sigh… apathy is setting in

[Anonymous]

asha wrote:

so much evil and cruelty has been carried out under the guise of religion by people who truly felt that they knew what was best for everyone else. This is the part of the LDS church that scares me the most. The most glaring example is SSM. After all, it is one thing for the church to set certain standards for its own members who willingly signed up to follow them, but to work to impose those standards on the rest of society??

I truly believe the church is working at trying to fight to allow its belief of SSM, not impose that on others. The temple standard is set, people can come to that and accept those standards or reject those standards if they choose. I don’t see the church imposing those views on others, but are trying to protect their standards from having others impose it on the church and make it change policies. There should be more tolerance to let others believe what they believe on both sides of the argument, and not think we need to make others change or they’ll hurt our feelings.

Quote:

I have to say I am feeling much better this week. I am really enjoying teaching the yw, and so far have been able to teach them in a very meaningful and helpful way that never seems to conflict with any of my beliefs. I like to keep the lessons very general and Christ-focused, and stay away from church doctrine dealing with authority/temples etc. Today I taught a lesson on forgiveness, and it went so well. I loved that all the girls participated.

I love this!! I think you are on to something. Keeping it centered on Christ’s teachings is what it should be about. I think it is not coincidence that that approach leads to good feelings. It is exactly what I’m trying to do in my life, and I find the problems of church history or authority melt away.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I truly believe the church is working at trying to fight to allow its belief of SSM, not impose that on others. The temple standard is set, people can come to that and accept those standards or reject those standards if they choose. I don’t see the church imposing those views on others, but are trying to protect their standards from having others impose it on the church and make it change policies.

Please give one direct piece of evidence where the church has been threatened, legally, to change it’s beliefs or policies with regard to SSM. If you can’t then there is no defense going on here. It is an offense under the guise of fear. The church is fearful that it’s tax exempt status, and policies will be forced into change. I haven’t been able to find any convincing evidence where the church (or any other church for that matter) has been forced to change policies because of SSM. All the examples I’m aware of involve churches who have purchased public land from the gov’t agreeing that it could be used by the public (an easement). Then when said church won’t allow a gay marriage on said property, there is a lawsuit. And there should be. Churches ought not to be obtaining public land and allowing for public use, and then restricting access. I think the church is scared because this is what it did with the strip of land on main street – it had an easement. Fortunately, after the church paid about double what it should have for the price of the land, it now owns it. But generally this is a bad mixture of church and state, not an SSM affair.

[Anonymous]

jmb275, I’ve said elsewhere that if there is ONE group of people who simply CAN’T be expected to trust that government will NOT try to force its view of marriage on them, it is Mormon leaders whose parents and grandparents were jailed because the government tried to force its view of marriage on them. Whatever else one thinks of SSM and polygamy, I think that genetic memory CANNOT be overlooked when discussing this issue.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I don’t see the church imposing those views on others,

What about the whole debate surrounding prop 8? I thought members were encouraged to use their time and resources towards not allowing SSM to be legalized?

This was never about gay people being allowed to get married in the temple… after all, even heterosexual people can’t get married in the temple unless they are deemed worthy!

IMO, SSM is a political issue and the church needs to stay out of it. The church may have their definition of what a family is, but they have no right to impose that view on non-members. I know a few non-traditional (SSM) families here in Canada, and they are more loving/healthy/committed than many traditional heterosexual families. Members of the church need to recognize that there are legal implications here regarding spousal rights. My parents had two close friends, both men, who had lived together in a committed, monogamous relationship for over 30 years, but since it was before SSM was legal here, when one passed away his partner was not entitled to the other’s pension in the way that a spouse would be. There were other government benefits that worked this way as well. Imagine a committed couple who have been together for decades being told that one couldn’t visit the other in the hospital because they weren’t “family”. These are the sort of human rights implications that are involved in the fight for SSM.

Clearly the church sees this battle as a religious issue, when it is really a civil rights issue.

I absolutely think the church has every right to set certain standards for its own members, but in this case I don’t see how it is possible to argue that they are not trying to impose said standards on non-members when they are speaking out in support of a law that discriminates against a group that lives contrary to church standards.

Think of the example of the misogynistic law that was almost passed in Afghanistan that would have severely compromised the rights of women there. I can guarantee you that those who were trying to justify it were doing so on “religious” grounds.

This is a political/civil rights issue. The church should stay out of politics. Period.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

if there is ONE group of people who simply CAN’T be expected to trust that government will NOT try to force its view of marriage on them, it is Mormon leaders whose parents and grandparents were jailed because the government tried to force its view of marriage on them. Whatever else one thinks of SSM and polygamy, I think that genetic memory CANNOT be overlooked when discussing this issue.

Yes, yes, yes! I totally agree… and the hypocrisy related to this is overwhelming. After all, polygamy was never legal in the U.S., and the church practiced it despite having an article of faith that spoke of obeying the law of the land. SSM has been legal here in Canada for a while, and members of the church still continue to speak out against it. Surely I can’t be the only one who sees a weird double standard in all this???

[Anonymous]

asha, I agree there is a weird double standard theoretically – but I also think there is a degree of practical legitimacy to the leaders foreseeing a time when the government exerts extreme pressure on the Church to accept a form of marraige it doesn’t want to accept. After all, it’s happened before – and to their own parents and grandparents. It’s not ancient history to them like it is to us.

That’s what I’m saying. We might not think there is any chance of federal force being applied to change religious practice, but it’s hard for me to blame the leaders for seeing the possibility given our own institutional history with issues of marriage in this country. Really, given that history, they might be right – as much as we can’t see it from our own viewpoint. I don’t think it will happen, but it certainly might.

I am torn in more ways than one on the issue of gay marraige, as I’ve said on the other threads about this topic directly, but I don’t blame the Brethren for being concerned about future governmental intervention – especially when you look at what Pres. Obama is doing and proposing with government involvement in areas that would have been deemed fantasy a few years ago. (That is NOT a political statement, so please don’t take it as such. It is factual only – used simply to highlight that some things that would have been considered impossible only a few years ago by pretty much everyone can happen, and they can happen quickly.)

[Anonymous]

asha wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

I don’t see the church imposing those views on others,

What about the whole debate surrounding prop 8? I thought members were encouraged to use their time and resources towards not allowing SSM to be legalized?

This was never about gay people being allowed to get married in the temple… after all, even heterosexual people can’t get married in the temple unless they are deemed worthy!

IMO, SSM is a political issue and the church needs to stay out of it.

I guess my understanding is that others are trying to change the definitin of marriage. That is what it is about, and since the church has set a Proclamation to the World, then the idea of marriage between man and women as currently defined in society is being forced to change.

The Church is asking members to get involved because certain factions are imposing a new standard on the definition of marriage. The Church feels it can’t stand back and do nothing.

The debate isn’t about SSA, it is about marriage.

Do you see my point (right or wrong, agree or not, am I making the basis of my view understandable)? The church is not actively getting involved in politics to change policy, it is others actively trying to change the institution of marriage and the church defending our rights in the belief that such a change would be harmful to our church members, so we want to keep others from imposing their will on changing what is currently in place, namely what we call marriage for all families.

It is a defensive move, even if aggressively defensive which many think was TOO aggressive and crossed the line.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

I truly believe the church is working at trying to fight to allow its belief of SSM, not impose that on others. The temple standard is set, people can come to that and accept those standards or reject those standards if they choose. I don’t see the church imposing those views on others, but are trying to protect their standards from having others impose it on the church and make it change policies.

Please give one direct piece of evidence where the church has been threatened, legally, to change it’s beliefs or policies with regard to SSM. If you can’t then there is no defense going on here. It is an offense under the guise of fear. The church is fearful that it’s tax exempt status, and policies will be forced into change. I haven’t been able to find any convincing evidence where the church (or any other church for that matter) has been forced to change policies because of SSM.

First of all, jmb275, I think you have far more experience with this topic than I do. So it is good to read your comments and learn from what you’ve studied.

I don’t have any evidence of the church legally being threatened to date. I agree with you, it is just a fear from the leaders they can see it coming and they feel they can’t sit back and wait for it to be imposed on them. Like any other interest group, there are legal course of actions to gain support and use the democratic process to protect its interests.

Elder Wickman said on the public affairs website:

Quote:

It’s not the Church that has made the issue of marriage a matter of federal law. Those who are vigorously advocating for something called same-gender marriage have essentially put that potato on the fork. They’re the ones who have created a situation whereby the law of the land, one way or the other, is going to address this issue of marriage. This is not a situation where the Church has elected to take the matter into the legal arena or into the political arena. It’s already there.

The fact of the matter is that the best way to assure that a definition of marriage as it now stands continues is to put it into the foundational legal document of the United States. That is in the Constitution. That’s where the battle has taken it. Ultimately that’s where the battle is going to be decided. It’s going to be decided as a matter of federal law one way or the other. Consequently it is not a battleground on such an issue that we Latter-day Saints have chosen, but it has been established and we have little choice but to express our views concerning it, which is really all that the Church has done.

Decisions even for members of the Church as to what they do with respect to this issue must of course rest with each one in their capacity as citizens.

That last statement is one I find correct, but I’m not sure it was put in practice so openly. There was pressure for mormons to be vote in line, but the argument of why the church is involved seems just to me. Do you not think so? Are they wrong in principle, or wrong in practice, IYO?

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

jmb275, I’ve said elsewhere that if there is ONE group of people who simply CAN’T be expected to trust that government will NOT try to force its view of marriage on them, it is Mormon leaders whose parents and grandparents were jailed because the government tried to force its view of marriage on them. Whatever else one thinks of SSM and polygamy, I think that genetic memory CANNOT be overlooked when discussing this issue.

Now that is a good point. I must have missed where you said that elsewhere (or maybe this was related to the evolutionary comment you made somewhere else). It is sad but true. Living in fear is no way to live at all.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I’ve said elsewhere that if there is ONE group of people who simply CAN’T be expected to trust that government will NOT try to force its view of marriage on them,

You could end this sentence with the LGBT community instead of the Mormon community. I urge anyone who is interested to study the history and eventual Supreme Court ruling on miscegenation.(Loving v. State of Virginia) All current debates on the SSM issue are almost exactly what they were 45 years ago in the debate over miscegenation. And, of course, the church didn’t change it’s stance on miscegenation till the 1978 priesthood decision and still discouraged vigorously interracial marriage after that.

Obviously, the church and its leaders have every right to advocate for any policy they want. (Though I personally think that this is against the spirit of the constitution if not the letter)

Heber, if the definition of “marriage” is what’s at stake there is another way: make all couples (gay or straight) get a civil union license for legal purposes and then allow for “marriage” to be a religious ceremony. Take government out of the equation completely (which is probably appropriate anyways)

Why hasn’t the church advocated for this position instead, which is the law in a variety of countries?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

First of all, jmb275, I think you have far more experience with this topic than I do. So it is good to read your comments and learn from what you’ve studied.

Well, we are mixing threads a bit here, but let me give you some more background. I was in the “yes on prop 8” camp, and I used whatever I could do justify what we were doing, and quite honestly, I think I had some good points in defense of it. I wrote a couple of blog posts about it on my personal blog. See http://justin.justyntime.com/blog/?p=33” class=”bbcode_url”>http://justin.justyntime.com/blog/?p=33 and http://justin.justyntime.com/blog/?p=36” class=”bbcode_url”>http://justin.justyntime.com/blog/?p=36. These were written at the beginning of my crisis of faith (I think the difference in my writing, views, and opinions will probably knock your socks off). It’s very interesting to contrast my first post, with the second one. In the first one I take for granted the arguments from the church about religious rights being violated. I link to a few articles which demonstrate this. In the second post I recognize that there was another side to those stories and they weren’t very accurately portrayed by the church or the “yes on 8 campaign.” But then note what I do. I continue to come up with other, more interesting reasons for why I’m voting “yes.” When I wrote it, my “yes” vote was hanging by a thread and I was desperate to come up with anything that could be used to justify my position. I had done the research, examined the cases (not the legal proceedings however), read anti-prop 8 literature, and pro-prop 8 literature. Aside from the details of those arguments (some of which I still agree with), after the vote, I no longer wanted to vote “yes.” I didn’t want to vote “no” either. I am not in favor of SSM. I am in favor of the gov’t getting out of the business of regulating personal relationships.

Heber13 wrote:

I don’t have any evidence of the church legally being threatened to date. I agree with you, it is just a fear from the leaders they can see it coming and they feel they can’t sit back and wait for it to be imposed on them. Like any other interest group, there are legal course of actions to gain support and use the democratic process to protect its interests.

I have never claimed that the church wasn’t within its legal right to do what it did. It didn’t do anything wrong from a legal standpoint. I believe it unfairly used its massive cultural control over the members of the church in CA to vote “yes.” To vote “no” was considered heresy. I talked to my Bishop about it and it didn’t go over well. The idea was that not agreeing with the brethren on this issue was stepping on the road to apostasy. My wife and I vehemently disagree on this point, but I will just say that she didn’t do anything to help the “yes on 8” cause. She attended no firesides, no lessons, no walking precincts, no extra curricular meetings at the “Prop 8 coordinator’s” house, etc. Of course she didn’t feel any pressure to vote “yes.” You should have seen what happened in the Berkeley, CA wards. Oh man, what a trip. The Bishop had to clarify, justify, and basically hold his breath just to read the statement from the First Presidency. After that there was NO mention of Prop 8 in those wards again. The people were so against it. (sorry I’m getting off on a tangent)

The idea of “can’t sit back and wait for it to be imposed on them” is a very scary idea to me. It is not wise to be vulnerable. I see that. It is also not wise to prepare for war during peacetime. We do that in our country. We are always in a state of preparation for war. We are in that frame of mind (I think) in the church as well. Things are constantly framed as a “us vs. them,” the “worldly ways vs. the ways of the Lord” etc. How can we promote the Gospel of Peace while constantly waging war with what we perceive as “Satan’s influences”? Why are we the aggressors as followers of Christ? Would it not be more Christlike to wait until threatened before passing speculative judgment? We have predetermined (in the church) that there will be horrible consequences if SSM is allowed. How do we know this? Through prophecy? The same prophecy that predicted so much nonsense with regard to the ERA, Blacks and priesthood, etc.? For me the track record of prophecy on such social issues has not been reliable. Women, by now have those rights and the world still turns.

Finally, even if you don’t buy into any of the arguments I propose above, one can look at this whole thing very pragmatically and ask a simple question. Have we accomplished anything of significance? This issue will be brought up next year, and it is currently being challenged by every imaginative legal standing one can imagine. More states each month are making it legal. It is a losing battle. And in the meantime we have created hatred, and alienated our fellows over something so trivial as who, according to the gov’t (not God mind you, just gov’t), can get married. Are the church leaders not capable of more? Can they not see the lessons learned by other such losing battles and pick a road less travelled by that perhaps they might gain their design, and still allow people to choose? Is that not God’s plan? Could the church not have put its weight behind a 3rd more pragmatic approach – namely, removing marriage from the gov’t sector completely? This would give the churches, and anyone else the ability to define marriage how they want. Isn’t that the nature of religious freedom, to let each religion choose its course to God? Marriage is largely a social and religious contract. From a gov’t perspective, the only important thing is a piece of paper signed by both parties indicating their commitment to each other. This is necessary for insurance, healthcare, death, power of attorney, adoption, taxes, and about a billion other rights and reasons. But they don’t care if it’s called “marriage” or “civil contract” or whatever. Would the church have lost anything had it put itself behind such a proposition? And if it had, we would still have many friends!

Sorry for the long discourse.

Heber13 wrote:

That last statement is one I find correct, but I’m not sure it was put in practice so openly. There was pressure for mormons to be vote in line, but the argument of why the church is involved seems just to me. Do you not think so? Are they wrong in principle, or wrong in practice, IYO?

Yes, this is one thing that bothers me in the church quite a bit. As I have talked to my friends, and family about this, they always remind me, “well you could have chosen the other option.” Well sure, I can hold a gun to your head and give you two choices, and if you choose poorly tell you “well you could have chosen the other option.” This idea simply points out that we have our God given agency. This is not freedom, or liberty however. I have written about this in the past on this forum, but the concept of positive, and negative liberty, and “real freedom” as it relates to our choices is very real. Growing up in a culture where there is heavy emphasis on the CK, and eternal families, which is dependent on following the prophet, is some very powerful coercion. Sure I still have my agency. But if I believe in the CK, and believe I need to humbly follow my leaders because they receive revelation from God in order to qualify for those rewards, I am left with little choice.

I had a friend helping in my ordeal through my faith crisis. He told me I was paranoid about freedom, and that he saw no coercion. He was sympathizing with my wife and proceeded to tell me about his wife. He told me how their relation was built on the Gospel, and the church, and that the church was the most important thing in his life, it was his foundation. He told me about how they read their scriptures and have such a strong spiritual connection, and that if she decided the church wasn’t true, he didn’t know what he would do. I was then prompted to ask the question “is his wife really free”? Yes, she has her agency, but she will destroy her life, and her husband’s life if she someday is led to believe the church isn’t true (incidentally she has brothers who have left the church). Freedom is not just agency, nor is it freedom from all consequences. It is a delicate balance of positive and negative liberty (in a philosophical sense).

To answer the last question (I probably already answered it), the church had every legal right to do what they did. Their involvement is just. I do not agree in principle, however, at all. The culture created for those who have SSA is very scary in religious groups, and as a Libertarian (I hate labels) I am against gov’t intervention in my life, and in the lives of those I disagree with. An interesting case study to compare with is the ERA. I recommend the MormonStories podcast episode (I forget which one) in which Ms. Bradley discusses the church’s involvement in that. It is very similar to Prop 8 (only with a lot less money).

Sorry for the ridiculously long post. I have hinted at how I feel about this in other threads, but I thought now was the time to let out the “rest of the story.”

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

See http://justin.justyntime.com/blog/?p=33 and http://justin.justyntime.com/blog/?p=36. These were written at the beginning of my crisis of faith (I think the difference in my writing, views, and opinions will probably knock your socks off).

Wow 😯 …wow.

I actually found your posts very interesting, and especially enjoyed the second one where you started to become more open to considering the other side of the issue. I could sense your growing discomfort with the position you were struggling to keep. I have suffered the same sort of cognitive dissonance regarding homosexuality/SSM when I was striving to be a TBM.

I agree (and disagree) with a lot of what you wrote. The only point I take issue with is the notion that SSM is not a civil rights issue. I think it is. People who disagree with homosexuality view it as not the norm, perhaps even sexually deviant. The bible has been used to back this up. I can’t help but make the parallel to slavery/treatment of blacks. The bible was used to back that up too. Most members reading this would say, “but that is not the same thing”. Isn’t it? God created gay people the way they are. If it is really so unnatural why are some people born that way, and why does it exist in the animal kingdom? We view racism as so abhorrent now, but it wasn’t that long ago in the church that we were using all kinds of persuasive arguments to show that segregation was just the natural way of things.

I don’t know if you still feel this way, but you argue in your blog that gays can choose whether or not to act upon their feelings. What kind of a choice is this? To live as god created you or to suppress your true nature? Bear with me for a moment, because this is going to get a little weird, but I think sometimes it really helps to try to see yourself in the position of others: What about if we flip the whole thing on its head and try to look at it from the perspective of a gay person. What if homosexuality was the “norm” in society. You are born as part of a minority of heterosexual men. You are attracted to women, but are told that is unnatural and should be suppressed. Your “choice” is to either live a life of celibacy or enter into a relationship with another man. Probably a third alternative would be more appealing: you would embrace your true nature as someone who is attracted to the opposite sex and work to try to get that lifestyle recognized as socially acceptable with all the rights and privileges that are enjoyed by the community as a whole.

At the heart of this whole issue is the strong desire of gay people to be viewed as “normal”. I for one can’t blame them. Who are we after all to say that their lifestyle is not normal? Oh yeah… we are the only ones with the whole truth in the world, we are guided by a man who is the mouthpiece of god and will never lead us astray, we might be a minority, but we are right and the world is wrong.

I tried to believe this for so long, but now it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Besides, clearly we have been led astray by the lord’s mouthpiece before.

That being said, I absolutely understand why any TBM would vote yes on prop 8. I actually would be confused why they wouldn’t. After all, if the prophet says something then the thinking has been done for you, right?

jmb275 wrote:

Growing up in a culture where there is heavy emphasis on the CK, and eternal families, which is dependent on following the prophet, is some very powerful coercion. Sure I still have my agency. But if I believe in the CK, and believe I need to humbly follow my leaders because they receive revelation from God in order to qualify for those rewards, I am left with little choice.

Yes, you make a REALLY good point here jmb. I guess this is why I never actually felt free as a member of the church. How much freedom is there in a choice where you are being told what to choose?

Anyway, sorry this post is so disjointed. I really have enjoyed everyone’s comments on this issue, and it is interesting to see how the thread seemed to take on a life of its own. In this area anyway I think it is safe to say that the apathy is gone!

[Anonymous]

Quote:

For me the track record of prophecy on such social issues has not been reliable.

This sums it up nicely for me. Social issues are not unbiased. “Revelation” is a two-way street. You ask God a biased question to obtain direction, he says *something* back, you interpret that answer based on your biases, and 50 years later everyone is forced to say, “Well, so and so was just a product of his time” or to fall back on the sociological argument, “The church wasn’t ready for that yet.” What really happened? What did God actually say? It’s a bit enigmatic to me. My own social conscience differs from the republican mainstream that holds an open mike in many of our wards. That’s one reason I don’t like political discourse at church, and in my own ward, this stuff is not discussed pretty much at all (halleluja!).

For someone like jmb275 or me who are label-hating, live-and-let-live social libertarians, social conservativism feels intrusive and treads on our moral compass. That doesn’t mean the social conservatives don’t have a right to their opinions or their votes, even if the majority choose something that isn’t (IMO) right. It’s a democracy; majority rules, and the average IQ is 100. “America, love it or leave it.”

I find fearmongering distasteful, especially at church, regardless of whether it’s religious or social fearmongering. I dislike “persecution complexes” although I see their value in uniting people in tribalism. What passes for community is often mere tribalism – shared fears and enemies. “For God giveth not the spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” But that doesn’t mean everyone has driven the fear out of their hearts every time they open their mouths.

Have you ever heard these types of fearful statements:

– Mormons will never be accepted in society. X, Y, or Z group would never let that happen. (Shared enemies, persecution complex)

– If the gays can marry, churches will be forced to allow gay marriage in the temple. The church will be forced to let gays adopt through LDS social services. (Worst case scenarios, persecution complex, shared enemies)

– The world is going to hell in a handbasket. It’s getting even less and less safe to raise kids in such a wicked world. (Worst case scenarios, persecution complex, us against the world)

– Kids today must have been super-duper valiant to be able to withstand Satan’s power in the world today. (Self-aggrandizement, us against the world, fear)

– Illegal aliens have no interest in learning English. They want to take over, fly their flags, take our jobs, and not pay taxes. They don’t want to become Americans. I want to order my Big Mac in English. (shared enemies, worst case scenario, fear of personal loss)

I find it easier, the older I get, to hear what people are not saying. It often speaks as loud as their actual words.

[Anonymous]

Probably goes without saying, but I agree with hawkgrrl 100%. Especially the end about fear-mongering. In an effort to continue to threadjack this into oblivion, I have a thought on fear-mongering that’s been bothering me for a bit. The apocalypse, second-coming, end-of-days, etc. fear has driven almost all Western religion since…. forever? It hasn’t happened. IMHO, it’s not going to happen, and even if it were, why choose fear?

I’m now gonna rant: fear is the most emotionally abusive manipulation that can be used to control another human being. Parents use it constantly, educators use it in school, at recess, employers use it on employees, politicians use it, etc. It’s the easiest, basest form of abuse, used to manipulate and control. How did this method of abuse and control become such an important part of religion and spirituality. It goes against everything that I choose to assign as Christ’s teachings. I know, “God works through man, man uses fear to motivate….” But, really?? Aren’t we all grown up enough to recognize the fear-mongering?

I know there’s a snappy quote that one of you has on hand, but in my mind, fear is the antithesis of love. Can the two go together? Everyone on this forum is so thoughtful, I can’t wait to hear everyone’s response. (if you want to )

End rant.

[Anonymous]

Perfect love casteth out fear. Wow, that was easy.

Seriously, as much as it seems otherwise at times, comprehensive Mormonism is WAY less fear-based when it comes to eternity than pretty much any other Christian sect. I mean, seriously, saying that the worst anyone is going to get except the most evil losers will be so much better than this life that it is unimaginable as a fear tactic? Saying religious affiliation really doesn’t matter in the end, but that instead it’s how you live what you know that will form the basis for your eternal reward? Not quite standard hellfire and damnation level rhetoric.

Yeah, I know there is undue pressure applied far too often in relation to becoming a Celestial being, but that’s not anywhere near the same thing as, “Repent or be damned eternally in a lake of fire and brimstone.” Now that’s fear-mongering.

On individual issues, the fear-mongering can ebb and flow, unfortunately, but there isn’t anywhere near the overall level and use of fear in the Church as there is in many other denominations – and I really don’t think it’s possible to let go of talking about consequences and still preach repentance and spiritual growth. Opposition in all things really is a bedrock principle, imo, and if you get rid of all statements that might be considered fear-mongering or negative or manipulative by someone you are left with nothing more than easy grace – which is just as destructive as its fear-based opposite.

Having said all that, I really hate it when legitimate fear-mongering creeps into the Church, whether that is at the top (which happens, but happens rarely now) or at the local levels (which happens WAY too much, given how many members simply aren’t past that stage yet). In the BofM, Jacob mentions that they had to speak more harshly when the people woldn’t listen to soft and gentle words. I think there’s a lot of that happening now, but it doesn’t come close to excusing the real fear-mongering that still does rear its ugly head regularly.

[Author]

Posts