Posted on 10/05/2009 6:39:28 AM PDT by Colofornian
Holladay » Barbara Whipperman was a pious teenager, a defender of the faith.
When her parents bought a can of coffee, before they even could brew a pot, she saved them from themselves.
"I tossed the whole can," the 76-year-old recalls, laughing raucously. "I was a good little Mormon girl. Oh, they were mad!"
How that good little Mormon girl from Sugar House came to be Sister Mary Joseph, a Catholic -- and a nun, no less -- is a story she tells with relish.
A member of the Carmel of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, a cloistered monastery that has been in Holladay for nearly 57 years, Mary Joseph is the "extern" sister, which means she is the link between the seven other nuns and the world.
While she joins the others daily for Mass and meals, she skips the rigorous daily schedule of prayer that is the vocation of cloistered nuns.
Instead, the gregarious Mary Joseph lives in her own apartment, does the grocery shopping, tends the flowers, meets with the plumber and the neighbors and, until her eyesight got too bad, drove the other nuns to doctor appointments.
"That kind of thing goes against my grain," says Mary Joseph, who spent three years cloistered when she joined the Carmelites in 1963. "I catch as catch can. I'm not a very scheduled person."
Her conversion, Mary Joseph says, probably began at age 14, when she had the distinct feeling she should give her life to God.
Before Whipperman took her new name in the monastery, she was the daughter of a pharmacist-turned-salesman and a stay-at-home-mom-turned-secretary. She had two older brothers.
Her father had been a convert to the LDS faith, and both parents were practicing Mormons.
Whipperman didn't study much in high school and took easy classes, but after working as a billing clerk for six months after graduation, she knew she wanted an education. A counselor assessed her talents and came up with a few potential careers:
"I could be either a good car mechanic, a good plumber, a good doctor or a nurse."
Doctrinal defiance » Daunted by the fact she would need years of schooling to become a doctor, she worked as a nurse's aide at LDS Hospital and then enrolled in Brigham Young University's new nursing program. She graduated with honors in 1956.
She remembers that in her early 20s, she began questioning a core belief of her faith: that righteous men can become gods.
When an LDS professor, perhaps trying to shock his dozing students awake, mentioned that there was no scriptural basis for that doctrine, Whipperman soaked it up.
The same doctrine came up during Sunday School the next weekend, and Whipperman parroted the professor "just to be a controversial brat."
One thing led to another. Her colleagues dressed her down. She got defensive.
"I made the big, fat statement: 'I will have nothing to do with organized religion. I'll worship as I wish' ... which meant I did nothing."
While she laughs at her youthful arrogance, Mary Joseph says the period was transformative.
"I could no longer accept the doctrine, their conception of God. My God was bigger than that," she says. "Once that doctrine falls apart, everything else falls apart."
After graduating from BYU, she worked as a public-health nurse in Salt Lake City.
In a night class, she met an Austrian woman who had a St. Christopher's medal in her car. That could mean only one thing: "I thought, 'She's Catholic! That's terrible! I have a friend who is Catholic?' "
Anti-Catholic bigotry was at a peak, Mary Joseph remembers. "I'd been in on it."
But she was curious about what Catholics believed and eventually asked a Catholic co-worker to buy her the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible. She began attending various parishes for Mass each Sunday, wary of revisiting for fear the Catholics would twist her arm to stay.
"I had a big chip on my shoulder. I thought, 'I've already been hoodwinked once.' It wasn't going to happen again."
Stepping forth in faith » She began studying the catechism and taking instruction from a Catholic priest. She found she was unable to poke holes in the arguments for the faith.
When her dad discovered her Catholic materials, her parents were angry and sad. She ended up moving out of their home and into a nearby basement apartment.
By then, she had begun to worry about the implications of leaving the LDS Church and becoming Catholic. Would her parents and friends disown her? Would she lose her job? Would she be "kicked out" of the community?
One Sunday afternoon, her friends and she decided to drop by what then was the fairly new monastery in Holladay. She had no idea what the word "cloistered" meant, but she and her friends piled into her 1957 Volkswagen Beetle and "toodled," as she says, out to Holladay.
There, she met someone who gave her courage: Sister Catherine Romney Cheney, another convert from the LDS faith who was at the time the extern sister for the cloistered nuns. Catherine was the sister of LDS apostle Marion G. Romney.
"Her brother was down on Temple Square and she was here -- a nun. And that's all I needed to know," Mary Joseph recalls. "I stepped forth in faith. Blind faith."
And once Mary Joseph decided to become a Roman Catholic -- she was baptized into the church on Nov. 25, 1957, at age 24 -- she knew she would become a nun.
She assumed she would become a Holy Cross sister, since she was a nurse and that order had Holy Cross Hospital. But she didn't get along with the Holy Cross sisters.
When a priest told her she belonged at Carmel, she laughed. "I can't keep my mouth shut," she remembers telling him.
After caring for her father as he was dying from cancer, she joined the Carmelites in Sacramento, Calif., to get around a Utah Catholic leader's pronouncement that recent converts could not become nuns.
She was cloistered there, but was sick from stress and ended up returning to Salt Lake City. She joined the Carmel of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1963. Her family and friends may have been puzzled, but they did not shun her.
No regrets » Except for the first three years, she always has been an "extern" nun. That allows her, among other things, this liberty: She has a Labrador, her fourth one, that sleeps on her bed and joins her in the gardens. The first two Labs she named Inky. Her current Lab, Ebony, is the second by that name.
"I like the name, except that I keep calling him 'her.' It's a little gender problem," says Mary Joseph, who regularly accepts smooches from her pal.
Though she now uses a mechanized wheelchair because her knees are bad, Mary Joseph still orchestrates an army of 300 volunteers to stage the annual Carmelite Fair, an afternoon of food, entertainment, auctions and games that provides about 80 percent of the nuns' livelihood.
Various groups help set up the fair, including several from LDS wards.
Spread over the grass on Carmelites' 8-acre property, the fair brings the world to the monastery while the cloistered nuns remain inside, praying.
Mary Joseph says she has no regrets about her journey from Mormonism to Catholicism.
"I always say, 'The best decision I ever made was becoming a Catholic. The second best was to become a Carmelite nun.' "
Perhaps you should seek your FR experience on other forums besides the Religion Forum or on threads that do not allow debate.
Types of threads and guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum:
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus.
The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”
When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”
Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
I understand you represent many people who feel the same way. I don't discount that "pros & cons" exist to critiquing faith beliefs. Any of us, myself included, can do so at times with the wrong tone -- or develop less-than-Christlike attitudes even when what we say is 100% the truth (1 Cor. 13 self-applications are often needed). And feel free to make your case with specifics about something we have blinders on.
My earlier responses to you just indicate that you haven't yet even begun to make your case for why Utah-based articles shouldn't be posted about people converting from Mormonism.
Mormons convert people from other faiths all the time. Yet I don't think you go around labeling them as "attackers" of other beliefs. If not, why not?
One of the top four points within LDS missionary lessons going back to the 1960s when Marion G. Romney headed up their missionary program was to focus on the so-called "universal apostasy" and restoration. "Universal apostasy" = the Christian church, in the Lds mind, totally apostatized from the faith.
On top of that, the Lds "first vision" -- the very foundation of its belief system -- was made into Lds "scripture" which labels...
...ALL Christian sect creeds as an "abomination" to the Mormon god...
...the same passage labels ALL Christian professing believers as "corrupt"...
...and that we're ALL "wrong" and shouldn't be joined.
Your Lds friends who either tithe or give $ to the Lds church wind up paying for this "scripture" -- known as the Pearl of Great Price -- to be translated into over 100 languages and distributed worldwide not only in that book but online and curricula/articles where its quoted.
Bottom line is that Lds have spent millions & millions of $ to malign and slander Christian believers, Christian churches, and Christian creeds for these past 170 years.
If you haven't responded to that, why does this public attack upon the Christian faith worth a zilcho response from those who have standards that people shouldn't attack or critique other beliefs???
I'm sorry, but not only do you need a reality check but if you can't equitably apply your personal standard then...
(a) your personal standard needs adjusting
and (b) you should reconsider exporting a standard that you don't exercise with fairness across the board.
“Is your’s to throw everything up against the wall and see what sticks?”
Seriously? This is a response to short, direct statements?
My single issue, as stated numerous times, is that you folk’s divisive rhetoric against the Mormons will hurt our fight against the left. I do not want to, nor will I get in an argument about anyone’s missionaries or the specifics about their chosen religious flavor. Those issues are beside the point that I made. If you disagree with my observation, fine. Disagree, disprove or otherwise address my ORIGINAL observation, but please stop dragging me into the mud-slinging of your beliefs.
See post #41.
OK, I deliberately exaggerated a bit in my response to you labeling you referencing me/us as "divisive". I've got thick skin; I don't think you were personally "bashing" me.
But, #1, I don't speak for everyone in this thread. I'm sure, if you labeled some folks here as "divisive," they could easily make a case that you're being "divisive" yourself by what they might deem as "bashing" them as dividers.
#2, the reason I used that word is that some people just can't see the difference between on the one hand...
...genuine critiques,
...genuine disagreements of beliefs,
...debates,
...vigorous discussions,
...and religious conflicts
Versus...
...outright "bashing"
..."attacking"
...or hostility on the other side.
[I believe you can have the former without the latter]
Because of the pattern I've seen of those who disagree with us engaging in the "former" activities above -- and usually describing us as "bashers" in that process -- I usually try to respond according to the vocabulary they know and use. If they interpret critiques & disagreements as "bashing," "attacking" and other "latter" language, then I'll use their own vocabulary to describe their critiques, disagreements, and debates with us.
(And, BTW, I appeared to peg you right: You've labeled me or some of us in this thread as "attackers"...so we're "attackers" for critiquing others -- but you're not a "basher" for critiquing us...mind explainin' the difference?)
No, it is my response to your throwing a bunch of non-related issues out at the very start.
My single issue, as stated numerous times, is that you folk’s divisive rhetoric against the Mormons will hurt our fight against the left.
I find your statement here rather humorous. The article is about a little old nun who left mormonism. I have read and re-read the article multiple times, and failed to see any of this so-called divisive rhetoric you say is pervasive.
Disagree, disprove or otherwise address my ORIGINAL observation, but please stop dragging me into the mud-slinging of your beliefs.
Well sir, that was done. I have specifically asked you to clarify your position twice now. The only one dragging yourself into mud-slinging is yourself. You have no idea of what my beliefs are, so spare yourself the additional effort. As I said earlier, feel free to browse elsewhere in FR, otherwise quit hijacking this thread so we can discuss the interesting life of this nun.
Read the 1st post, by the person who posted the article and tell me that it was not divisive.
I did not call anyone “attackers”. I did say that there were some attacks upon beliefs happening. There is a difference, as you have sanely pointed out.
You have addressed my observation in a pretty even-handed manner. Thanks for your intelligent responses. You have helped me make my point: That we who pretty much agree on what threatens our well-being, should stick together.
Simple Q: Is a FREEPER, let's just randomly call Him PatriotSeminole to grab a monicker out of thin air, engaging in "mud-slinging" if he or she has called others on a thread...
..."attackers,"
..."dividers,"
...or orators of divisiveness?
(Or have I just missed the latest campus diversity class that has perhaps redefined those words as Kum Bah Yah harmonious-can't-we-all-get-along outreach appeals?)
Identifies nun as a relative of Romney, that is devisive? Cites three portions from the article, quotes from the nun herself (devisive?). Or was it the last part where the point was made that one can leave mormonism. I mean, heaven forbid that someone come to know Jesus Christ.
As I said earlier, feel free to browse elsewhere in FR, otherwise quit hijacking this thread so we can discuss the interesting life of this nun.
Are you saying that I have been a disruptor here? If so, I welcome a determination from a moderator on this issue.
Is this thread intended to be exclusive of those who respectfully disagree with the initial comments of the poster of the article?
You are techinically correct, but now you're splitting hairs w/me. Believe me, if I said you were "attacking" someone or something, I'd be labeling you as an "attacker."
Was my initial post really a thread hijack?
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . . . . . . .
If you are distressed by the open threads you see here, the option to avoid them is always there.
You come into the religious forum essentially asking why there are people questioning anothers religion and pointing out its very obvious flaws...
If there were to be no religious debate on FR, if it were not important for many here, I doubt FR would have a Religion Forum.
Sometimes it pays to know where one is...
Yes. Godzilla made several good pts. Look at this: We have long been discussing w/many posts the "ExPat etiquette" standard for which articles we can or can't post without being labeled as 'divisive,' and if advocating someone coming out of a religion is 'attacking' that religion or not.
ExPat, I thought we lived in a land of Free Republic where Free Republic expression was encouraged, not chastised or scolded as if we lived in some less-than-FR land.
I'm with Godzilla...moving at least my discussion back to the article topic at hand:
I think this nun showed discernment in realizing men & women can't become gods. And she was right in labeling this a "make or break" issue upon which the rest of the beliefs tumble.
If Smith was wrong about becoming a god, a statement he made when he was supposedly most mature in his life-- and not something (the afterlife) you trifle with when explaining at a funeral -- then he was wrong on everything else. IOW, the real consequential choice isn't, "Do I remain a cultural Mormon or not?" The real consequential reality is, "If I can't reach godhood, then Mormonism as a belief system is -- and never was -- legitimately erected. It's a sandy foundation."
What is remarkable is the path her life has been down. She could have gone down the atheist/agnostic road when she had her revelation about mormonism. She sounds like someone I would like to know better.
Well, since you all agree that my point was not valid, and that it was a thread hijack, then I will take my leave, after apologizing for what was perceived, but not intended as a thread hijack. I am sorry for my interference in your discussion, my fellow Freepers, and wish you all the best. Good luck in your lives and endeavors.
Thank you for your graciousness. Should you ever care to discuss the "issues" raised in these threads rather than your opinion of the suitability of the discussion, please feel free to join us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.