who has been sharply critical of the Post Register for being biased (which is nonsense). Anyway, the letter writer was just convinced this was a jab at the Church. Funny, but I wrote a personal e-mail to the publisher of the paper accusing him of sucking up to Melaleuca and the Church! Like the song says, "A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."

Mostly it is fascinating to watch the debate, because in the eyes of Morminism, you are either singing their praises, or you are "anti-Mormon." There is no middle ground. That is also, by the way, the reason why debate with the Mormon community is so futile...they are convinced that you are either one of them, or you are of the Devil, and anything you say is evil. Period.

I get tired of being evil... :cool:

Paul

Evil and an apostate? Could there be anything worse? Maybe.

What you may be seeing Paul with some of the church members is them saying they are right, and your are wrong. The last thing someone who believes they are correct in what they believe, is to be wrong. It personal attack on THEM, after all, THEY are correct.

Do an observation with people who have a passionate belief (political or religious). The ones who are confortable in their own skin, so to speak.... live quietly and live by, and are different than the people who want control, need to let everyone know THEY are right.

People who know the 'up side' and also know the 'down side' are usually less defensive. One good reason they are not proving themselves.

The postings were interesting to read. But one needs to remember there were still people who felt Hilter was o.k., and still do.

I read an interesting article by Edward Schils, called "Authoritarianism: " Right" and "Left". Which he cites the interchangeable compontents of movements.
Below is a list given.

1. In-group eclusiveness and hostility to all outside the it.
2. Demand for total submissiveness to the in-group which alone can bring about good.
3. The categrisation of people according to selected characteristics and making overall judgements on the basis of these ( beliver, apostate, scum.....etc.)*
4. Promotion of the idea that the world is a scene of unceasing conflict.*
5. The view that any tenderness for family bonds or toleration of enemies serves only to weaken the in- group in its struggles and dilute commitment.*
6. Belief in hostile conspiratorial forces* whose aim is to destroy the in-group.
7.Belief in a whooly harmonious society which can only be created by the in-group.

Does the list make any sense to anyone?

You can expect to be discredited and called many things, if there is an appearance which threaten the in-group.

I * a few area's. I read an very funny sited, which with humor wrote about the increase of sales of guns after a general conference, the area in the list was *. For the other *'s. Well, I will everyone think about it.

Nikki




































Nikki

[peter_mary]

I read an interesting article by Edward Schils, called "Authoritarianism: " Right" and "Left". Which he cites the interchangeable compontents of movements.
Below is a list given.

1. In-group exlusiveness and hostility to all outside the it.
2. Demand for total submissiveness to the in-group which alone can bring about good.
3. The categrisation of people according to selected characteristics and making overall judgements on the basis of these ( beliver, apostate, scum.....etc.)*
4. Promotion of the idea that the world is a scene of unceasing conflict.*
5. The view that any tenderness for family bonds or toleration of enemies serves only to weaken the in- group in its struggles and dilute commitment.*
6. Belief in hostile conspiratorial forces* whose aim is to destroy the in-group.
7.Belief in a whooly harmonious society which can only be created by the in-group.

Does the list make any sense to anyone?

Oh yeah, this makes sense. Let me share how it makes sense to me.

1. In-group exlusiveness and hostility to all outside it. Mormonism is ALL about exclusivity. In fact, that's one of the big reasons I couldn't stay. I simply couldn't make room in my world-view for an "All loving God" that would create such a twisted, exclusive means for returning to his "loving" home, and leaving everyone who didn't figure out the puzzle to suffer forever. The Church really formed in an atmosphere of seperation, from Kirtland, to Missouri, to Nauvoo, and then to the Great Basin, where they had INTENDED to be leaving the United States all together, and landing in a place so inhospitable that they were certain they would be left alone. This seperation and exclusion is also a hallmark of cults, BTW.

2. Demand for total submissiveness to the in-group which alone can bring about good. I don't know how long it's been for some of you since you had a temple recommend interview (about 6 years for me, but at that time, I was GIVING them...) but you may recall that far more important than good, clean living and faith was the issue of loyalty to the Church and it's leaders. If you review the questions, their is a lot more ink devoted to "do you sustain the leaders, avoid apostate groups, pay your dues (tithing)" than there is to "are you honest and good." Challenging the Church and its leaders is grounds for discipline (ask Grant Palmer, as just the latest, salient example).

3. The categorization of people according to selected characteristics and making overall judgements on the basis of these ( beliver, apostate, scum.....etc.)* For example, "non-member, member, apostate, worthy, unworthy, inactive, etc." One of the chilling things about stereotypes is that it lumps infinately diverse people into large groups, and fails to recognize the individual value of each member of that group. Face it, as an "apostate" community here at Post-Mormon, we are lumped in with "enemies of the Church" and in some people's minds, with the anti-Christ himself. Thank heavens I don't live in the days of Porter Rockwell, or I might find myself on the business end of his pistol.

4. Promotion of the idea that the world is a scene of unceasing conflict.* I have always hated this one, but it is as common in the Church as dandelions in my lawn. In Church-speak, this is the belief that we were cast out of the Garden of Eden into a lone and dreary world, and our single objective is to jump through the necessary Church hoops, no matter what the cost, and "endure to the end." Endurance says it all. It says this world is a bad place, and getting worse all the time, and we have to hang on to our faith so that we can get something much better on the other side, 'cause there ain't anything worthwhile here. I don't argue that there is suffering in this world...there clearly is. But I also think the world is a better place to live on the whole right here and now than it ever has been in its entire history, since our ancestors left the trees for a life of bipedalism.

5. The view that any tenderness for family bonds or toleration of enemies serves only to weaken the in- group in its struggles and dilute commitment.* For instance, no one can go to the temple and see their family be married if they are not a) old enough, or b) Mormon enough. This flies in the face of a commitment to family bonds. Or what about the missionary in the field who is not allowed to return for his/her mother's funeral? Or the countless times one spouse has been counseled by their bishop to leave their husband or wife because she/he fell away from the Church? The Church pays lip-service to family, but really, the family unit takes a back seat to the institution of the church every time.

6. Belief in hostile conspiratorial forces* whose aim is to destroy the in-group. The whole doctrine of Satan is a beloved doctrine of the Saints, because it strengthens their need to cling to the one true Church. This is, of course, reinforced powerfully by the stories of the Gadianton Robbers in the BOM. And Jeff's posting of the letters in the Logan newspaper is a chilling reminder that the Church remains convinced that everyone is either one of them, or out to destroy them.

7.Belief in a wholly harmonious society which can only be created by the in-group. The Church calls this "The United Order," and even though it was a dismal failure in the early days of the Church, they cling to it as the way we'll live in the always-coming-never-arriving "millenium."

Yup, I'd say this list nails the Church.

Paul

[Unregistered]

Oh yeah, this makes sense. Let me share how it makes sense to me.

1. In-group exlusiveness and hostility to all outside it. Mormonism is ALL about exclusivity. In fact, that's one of the big reasons I couldn't stay. I simply couldn't make room in my world-view for an "All loving God" that would create such a twisted, exclusive means for returning to his "loving" home, and leaving everyone who didn't figure out the puzzle to suffer forever. The Church really formed in an atmosphere of seperation, from Kirtland, to Missouri, to Nauvoo, and then to the Great Basin, where they had INTENDED to be leaving the United States all together, and landing in a place so inhospitable that they were certain they would be left alone. This seperation and exclusion is also a hallmark of cults, BTW.

2. Demand for total submissiveness to the in-group which alone can bring about good. I don't know how long it's been for some of you since you had a temple recommend interview (about 6 years for me, but at that time, I was GIVING them...) but you may recall that far more important than good, clean living and faith was the issue of loyalty to the Church and it's leaders. If you review the questions, their is a lot more ink devoted to "do you sustain the leaders, avoid apostate groups, pay your dues (tithing)" than there is to "are you honest and good." Challenging the Church and its leaders is grounds for discipline (ask Grant Palmer, as just the latest, salient example).

3. The categorization of people according to selected characteristics and making overall judgements on the basis of these ( beliver, apostate, scum.....etc.)* For example, "non-member, member, apostate, worthy, unworthy, inactive, etc." One of the chilling things about stereotypes is that it lumps infinately diverse people into large groups, and fails to recognize the individual value of each member of that group. Face it, as an "apostate" community here at Post-Mormon, we are lumped in with "enemies of the Church" and in some people's minds, with the anti-Christ himself. Thank heavens I don't live in the days of Porter Rockwell, or I might find myself on the business end of his pistol.

4. Promotion of the idea that the world is a scene of unceasing conflict.* I have always hated this one, but it is as common in the Church as dandelions in my lawn. In Church-speak, this is the belief that we were cast out of the Garden of Eden into a lone and dreary world, and our single objective is to jump through the necessary Church hoops, no matter what the cost, and "endure to the end." Endurance says it all. It says this world is a bad place, and getting worse all the time, and we have to hang on to our faith so that we can get something much better on the other side, 'cause there ain't anything worthwhile here. I don't argue that there is suffering in this world...there clearly is. But I also think the world is a better place to live on the whole right here and now than it ever has been in its entire history, since our ancestors left the trees for a life of bipedalism.

5. The view that any tenderness for family bonds or toleration of enemies serves only to weaken the in- group in its struggles and dilute commitment.* For instance, no one can go to the temple and see their family be married if they are not a) old enough, or b) Mormon enough. This flies in the face of a commitment to family bonds. Or what about the missionary in the field who is not allowed to return for his/her mother's funeral? Or the countless times one spouse has been counseled by their bishop to leave their husband or wife because she/he fell away from the Church? The Church pays lip-service to family, but really, the family unit takes a back seat to the institution of the church every time.

6. Belief in hostile conspiratorial forces* whose aim is to destroy the in-group. The whole doctrine of Satan is a beloved doctrine of the Saints, because it strengthens their need to cling to the one true Church. This is, of course, reinforced powerfully by the stories of the Gadianton Robbers in the BOM. And Jeff's posting of the letters in the Logan newspaper is a chilling reminder that the Church remains convinced that everyone is either one of them, or out to destroy them.

7.Belief in a wholly harmonious society which can only be created by the in-group. The Church calls this "The United Order," and even though it was a dismal failure in the early days of the Church, they cling to it as the way we'll live in the always-coming-never-arriving "millenium."

Paul

I had hoped by posting the list you would not feel so 'evil' anymore, but understand the process going on within church membership and your postion and relationship with them.

One needs to gain a thick skin, if one plans to speak out against groups which maintain tight controls. A fair amount of name calling is going to go on.

But in the end, is it not more important what you think about yourself, than someone in a group you do not agree with, thinks of you?

You know who you are, is it so important what others think?

I am not silly and feel people do not care of they are disliked, anyone with a sane mind would not what others not to like them. However, there are issues in life, especially if one takes a stand against a group or culture, or decides to move way from a tightly controled group one once belonged to, it is going to happen.

You are right, "family values" is a lip service in the church. The true value is the allegiance to "The Church", and yes, Bishops, church leadership, membership, and even families, do tell spouses to leave another spouse, if the spouse is a non believer, or if the spouse is the one who stood up against a wrong.

A Bishop called me an "apostate" also....... I told him I would rather be an apostate, than one who condoned what "they" were. I take it as a badge of honor!

Paul, you do not agree, that is all....that is all... and nothing more, you left the group, that is all... that is all...

I hoped the list would make sense to you, and it was best you used your own thoughts, not mine and why I did not elaborate on the list. Happy it helped :-)

The list made sense to me too.

If 'they' think you are evil, why 'feel' it?

Nikki

P.S.
"They" do not shoot often, but "they" do use emotional abuse to discredit.