It May Look Good on Paper [Mormonism]

..................Some of us who have experienced the Mormon life firsthand would rather choose a messy, colorful America.

While it's easy to be seduced by a church known for its practicality, its financial acumen and its commitment to both self-betterment and worldly outreach, I wouldn't buy the underwear just yet. Everything comes with a caveat.

Mormons typically create their perfect world not by embracing the future, but by fetishizing the past. The very qualities America might want — prudence, thrift, even contentment — come at a price. The Mormon way is steadfastly patriarchal; women can't hold the priesthood, and are encouraged to be as procreative as possible. Their rigid concept of "family" owes more to the early 1950s than the 20-teens.

A culture that walks in such tidy lockstep has the advantage of homogeneity, and will always look good on paper. It certainly works for my many cousins, whom I love. But some of us who have experienced the Mormon life firsthand would rather choose a messy, colorful America lurching forward without so many confines — every day and twice on Sunday.

The doctrine of blood atonement was taught by Joseph, as indicated by Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. (10th prophet):

“Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. What is that doctrine? Unadulterated, if you please, laying aside the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been made, it is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Salvation is twofold: General — that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ — and, Individual — that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.
“But man may commit certain grievous sins — according to his light and knowledge — that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone — so far as in his power lies — for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.

“Do you believe this doctrine? If not, then I do say you do not believe in the true doctrine of the atonement of Christ. This is the doctrine you are pleased to call the “blood atonement of Brighamism.” This is the doctrine of Christ our Redeemer, who died for us. This is the doctrine of Joseph Smith, and I accept it.” (McConkie, Bruce R., ed. Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, pp. 133 - 135, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1955)

Brigham Young clearly explained the doctrine of blood atonement in a sermon given on September 21, 1856:

“There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.
“I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them…

“And further more, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further;

“I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

“It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.... There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or a calf, or of turtle dove, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 53-54); also published in Deseret News, 1856, p. 235)

On another occasion Brigham Young made this chilling statement regarding a person’s obligation to spill the blood of those who committed serious sins:

“Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved…and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, ‘shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?’
“All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant…

“I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance…if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the Devil…I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them…

“This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it…if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.” (Sermon by Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, February 8, 1857; printed in the Deseret News, February 18, 1857; also reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 219-220)

Consider the case spoken of by John D. Lee, who was sealed to Brigham Young and was a member of Brigham’s secret Council of Fifty:

“The most deadly sin among the people was adultery, and many men were killed in Utah for the crime.
“Rasmos Anderson was a Danish man who came to Utah…He had married a widow lady somewhat older than himself…At one of the meetings during the reformation Anderson and his step-daughter confessed that they had committed adultery…they were rebaptized and received into full membership. They were then placed under covenant that if they again committed adultery, Anderson should suffer death. Soon after this a charge was laid against Anderson before the Council, accusing him of adultery with his step-daughter. This Council was composed of Klingensmith and his two counselors; it was the Bishop’s Council. Without giving Anderson any chance to defend himself or make a statement, the Council voted that Anderson must die for violating his covenants. Klingensmith went to Anderson and notified him that the orders were that he must die by having his throat cut, so that the running of his blood would atone for his sins. Anderson, being a firm believer in the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church, made no objections... His wife was ordered to prepare a suit of clean clothing, in which to have her husband buried... she being directed to tell those who should inquire after her husband that he had gone to California.

“Klingensmith, James Haslem, Daniel McFarland and John M. Higbee dug a grave in the field near Cedar City, and that night, about 12 o’clock, went to Anderson’s house and ordered him to make ready to obey Council. Anderson got up... and without a word of remonstrance accompanied those that he believed were carrying out the will of the “Almighty God.” They went to the place where the grave was prepared; Anderson knelt upon the side of the grave and prayed. Klingensmith and his company then cut Anderson’s throat from ear to ear and held him so that his blood ran into the grave.

“As soon as he was dead they dressed him in his clean clothes, threw him into the grave and buried him. They then carried his bloody clothing back to his family, and gave them to his wife to wash…She obeyed their orders…Anderson was killed just before the Mountain Meadows massacre. The killing of Anderson was then considered a religious duty and a just act. It was justified by all the people, for they were bound by the same covenants, and the least word of objection to thus treating the man who had broken his covenant would have brought the same fate upon the person who was so foolish as to raise his voice against any act committed by order of the Church authorities.” (Confessions of John D. Lee, Photo-reprint of 1877 edition, pp. 282-283)

In the same book John D. Lee made this startling statement:

“I knew of many men being killed in Nauvoo…and I know of many a man who was quietly put out of the way by the orders of Joseph and his Apostles while the Church was there.” (Ibid., p. 284)
Lee revealed another cruel practice which took place both in Nauvoo, Illinois, and in early Utah:

“In Utah it has been the custom with the Priesthood to make eunuchs of such men as were obnoxious to the leaders. This was done for a double purpose: first, it gave a perfect revenge, and next, it left the poor victim a living example to others of the dangers of disobeying counsel and not living as ordered by the Priesthood.
“In Nauvoo it was the orders from Joseph Smith and his apostles to beat, wound and castrate all Gentiles that the police could take in the act of entering or leaving a Mormon household under circumstances that led to the belief that they had been there for immoral purposes…In Utah it was the favorite revenge of old, worn-out members of the Priesthood, who wanted young women sealed to them, and found that the girl preferred some handsome young man. The old priests generally got the girls, and many a young man was unsexed for refusing to give up his sweetheart at the request of an old and failing, but still sensual apostle or member of the Priesthood. As an illustration…Warren Snow was Bishop of the Church at Manti, San Pete County, Utah. He had several wives, but there was a fair, buxom young woman in the town that Snow wanted for a wife…She thanked him for the honor offered, but told him she was then engaged to a young man, a member of the Church, and consequently could not marry the old priest…He told her it was the will of God that she should marry him, and she must do so; that the young man could be got rid of, sent on a mission or dealt with in some way…that, in fact, a promise made to the young man was not binding, when she was informed that it was contrary to the wishes of the authorities.

“The girl continued obstinate…the authorities called on the young man and directed him to give up the young woman. This he steadfastly refused to do…He remained true to his intended, and said he would die before he would surrender his intended wife to the embraces of another…The young man was ordered to go on a mission to some distant locality…But the mission was refused…

“It was then determined that the rebellious young man must be forced by harsh treatment to respect the advice and orders of the Priesthood. His fate was left to Bishop Snow for his decision. He decided that the young man should be castrated; Snow saying, ‘When that is done, he will not be liable to want the girl badly, and she will listen to reason when she knows that her lover is no longer a man.’

“It was then decided to call a meeting of the people who lived true to counsel, which was held in the school-house in Manti…The young man was there, and was again requested, ordered and threatened, to get him to surrender the young woman to Snow, but true to his plighted troth, he refused to consent to give up the girl. The lights were then put out. An attack was made on the young man. He was severely beaten, and then tied with his back down on a bench, when Bishop Snow took a bowie-knife, and performed the operation in a most brutal manner, and then took the portion severed from his victim and hung it up in the school-house on a nail, so that it could be seen by all who visited the house afterwards.

“The party then left the young man weltering in his blood, and in a lifeless condition. During the night he succeeded in releasing himself from his confinement, and dragged himself to some hay-stacks, where he lay until the next day, when he was discovered by his friends. The young man regained his health, but has been an idiot or quite lunatic ever since…

“After this outrage old Bishop Snow took occasion to getup a meeting…When all had assembled, the old man talked to the people about their duty to the Church, and their duty to obey counsel, and the dangers of refusal, and then publicly called attention to the mangled parts of the young man, that had been severed from his person, and stated that the deed had been done to teach the people that the counsel of the Priesthood must be obeyed. To make a long story short, I will say, the young woman was soon after forced into being sealed to Bishop Snow.

“Brigham Young... did nothing against Snow. He left him in charge as Bishop at Manti, and ordered the matter to be hushed up.” (Ibid., pp. 284-286)

D. Michael Quinn found documented evidence showing that President Young supported Bishop Warren S. Snow’s cruel mistreatment of the young man:

“In the midsummer of 1857 Brigham Young also expressed approval for an LDS bishop who had castrated a man. In May 1857 Bishop Warren S. Snow’s counselor wrote that twenty-four-year-old Thomas Lewis ‘has now gone crazy’ after being castrated by Bishop Snow for an undisclosed sex crime. When informed of Snow’s action, Young said: ‘I feel to sustain him...’ In July Brigham Young wrote a reassuring letter to the bishop about this castration: ‘Just let the matter drop, and say no more about it,’ the LDS president advised, ‘and it will soon die away among the people.’ “(The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pp. 250-251)
On November 30, 1871, T. B. H. Stenhouse received a letter by an individual who was present at a meeting in Provo, Utah. The letter indicated that Bishop Blackburn was also strongly pushing for the emasculation of men who were disobedient to their leaders:

“’Dear Stenhouse: I Have read carefully the accompanying statement about the “Reformation.”…If you want to travel wider and show the effect in the country of the inflammatory speeches delivered in Salt Lake City at that time, you can mention the Potter and Parrish murders at Springville, the barbarous castration of a young man in San Pete, and, to cap the climax, the Mountain-Meadows massacre…Threats of personal violence or death were common in the settlements against all who dared to speak against the priesthood, or in any way protest against this “reign of terror.”
“’I was at a Sunday meeting in the spring of 1857, in Provo, when the news of the San Pete castration was referred to by the presiding bishop-Blackburn. Some men in Provo had rebelled against authority in some trivial matter, and Blackburn shouted in his Sunday meeting-a mixed congregation of all ages and both sexes-”I want the people of Provo to understand that the boys in Provo can use the knife as well as the boys in San Pete. Boys, get your knives ready, there is work for you! We must not be behind San Pete in good works.” The result of this was that two citizens, named Hooper and Beauvere, both having families at Provo, left the following night…Their only offence was rebellion against the priesthood.

“’This man, Blackburn, was continued in office at least a year after this…

“’The qualifications for a bishop were a blind submission and obedience to Brigham and the authorities, and a firm unrelented government of his subjects.” (The Rocky Mountain Saints, by T. B. H. Stenhouse, 1873, pp. 301-302)

This is an important letter because it throws additional light upon Brigham Young’s knowledge regarding emasculation in early Utah. According to Wilford Woodruff’s journal, not long after Warren S. Snow’s cowardly attack on Thomas Lewis, President Young discussed the matter of castration being used to save people:

“I then went into the president office & spent the evening. Bishop Blackburn was present. The subject Came up of some persons leaving Provo who had Apostatized. Some thought that Bishop Blackburn & President Snow was to blame. Brother Joseph Young presented the thing to presidet Young. But When the Circumstances were told Presidet Brigham Young sustained the Brethren who presided at Provo…
“The subjects of Eunuchs came up…Brigham Said the day would Come when thousands would be made Eunochs in order for them to be saved in the kingdom of God.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Diary, June 2, 1857, Vol. 5, pp. 54-55)

In a public discourse President Young acknowledged that the church had use for some very mean devils who resided in early Utah:

“And if the Gentiles wish to see a few tricks, we have ‘Mormons’ that can perform them. We have the meanest devils on the earth in our midst, and we intend to keep them, for we have use for them; and if the Devil does not look sharp, we will cheat him out of them at the last, for they will reform and go to heaven with us.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 176)
Orrin Porter Rockwell was certainly one of Brigham Young’s “meanest devils.” Rockwell, who had served as a bodyguard for Joseph Smith, did not hesitate to shed blood…Bill Hickman was another ruthless man who killed many people. In his book Brigham’s Destroying Angel, Hickman confessed that he had committed murders for the church.

In 1858, an extremely grotesque double murder was committed. Henry Jones and his mother were both put to death. These murders were obviously the direct result of Brigham Young’s doctrine of “blood atonement.” Two months before Henry Jones was actually murdered, he was viciously attacked. Hosea Stout, a very dedicated Mormon defender, wrote the following regarding the first attack on Jones:

“Saturday 27 Feb 1858. This evening several persons disguised as Indians entered Henry Jones’ house and dragged him out of bed with a whore and castrated him by a square & close amputation.” (On the Mormon Frontier; The Diary of Hosea Stout, Vol. 2, p. 653)
One would think that this would have ended the vendetta against Jones. Unfortunately, this was not the case. On April 19, 1859, the newspaper Valley Tan printed an affidavit by Nathaniel Case which contained a statement implicating a bishop and other Mormons who lived in Payson:

“Nathaniel Case being sworn, says: that he has resided in the Territory of Utah since the year 1850; lived with Bishop Hancock (Charles Hancock) in the town of Payson, at the time Henry Jones and his mother were murdered…The night prior to the murder a secret council meeting was held in the upper room of Bishop Hancock’s house; saw Charles Hancock, George W. Hancock, Daniel Rawson, James Bracken, George Patten and Price Nelson go into that meeting that night…About 8 o’clock in the evening of the murder the company gathered at Bishop Hancock’s…They said they were going to guard a corral where Henry Jones was going to come that night and steal horses; they had guns.
“I had a good mini rifle and Bishop Hancock wanted to borrow it; I refused to lend it to him. The above persons all went away together…Next morning I heard that Henry Jones and his mother had been killed. I wnet [sic] down to the dug-out where they lived…The old woman was laying on the ground in the dugout on a little straw, in the clothes in which she was killed. She had a bullet hole through her head… In about 15 or 20 minutes Henry Jones was brought there and laid by her side; they then threw some old bed clothes over them and an old feather bed and then pulled the dug-out on top of them…

“The next Sunday after the murder, in a church meeting in Payson, Charles Hancock, the bishop, said, as to the killing of Jones and his mother he cared nothing about it, and it would have been done in daylight if circumstances would have permitted it.-This was said from the stand; there were 150 or 200 persons present. He gave no reason for killing them. And further saith not. Nathaniel Case.

“Sworn to and signed before me this 9th day of April, 1859.

John Cradlebaugh, Judge 2nd Judicial District.”

Those who murdered Henry Jones and his mother may have remembered Brigham Young’s sermon, which was delivered just two years prior to these murders:

“Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; under such circumstances. I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247)
In his book, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Dr. Quinn presented compelling evidence showing that “blood atonement” was endorsed by church leaders and actually practiced by the Mormon people. Quinn gave the names of a number of violent men who served as “enforcers” for Brigham Young. In addition Quinn wrote:

“During this period Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders also repeatedly preached about specific sins for which it was necessary to shed the blood of men and women. Blood-atonement sins included adultery, apostasy, ‘covenant breaking,’ counterfeiting, ‘many men who left this Church,’ murder, not being ‘heartily on the Lord’s side,’ profaning ‘the name of the Lord,’ sexual intercourse between a ‘white’ person and an African-American, stealing, and telling lies…
“Some LDS historians have claimed that blood-atonement sermons were simply Brigham Young’s use of ‘rhetorical devices designed to frighten wayward individuals into conformity with Latter-day Saint principles’ and to bluff anti-Mormons. Writers often describe these sermons as limited to the religious enthusiasm and frenzy of the Utah Reformation up to 1857. The first problem with such explanations is that official LDS sources show that as early as 1843 Joseph Smith and his counselor Sidney Rigdon advocated decapitation or throat-cutting as punishment for various crimes and sins.

“Moreover, a decade before Utah’s reformation, Brigham Young’s private instructions show that he fully expected his trusted associates to kill various persons for violating religious obligations. The LDS church’s official history still quotes Young’s words to ‘the brethren’ in February 1846: ‘I should be perfectly willing to see thieves have their throats cut.’ The following December he instructed bishops, ‘when a man is found to be a thief, he will be a thief no longer, cut his throat, & thro’ him in the River,’ and Young did not instruct them to ask his permission. A week later the church president explained to a Winter Quarters meeting that cutting off the heads of repeated sinners ‘is the law of God & it shall be executed...’ A rephrase of Young’s words later appeared in Hosea Stout’s reference to a specific sinner, ‘to cut him off-behind the ears-according to the law of God in such cases.’…

“When informed that a black Mormon in Massachusetts had married a white woman, Brigham Young told the apostles in December 1847 that he would have both of them killed ‘if they were far away from the Gentiles.’”(The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pp. 246-247)

The following are some extracts from Quinn’s book:

“In September 1857 Apostle George A. Smith told a Salt Lake City congregation that Mormons at Parowan in southern Utah ‘wish that their enemies might come and give them a chance to fight and take vengeance for the cruelties that had been inflicted upon us in the States.’ Smith had just returned from southern Utah where he had encouraged such feelings by preaching fiery sermons about resisting the U.S. army and taking vengeance on anti-Mormons. Just days before his talk in Salt Lake City, members of Parowan’s Mormon militia participated in killing 120 men, women, and children in the Mountain Meadows Massacre…
“Although most accounts claimed that the militia killed only the adult males and let their Indian allies kill the women and children, perpetrator Nephi Johnson later told an LDS apostle that ‘white men did most of the killing.’ Perpetrator George W. Adair also told another apostle that ‘John Higbee gave the order to kill the women and children,’ and Adair ‘saw the women’s and children’s throats cut.’…

“As late as 1868 the Deseret News encouraged rank-and-file Mormons to kill anyone who engaged in sexual relations outside marriage…

“Under such circumstances the Mormon hierarchy bore full responsibility for the violent acts of zealous Mormon[s] who accepted their instructions literally and carried out various forms of blood atonement. ‘Obviously there were those who could not easily make a distinction between rhetoric and reality,’ a BYU religion professor has written…It is unrealistic to assume that faithful Mormons all declined to act on such repeated instructions in pioneer Utah…Neither is it reasonable to assume that the known cases of blood atonement even approximated the total number that occurred in the first twenty years after Mormon settlement in Utah…LDS leaders publicly and privately encouraged Mormons to consider it their religious right to kill antagonistic outsiders, common criminals, LDS apostates, and even faithful Mormons who committed sins ‘worthy of death.’” (The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pp. 251-53, 56-57, 60)

References

Blood Atonement in the Mormon Church

Mormon Blood Atonement: Fact or Fantasy?

Apologist Response

According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, blood atonement was never official church doctrine nor was it sanctioned by the church:

“Several early Church leaders, most notably, Brigham Young, taught that in a complete theocracy the Lord would require the voluntary shedding of a murderer’s blood—presumably by capital punishment—as part of the process of atonement for such grievous sin. This was referred to as ‘blood atonement.’ Since such a theocracy has not been operative in modern times, the practical effect of the idea was its use as a rhetorical device to heighten the awareness of Latter-day Saints of the seriousness of murder and other major sins. This view is not a doctrine of the Church and has not been practiced by the Church at any time. “Early anti-Mormon writers charged that under Brigham Young the Church practiced ‘blood atonement,’ by which they meant Church-instigated violence directed at dissenters, enemies, and strangers. This claim distorted the whole idea of blood atonement—which was based on voluntary submission by an offender—into a supposed justification of involuntary punishment. Occasional isolated acts of violence that occurred in areas where Latter-day Saints lived were typical of that period in the history of the American West, but they were not instances of Church-sanctioned blood atonement.” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 1, p. 131)

20truths.info/mormon/blood.html

(i had to look over the article quickly and change some 4-letter words...if I missed any, i’m sure the Sunday School Teacher can contact the site and convey his sense of personal offense to the victims)

bishop covering up abuse

I was abused for 6 years by my nonmember stepdad. My stepdad had also abused 2 of my friends one night. 2 weeks after he abused my friends, it all came out. My mom kicked out my stepdad and called the bishop over to our house the same night.

His great advice: he told my mom not to involve the police because this was a family matter. He said that my mom should let him back in the house and work things out. He even told my mom not to seek counseling because I would just get over it.

Right after the bishop left, thankfully my mom ignored his advice and called the police. Attending church after that was awful. Everyone decided to handle it by ignoring me. I was made to feel like I had done something wrong. The bishop punished my mom by not even helping us with one food order.

I went inactive after that. Years later, when I came back to church, my new bishop gave me that horrible book to read, its a miracle if you’re forgiven. That’s when I realized that the church thought I should have died to protect myself from being molested. I still can’t believe I stayed a couple of years after reading that book.
I was also frustrated because my voice or my mom’s voice didn’t matter when an accusation was made against a man.

Do bishops not receive any basic training on how to handle these situations? I thought they were mandatory reporters once they have knowledge of abuse.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: freshperspective ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 01:14AMRe: bishop covering up abuse

I don’t know how long it’s been mandatory, but from what I heard from an lds family counselor, if he hears about any kind of physical abuse he has to report it immediately and bishops and other leaders of the church are supposed to report it immediately too. I’m guessing the church’s stance and policies have changed in the early 90’s. Sorry that happened to you. It’s not an uncommon occurrence believe it or not.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Anon for This ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 01:24AMRe: bishop covering up abuse

My father is used to be a bishop and is now an ex Mormon. He told me that when he went up the chain with abuse cases, he was told to sweep them under the rug by the Stake Presidency. When he decided that didn’t make sense, he tried to go around the Stake Presidency, and went to the Regional Representative (1980s Area Authority), who told him the same thing. He followed orders, but from how he talks about it, I know it was what eventually drove him from the church.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: guynoirprivateeye ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 01:43AMRe: bishop covering up abuse

doesn’t ChurchCo let members know what their policies on this are?

In-Fucking-Credible

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: guynoirprivateeye ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 02:51AMshannon:

(I looked at this once, but don’t remem details:)

in most states, if an abuser comes to clergy, that’s considered a Protected “Privileged” relationship, and clergy’s “First” duty is to the “penitent” person who supposedly came in to confess.

this is cloudy in the LDS experience for several reasons:

LDS ‘lay ministry’ doesn’t have the independence assumed in other relationships.

On the same note, they don’t have the religious training to deal with serious matters either.

Hopefully, these exemptions will be changed Soon.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: shannon ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 03:58AMRight Guy . . .

But in this case, it’s not the abuser confiding in the Bishop . . . it’s the mother of the abused child who came forth. “Privilege” and confidentiality don’t apply in this case.

This topic interests me because I’ve always been a “mandatory reporter” in my profession. I also grew up Catholic before I converted to Mormonism. My brother’s best friend was sexually abused by our parish priest growing up. When he was a teenager, the boy committed suicide in his yard next door.

Who here has a copy of the current CHI? There has to be some kind of policy written down in there.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: shannon ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 02:22AMWow

Sweetie, I’m so sorry that happened to you.

My understanding (and I have no official source for this) is that the LDS church instituted some internal policies reminding Mormon “clergy” that they were required to report abuse to civil authorities, following the massive Catholic Church Priest Abuse scandal.

Even with the fairly new guidelines, I’m betting that many Bishops still feel inspired to handle abuse cases internally.

I’d be interested to hear from some ex-mo leadership types to see what they have to say about current policy and practice.

((((((Hugs))))))

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2011 02:23AM by shannon.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: hello ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 03:03AMTraining?

According to bishops I have questioned about this, they receive practically no real training, and are expected to obtain the sacred spiritual “mantle” of authority to perform their duties.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: lazarus ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 03:47AMRe: Training?

There is a book, but I can’t find a copy. I only find it referenced.

Preventing and Responding to Child Abuse (35665)

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: lazarus ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 03:54AMRe: Training?

OK, that’s just a pamphlet. But I stumbled on this page: newsroom.lds.org/article/effectiveness-of-church-approach-to-preventing-child-abuse

There is so much BS in that article, but here is my favorite:

One final point: The Church has not taken these measures to protect its reputation but to protect children. Mormons are well known for their love of children. Church leaders and members treasure the innocence of childhood and take seriously Jesus Christ’s severe condemnation of anyone who harms a child. See, for example, Matthew 18:6: “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” The LDS Church’s deep concern for children has led to a system that is highly effective at preventing abuse, protecting and helping victims, ensuring that Church clergy comply with the law, and disciplining and expelling abusers.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: shannon ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 10:01AMAnd how about THIS paragraph?!

“Despite these precautions, child abuse sometimes occurs within a member family or between two members. With over five million members in the United States alone, the Church cannot monitor its members’ private lives. The Church is not a police force; nor should it be. Local clergy hold full-time secular jobs and thus perform much of their ministry during their free time on Sundays or in one or two weekday evenings after work. There is much they don’t know about the lives of their congregation members.”

Oh dear GAWD . . . I don’t even have words.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Mia ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 07:54PMRe: Training?

Mormons are known for their love of children? Since when?
I am going to go out on my deck and scream.
What a bunch of bullshit!

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: forbiddencokedrinker ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 04:08AMRe: bishop covering up abuse

The church does have a system in place that “expells” abusers if by expelled you mean they are not allowed to take sacrament for a year. They also have a system in place that disciplines abusers by requiring them to go to special disciplinary meetings that the church has no way of enforcing actual attendance (not that they should). What the church totally sucks at is having a system that hands the perps over to the cops, and has the whole weight of our Justice System drop on their heads. Church court is not a substitute for real court, any more then a Model UN represents real diplomacy.

Sexual predators need to be placed into situations were it is impossible for them to ever harm another child ever again. I am sorry if that is not very forgiving of me.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: anon for this ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 09:29AMRe: bishop covering up abuse

Thanks for the information. Just to clarify, this happened in the early 90’s. He ended up serving over 15 years in prison.

I don’t know why I went back to church years later. I only stayed active for a couple years and then decided this wasn’t a church, for so many reasons, that I wanted to belong to. It was really easy for me to write my exit letter.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: cludgie ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 09:32AMAh yes, the “Miracle of Forgiveness”

(Read: “It’s a Miracle if You’re Forgiven.”) Truly the most evil and damaging book ever published for Mormons by Mormons.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Mia ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 07:57PMRe: Ah yes, the “Miracle of Forgiveness”

Someone gave me that stupid book. I don’t think I got 10 pages into before I threw it in the trash. At the time I was a strong believer in Christ. I felt like that book was an insult to the atonement and every thing Christ stood for. I still stayed in. What was I thinking?

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Mia ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 08:04PMRe: Ah yes, the “Miracle of Forgiveness”

In future we should do a thread of nothing but mormon related sex abuse experiences that we on this board are privy to. I think it would be a difficult read, but a real eye opener to some. The way these things are handled by the church is appalling! I wonder how many threads it would take to exhaust the subject. Quite a few would be my guess.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: cludgie ( )
Date: January 01, 2012 01:47PMYou start; we’ll follow.

Many of us got something, if not actual abuse then something totally inappropriate.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Cheryl ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 10:41AMThe morg produced a DVD for bishops to watch as training.

Some might look at it if they have time. From what I gather, it tells them to call church a help line for advice if there’s a problem reported. Church lawyers answer the calls and their advice protects church pr and interests and with luck might sometimes help victims.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Mia ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 08:05PMRe: The morg produced a DVD for bishops to watch as training.

My experience with the help line, is their major concern is if you are going to sue. They might help you if they think they can prevent a law suit.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Alex Degaston ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 12:35PM8:19pm on July 13, 2011

I think I have a hunch on why your Bishop counseled your mom as he did. Over the years I’ve heard many things that have caused me to believe that the LDS leaders are sometimes acting like ordinary men rather than as the pure voice and mind of a loving Lord. However in combination of the Spanier/Paterno firings at Penn State for coverups and something I heard from a very honest friend of mine at 8:19pm on July 13, 2011 regarding his own experience with church leadership sure takes the cake on me questioning the infalliability of LDS church leaders. Here’s what my friend shared with me.

One day while serving in a mid-level leadership position my friend (hereafter “FRIEND”) had an appointment with a young adult (hereafter “YA”) under his stewardship where YA shared with FRIEND an experience that happened several years earlier when YA was in mutual about YA’s Bishop (hereafter “BISHOP”). BISHOP claimed to have gotten some sort of revelation from the Lord about celestial marriage for various youth in his Ward and naturally BISHOP would have to consummate these marriages. In a nutshell BISHOP was hands-on sexually molesting underage children. The church had covered it up by even sending a Seventy up from Salt Lake to the community/Stake where YA & BISHOP lived to absolve the kids of sin and to get everyone to keep it quiet. Not even YA’s parents knew about it. Well BISHOP was ex’ed but nobody called law enforcement.

YA was really struggling with all the sorrow/emotions over what happened years earlier and never getting any reasonable amount of counseling. YA now wanted FRIEND to arrange a first phone call of YA with YA’s parents (who were living out-of-state) in order that YA could get started on the road to healing. So FRIEND called the parents and told them they ought to have an important conversation with YA. However since the dad was at work this call was postponed for an hour so both parents could be together when they talked with YA. Then FRIEND felt prompted to call the church’s Salt Lake number to get advice and repeated verbatim what YA had told him. About 10 minutes later FRIEND gets a call from a 1st Counselor who was president of a particular quorum (hereafter “Thomas”). Thomas told FRIEND to not let YA talk to their parents but that FRIEND should provide counseling/support and basically keep the matter under wraps. FRIEND disobeyed Thomas and the call happened. YA’s parents called the cops, an investigation ensued, BISHOP was finally convicted, BISHOP got his name in the paper for his conviction, and BISHOP could no longer roam freely without scrutiny amongst children in society like Jerry Sandusky could until recently.

Now the story that hasn’t seen the light of day is that Thomas was pissed at FRIEND and ordered the acting president of this quorum (hereafter “Boyd”) to have FRIEND ex’ed for not obeying his order to obstruct justice. One of the quorum members (hereafter “Good Apostle”) then came to the defense of FRIEND and said FRIEND had done the right thing and that he Good Apostle had warned them that them keeping it quiet years earlier about BISHOP would come back to bite them. And Good Apostle told them that if they ex’ed FRIEND for failing to obey Thomas’s instruction to obstruct justice over this child molester who they had ex’ed years earlier but the quorum hadn’t reported it to law enforcement then they might as well excommunicate Good Apostle too. As a result this quorum

I haven’t gotten permission from FRIEND to share this and FRIEND would probably be pissed (for a short while) if he saw this. But I’m assuming that this was the standard operating procedure for the LDS church on what to do about child molesting by any of their mid-level leaders such as BISHOP. So any LDS higherup who reads this would probably be thinking “which one of our coverups is this”. And even if the LDS bigwigs figured out who I’m talking about they’d only expose themselves as guilty if they tried any retaliation and I’m pretty sure that FRIEND doesn’t care much what Thomas, Boyd and other bigwigs think of him. Why should he? He knows they are guilty of Obstruction of Justice for the same type of crimes that got Spanier/Paterno fired and frankly Thomas/Boyd and the rest who silently went along with their own scandal of their own creation ought to look at themselves in comparison to Spanier/Paterno and think long/hard about the legacy they’re build up for themselves and anyone else whose resources they exploit during this era of continued coverup of their own complicities. Has God forgiven them? How can anyone assume so considering that there are certain legal requirements and certain moral obligations when it comes to justice for children. Frankly I think that the supermajority of mid-level LDS leaders are good men who would never molest children. However just like the Catholic church they’ve had their share of rotten apples. And just like the Catholic church they’ve done their coverups. I really don’t know how anyone can have respect for Pope Benedict XVI. The Catholic apologists can whine all they want but the simple question of “when did Carninal Bernard Law have that interview with the Boston police in the USA” ought to shut them up. And so it is with the LDS leaders too.

I certainly can with a clean conscience declare under penalty of perjury that yes indeed at 8:19pm on July 13, 2011 I heard this sad tale from FRIEND. I’m sorry that FRIEND was victimized in this manner for sincerely trying to help YA get the help that YA should’ve gotten earlier.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Alex Degaston ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 12:41PMUnfinished sentence

I wrote an unfinished sentence above: “As a result this quorum”

What I meant to write: “As a result this quorum dropped the matter and as far as I can tell has never repented of their moral/legal coverup.”

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: rodolfo ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 02:33PMRe: bishop covering up abuse

Disgusting. Reminds me of the current debacle unfolding in Vancouver, WA.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: blindmag ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 07:23PMRe: bishop covering up abuse

I would rather give details of this when its all sorted and over with but I have a case of where keeping quiet backfired badly.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: loli ( )
Date: December 30, 2011 08:38PMRe: bishop covering up abuse

when i was a kid my father was abusive (moderate physical & SEVERE emotional) my mom went to the bishop several times for help. but it was SOP to basically tell her to suck it up and quit whining & be more christlike and forgiving..

i’m so very sorry that happened to you!! im glad your mom had the good sense to do something about it..

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: anon this time ( )
Date: January 01, 2012 03:19PMsimilar to other stories here

Several years ago a guy who gave me the creeps was “called” to be the bishop. When asked why he chose this man, the SP said he “received” his name while in the Celestial room of the temple.

Fast forward. After 1 1/2 years this man is released. He divorces (they were the ‘perfect’ family—strictly held to the letter of the law—100% seminary attendance, no PG or R movies, absolutely no caffeine even chocolate, yada yada—but venomous inside) and their house is foreclosed. We later find out that this man has a restraining order to stay away from children, particularly boys!!!

We’re told nothing directly from TSCC leadership. What we learn is from friends of this man’s family.

At the time, I had a young son who had been alone with this man on several occasions while the man was bishop. I questioned my son and found that my son was not a victim. He had thought the man was strange and avoided him. Smart kid. However, I met the SP (whom I thought was a friend) on the following Sunday, and (not knowing whether or not my son was a victim) refused to warn me or give me any info even though he knew we might have been victimized. He walked away. He protected this perp, not the innocent. SOB.

I still don’t know what happened exactly with this bishop. If the police were involved, they never questioned my son. I don’t know how the restraining order came about. I do know this man’s own son won’t have anything to do with him. So much for the perfect family.

exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,379543,379556

My story is not all that unique among former Mormon women. I grew up in the Church., fifth generation, ancestors crossed the plains in handcarts. They sacrificed everything for the faith which bound them for eternity. That very bond is the one which I have broken, causing me to reject the Mormon view of eternal family, shifting my place in that family from one of ‘them’ to ‘how could she?’
How does one recover from Mormonism? How does one separate the cultural life as a Mormon from the noxious belief system? What happens when you learn that ‘there is no Santa Claus’ and everything you have ever known, felt, or believed is a fraud? What happens when you have raised your children in this belief system and reach a point where you can no longer do that? After teaching and living Mormonism with your family, how do you put the brakes on and say, ‘Hey kids, I was wrong?’ What happens to you emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and physically when you discover that your life has been based on a lie?

Those are some of the things which I have faced for the past seven years. I grew up in a very Mormon family. My ancestors crossed the plains and settled near Manti, Utah only to be sent to Southern Colorado to establish a Mormon colony there. I came from a long line of stake presidents, bishops, patriarchs, mission presidents, relief society presidents, and musicians. When I was born, my grandfather was the stake president, hosting general authorities for conference. I was comfortable in the faith. I grew up attending Primary, MIA, and four years of early morning Seminary. I had wonderful experiences, attending youth conferences, performing in road shows, talent shows, going to dances and performing in dance festivals. These wonderful experiences probably saved me from the problems so many of my friends had - experimenting with drugs, alcohol, etc. Growing up in an area where the church was a minority, the kids in my ward and stake had a strong bond.

After a year of BYU, I was married in the temple to a returned missionary. He seemed like such a catch! I was living the Mormon dream. Children began to join us - again and again and again until there were seven of them. But there were severe problems. Sometimes that dream was a horrible nightmare. Sometimes that knight in shining armor was a monster. Sometimes he hit, kicked, punched and spat on me. But he was the Priesthood holder. I must have deserved it.

There must have been some horrible things wrong with me. The church was true and yet I wasn’t happy. Weren’t we promised that if we followed the teachings of the church and did everything they required that we would be happy? I tried. I decided to read the scriptures more. I had always had trouble reading the Book of Mormon. It just didn’t make sense to me. Of course, that must have been because somehow I wasn’t ‘worthy’ to understand. But I could read and devour books on many topics and I could understand them! What was wrong with me? I would sit in classes and hear what one general authority said, and then what others said and wonder about the contradictions and think, ‘Hey wait a minute!’ But it must have been because I wasn’t worthy to understand these things. Of course, the church was true. I asked for blessings. I paid my tithing, I went to the temple. I did everything I could think of. I prayed and prayed and prayed.

The marriage became worse. No matter what I did, it got worse. I prayed that I would make him happy, that I could save the marriage. I didn’t realize that I was trying to play God. I didn’t realize that this was a serious problem and that we needed professional help. I did what I had been conditioned to do. I talked to the bishop. I had talked to other bishops before and it had always been the same thing - ‘it’s up to the woman to save the marriage.’ ‘You need to pray more’, ‘you need to try harder’, and ‘well, I would never treat MY wife like that.’ So for years, that’s just what I had done.

There was a point in my life that I was teaching 40 piano students, delivering newspapers, sewing for other people, sewing all the kids and my own clothes, teaching the kids at home, holding down 3 or 4 church jobs, making whole wheat bread 2 or 3 times a week, nursing a baby and was pregnant with another. My former husband kept telling me that I wasn’t working hard enough and that I was lazy. The crazy thing was that I believed him. One thing about being so busy - I didn’t have time to think or feel. I shut down feeling anything. The cycle of abuse continued to escalate. Of course it was my fault. I would sit in church and my stomach would churn. If I was trying so hard, why wasn’t anything helping? Why would I sit in classes and have trouble believing what was said? I must really be awful. Why doesn’t God love me? How could I ever hope to make it to the celestial kingdom? And I didn’t dare even acknowledge my worst thoughts - if I have to be there with the FSU (former spousal unit)I don’t want to go there! He would talk about how we would go on a mission together after the kids were raised. I couldn’t stand the thought. Two years stuck together constantly. I told him he’d be going alone - if I had to do that, then I would die first. I began to think a lot about dying.

There were a couple of things which began to happen. I had been doing the music for a small Episcopal church in the community. These people had something that I was missing. Their God wasn’t a god of condemnation and punishment. The women were treated well. They weren’t stuck in the dogma which was all I’d ever known. I enjoyed going to church there. I enjoyed the love that was shared. Going to St. David’s each Sunday seemed to give me a sense of hope and peace.

Another thing that happened was that the abuse became worse. It became worse for the kids, too. I had always tried to ignore it. I was too weak to do anything about it at that time. But one hot summer day in 1990, my former spousal unit (FSU) got into an argument with Child #2. He took that boy to the garage and beat him relentlessly. He kicked him with steeltoed boots, punched his face, spat at him, screamed at him, beat his head against the wall of the garage. I stood there screaming, trying to make it stop. It just kept going. I called the police. (My FSU was on the town council and was part of the ‘good old boys’ system in the town) The police chief told me that I was just being neurotic and that FSU was just trying to discipline the kid and that he needed it. Somewhere inside me, the thought occurred, “If you aren’t going to do something about what he does to you, then at least do something about these kids.” That day, I couldn’t comfort that son. He hated me for not protecting him.

Of course, I turned to the church. I talked to the bishop. His advise was ‘Go home and make FSU a cherry pie. That will fix everything.’ He told me to pray more and try harder. He asked ‘What do you do to make him have to beat you? My wife would never do that?’ Just what I needed, more guilt and shame. So I tried harder. I started going to the temple more. Things didn’t get better. After one particularly nasty fight, I packed up and left for a few days, taking a couple of kids and hiding the rest. The bishop and FSU decided that I needed counseling. How right they were!

I began doing things I didn’t understand. I found myself getting my own post office box. I got my own checking account. (FSU had total control of all the money - even what I earned) I began collecting some of my own piano money. I had little stashes lying around. I began making photocopies of important documents and hiding them. I talked to an advocate for the Sexual Assault and Family Violence program. I began to read about family violence, cycles of violence, learned helplessness, and other issues. I discovered that I was not alone. I asked FSU to get help. Of course, he didn’t need any. So the bishop and FSU arranged for me to get help. Funny, during my reading, I could see parallels between the church and control and oppression and my own marriage. Hmmmm...

I had an intake appointment with an LDS Social Services counselor. I was one of the lucky ones. I had a counselor who asked, “Is this what you think marriage is about?” I said NO. He said, “Good. This may very well be a divorce situation.” I felt validated and like there was hope. This man referred me to a counselor in my area. This was a key in helping me to understand myself and my situation. Unknowingly, the bishop and FSU had tossed me a lifeline. For the first time in my life, I began to realize that I was okay. I realized I had choices and options. This counseling was great! FSU agreed to go see the counselor. FSU spent the time telling the counselor what was wrong with me. Of course, FSU was okay. The counselor never tried to talk me into divorcing FSU. However, after I made that decision, he was very supportive.

Bishop reported the counselor to Salt Lake because he wasn’t ‘saving marriages.’ Bishop told me that he wanted me to sign a release so that the counselor could tell him what we talked about. Bishop was conducting an ‘investigation’ of my life. The counselor wrote the bishop a letter advising him to leave me alone. I was beginning to have some real doubts about the church.

FSU went to Idaho and he and his family had a meeting to decide what to do about me. They decided that I should quit my part time job (I was accompanist for the local school district) and stay at home and be a good mother. I should quit counseling because I was getting ‘funny ideas’ and I should become more ‘submissive.’ Whoops. It was too late. At one point, FSU’s father said that if I were his wife, he would be forced to kill me. Hmm. Strong words. FSU decided he was going to make me love him again. Whoops. Again it was too late. They also decided that I should not be going to St. David’s because I was getting ‘funny ideas’ from them. Whoops. Too late for that, too.

About this time, I was playing for Stake Conference. Boyd K Packer was the visiting authority, reorganizing our stake. A man of God was coming to visit our community! His talk was so oppressive towards women and demeaning in general. More guilt and shame, only this time I wasn’t buying. I remember his cold, unfeeling gaze. I was playing some Bach prelude and Brother Packer sent someone to the organ telling me to play only ‘hymns of the restoration’ and play them ‘very quietly.’ Well, that’s just what I did. I played VERY softly, but I played ‘We Thank Thee O God For a Prophet’ in a minor key. I don’t think anyone knew what was happening, but BKP looked over at me and I looked at him. They weren’t loving looks. I thought, ‘And this is a man of God?’ Cold chills went down my spine and I realized that I was headed out of the church. Maybe there was something wrong with the Church!!!

The cycle of abuse escalated further. Our family was living a nightmare on an emotional roller coaster. I was walking about 6 miles a day for my sanity. I would also go to the playground and swing on the swings. One night, FSU wanted to go with me because he didn’t ‘trust’ me. We walked toward the park and he asked me if I was happy. I told him that there were things which caused me unhappiness but that I was basically happy. He told me that he didn’t approve of the ways in which I was changing. He added, ‘You aren’t making me happy.’ I turned toward him and said ,’I can’t make you be happy. You have to do that for yourself.’ I realized that the marriage was over. Soon after that, he offered to take me out for lunch. I couldn’t stand the idea of even being around him when he was trying to be nice. I went to the cemetery to pray. I had kneeholes at a bench where I used to spend much time.

My prayer had changed. I was no longer asking God to help me save the marriage or to be a good Mormon anymore. That day, I shouted out “God, is this what you want for me? If it is, then let me die! I don’t want to be around him. I can’t fix him. I can’t even fix myself. I know it’s a temple marriage, but I don’t care. I want to be released from this. Help me figure out if I even believe in the church anymore. Why is it that I feel so angry when I am at church?” I screamed, I cried, I poured out my heart. For the first time in my life, I was honest in my prayers. I felt peaceful when I finished. I realized that I was going to divorce FSU, that I would be okay and that I wouldn’t be alone. I felt a strength I’d never known. I went home and went to lunch with FSU. I saw him through new eyes. I saw him as a pathetic victim of his family and of the church. But I knew that my job was not to fix him or accept any more of the abuse and pain. I realized that deep within, I had known what I was going to do. That’s why I had my own post office box, my own checking account, and why I had been copying papers. I had been getting my ducks in a row, so to speak. Things were falling into place.

I began to go to Church less and to look forward to attending St. David’s more. FSU began to follow me wherever I went, including St. David’s. He’d sit outside lurking while I was in there, then follow me home. I became more afraid. My SAFV advocate and I discussed what was involved in getting a protection order. I decided to get my tubes tied because FSU was thinking that another baby might save the marriage and keep me in the home where I should be. I thought that it would take a year to get everything over with.

I saw an attorney in early December 1990. She was very helpful and I got everything gathered up and in her office. I informed FSU that I would be divorcing him and things got worse. On January 2, 1991, I got a protection order. Divorce papers were served at the hearing.

I began seeing friends from my growing up years. One couple had left the church and gave me articles and books to read. Other people popped into my life who had left the church. I noticed that they were all happy. I quit wearing my garments. I quit attending church. When the bishop began calling my friends in to question them about me, I stood up to him. He informed me that I was being investigated for my membership. I told him, fine, take it. At that point he refused, saying that I needed my membership. I told him it was funny how he would excommunicate me if he could, but that if I requested to leave, he wouldn’t do it.

I left the area and went to school since I had no real marketable skills. I got a five year degree in three years. I continued counseling, dealing with issues of anger, religious abuse, domestic violence, PostTraumatic Stress Disorder, depression, and in creating an identity where none had existed. My identity for the first 36 years of my life was as a Mormon girl, wife, mother, as FSUs wife. I didn’t know who I was and I am thrilled at finding out just who I am. I attended 12 step groups. I was baptized at St. David’s in May 1991,shortly before I moved away from the small town I left. I really didn’t think my mormon baptism was worth much. I was excommunicated from the church in June 1997.

I have come to accept the cultural heritage as a Mormon child. There were many wonderful people and wonderful times in my childhood and I can now look back on them with a smile. I can laugh at the culture. I can embrace the good things I learned and the parts from that system that I choose accept and leave the rest.

I don’t know when recovery is finished because it happens like layers of an onion, but I like to think that I am over the difficult parts. I have grown to love myself and to become more loving with others. I see a spark of divinity in each and every soul. That hollow shell of a woman I used to be has died and reborn in her place is the person I am now. Very much alive and happy about it. No longer do I sleep with my fists clenched or in fear. I am no longer afraid of church authorities. The woman I am has an identity and a soul and is full of the fire of life.

I realize that I am responsible for my life and for the choices I make. I will not become a victim of any type of abuse again. I no longer hate the FSU. He no longer controls me because I have chosen to be in control of my own life. No longer am I in fear of church leaders.

One of the most important parts of my healing has been in becoming part of the Exmormon group. I have found people who can understand what it is like to leave a religion, who have been hurt by the Church. I have raged and ranted and cried and laughed with these people, and many of the people have become very important to me. The outpouring of love and understanding is truly remarkable.

As far as my religious beliefs, I have found that spirituality and religion are not necessarily the same thing. I feel that I have become a very spiritual person, although no longer espouse any formal religion. I am making choices and finding what fits and what doesn’t. I believe there is a Divine Presence and acknowledge that in my life. I have been amazed at the miracles that occur in my life on a daily basis. I don’t know if it gets any better than that. My God is one of love and acceptance. That has been a leap from the old one.

I am a product of the choices I make. I realize that I am responsible for them. I have found a gift in all of the pain I have seen and endured. Not that I care to repeat any of it, but I embrace and accept it for what it has been. I treasure my life and the experiences and people who are now part of my life. I love myself and the journey I’m on. No, I don’t think it could be any better than that.

(source: exmormon.org)

WHAT???

No PICTURES??

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.

The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.

This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the 'servant of servants', and they will be, until that curse is removed."

Brigham Young-President and second 'Prophet' of the Mormon Church, 1844-1877- Extract from Journal of Discourses.

Here are two examples from their 'other testament', the Book of Mormon.

2 Nephi 5: 21 'And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.'

Alma 3: 6 'And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.'

August 27, 1954 in an address at Brigham Young University (BYU), Mormon Elder, Mark E Peterson, in speaking to a convention of teachers of religion at the college level, said:

"The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent.I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after."
"He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage."
"That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'...."

(Rosa Parks would have probably told Petersen under which wheel of the bus he should go sit.)

1967, (then) Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson said,

"The Communist program for revolution in America has been in progress for many years and is far advanced. First of all, we must not place the blame upon Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder."

We are told that on June 8, 1978, it was 'revealed' to the then president, Spencer Kimball, that people of color could now gain entry into the priesthood.

According to the church, Kimball spent many long hours petitioning God, begging him to give worthy black people the priesthood. God finally relented.

Sometime before the 'revelation' came to chief 'Prophet' Spencer Kimball in June 1978, General Authority, Bruce R McConkie had said:

"The Blacks are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty.
The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man's origin, it is the Lord's doings."
(Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-527).

When Mormon 'Apostle' Mark E Petersen spoke on 'Race Problems- As they affect the Church' at the BYU campus in 1954, the following was also said:

"...if the negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."

When Mormon 'Prophet' and second President of the Church, Brigham Young, spoke in 1863 the following was also said:

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so."
(Journal of Discourses, Vo. 10, p. 110)

Yeah; Native Americans are althroughout the Book of MORMON; too.

“I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today ... they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.... For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised.... The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl-sixteen-sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather.... These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness.

One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.

(Improvement Era, December 1960, pp.922-23). (p. 209)

That’s when I realized that the church thought I should have died to protect myself from being molested.

What is your church doing to help the male to stay true?

"All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus upon intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church to put their lives in order before exercising the privilege of entering a house of the Lord. The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it."
- Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church, January 5th, 1982

"Prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation-practiced with another person of the same sex and thence into total homosexuality...."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Pages 77-79, 81-82

"Among the most common sexual sins our young people commit are necking and petting. Not only do these improper relations often lead to fornication, [unwed] pregnancy, and abortions - all ugly sins - but in and of themselves they are pernicious evils, and it is often difficult for youth to distinguish where one ends and another begins. They awaken lust and stir evil thoughts and sex desires. They are but parts of the whole family of related sins and indiscretions. Almost like twins, 'petting' and fornication are alike."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, page 65

spencer kimball "Also far-reaching is the effect of the loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, page 196

"And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth." (Genesis 4:9-14.) That was true of murder. It is also true of illicit sex, which, of course, includes all petting, fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, and all other perversions. The Lord may say to offenders, as He did to Cain, "What hast thou done?" The children thus conceived make damning charges against you; the companions who have been frustrated and violated condemn you; the body that has been defiled cries out against you; the spirit which has been dwarfed convicts you. You will have difficulty throughout the ages in totally forgiving yourself."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "Love Versus Lust", BYU Speech January 5, 1965. Often-used quote still used today in LDS seminary classes.

kimball "I do not find in the Bible the modern terms "petting" nor "homosexuality," yet I found numerous scriptures which forbade such acts under by whatever names they might be called. I could not find the term "homosexuality," but I did find numerous places where the Lord condemned such a practice with such vigor that even the death penalty was assessed."
- Apostle Spencer W. Kimball, "Love Versus Lust", BYU Speech January 5, 1965

"If adultery or fornication justified the death penalty in the old days, and still in Christ's day, is the sin any less today because the laws of the land do not assess the death penalty for it? Is the act less grievous? There must be a washing, a purging, a changing of attitudes, a correcting of appraisals, a strengthening toward self-mastery. There must be many prayers, and volumes of tears. There must be an inner conviction giving to the sin its full diabolical weight. There must be increased devotion and much thought and study. And this takes energy and time and often is accompanied with sore embarrassment, heavy deprivations and deep trials, even if indeed one is not excommunicated from the Church, losing all spiritual blessings."
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, Page 155

"How like the mistletoe is immorality. The killer plant starts with a sticky sweet berry. Little indiscretions are the berries -- indiscretions like sex thoughts sex discussions, passionate kissing, pornography. The leaves and little twigs are masturbation and necking and such, growing with every exercise. The full-grown plant is petting and sex looseness. It confounds, frustrates, and destroys like the parasite if it is not cut out and destroyed, for, in time it robs the tree, bleeds its life, and leaves it barren and dry; and, strangely enough, the parasite dies with its host."
- Apostle Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Address, April 1, 1967.

this is the last time i’ll offend...
in memory of alex s., who i trained with when we were preparing for our missions

The prelude to suicide is accumulated, unearned “Guilt” and the abandonment by those in whom all of one’s trust has been deposited, plus the sense that one has failed in all things. Numbness sets in. One loses all feelings of sense perceptions, and feels nothing but a “Black Hole” of despair, and the desire to die, the pain unendurable.

Mormonism fosters an unconscious death wish through The Pattern which is designed to destroy individual identity ... to lose oneself totally for the “upbuilding of the Kingdom of God on earth.” The sincere devotee obeys the Law of Sacrifice of offering, literally, one’s life and all of one’s talents and possessions, if necessary, for the church. All of the words and promises by the leaders of the church have been believed and worked for diligently. Since the Gospel “plan” is based on fraud, i.e., the Double-Bind, failure is a built-in result. The stronger the individual is, the more basic intelligence the member has, the more the pain and devastation one feels at the final failure. This person is labeled “mentally ill,” a “misfit,” and becomes the “exception” that can’t be tolerated and is literally abandoned. Instead of help given, the member is accused of having committed some terrible sin, which reinforces the desire to die; the member is punished again ... for being punished.

Abandonment will be masked by “Not I (we), But, you, are “evil.” This member is abandoned in his or her most crucial time of need because he/she becomes a threat to the “Key” to “Salvation” ... the Double-Bind and what it does. The member reveals a fact that gets too close to the poisonous source; the church is put on the spot with its own corruption of values that it must deny; it must have the image of “sanity,” “joy,” “happiness,” “love,” and, of course, “intelligence.” Therefore, the member must be labeled the “enemy” of these “highest values.” Mormonism outwardly fights what it inwardly is.

The victim is blamed and accused of needing “psychiatric” help; it is the member who is “mad,” not the church. Or, church “psychologists” may recommend a drug of some kind (like Prozac) to “stabilize” a member by superficially erasing all of the anxiety that shows and indicates that something is radically wrong. The member is then able to continue his or her labors in the church uninterrupted. They need only to “read the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants” and to “work harder to increase their faith.” It is this “lack” of effort that has caused their “illness” they are told. In reality, it is just the opposite. The cause is prescribed as the cure which continues to destroy the ability to reason.

However, the underlying reasons for the depression are still there; the drugs merely put the problems back into the “little box” of denial that Mormonism had encouraged before the current outbreak, thus, the problems that caused the crisis are “forgotten.” On the other hand, if the member is leaving, or has left the church (the real cause of the problem) and has sought help, certain calming drugs can elevate the desire to live and to give the energy necessary to probe the real cause of the depression. The problem once known and the Self Identity of the person re-established, the drug is no longer necessary. The chemical imbalance caused by the anxiety inflicted by the Double-Bind Pattern is restored to its balanced operating level. The brain is not separate from the body. What one thinks and feels affects the well-being of the rest of the body. Our sense perceptions and their normal chemical messages to the brain are our means of survival.

The major difference is whether a Band-aid is used to cover a still festering abscess, or whether a fundamental cure is the goal. Without knowing the primary cause, there can be no real cure ... and an addiction to the drug results. At any time the desire to die could break through. Suicide is one of the “side effects” of the drug Prozac.

The church is the Whited Sepulchre which houses the living Dead. If this sounds grim, it is because the white-washed deadly falsehoods are being taken away, and what is left is are facts that have been denied for too long. The problem needs to be identified, named and exposed. And, contrary to Mormon expectations, the factual truths can actually set us free. Ernest Renan expressed it this way: “The Truths which Science (Reason) reveals always surpass the dreams which it destroys.” (Italics, mine.)

We cannot fight or defend ourselves from the invisible. This is what Mormonism fears ... that we will objectify and identify the fraud. The very things the church considers its enemies, are the very things that contain hidden truths which they want to keep hidden. (I hope to enlarge on these issues in a later article and/or book.) Packer has identified and is obsessed with three main “enemies” of the church, Gays and Lesbians, Women, and Intellectuals ... (in other words, Sex, the issue of choice in Procreating, and Reason). The other subject it fears, and which is carefully avoided, and rarely spoken of or defined ... considered too “sacred” to speak about ... is Love. Love is one of the “Mysteries of Godliness.” In Mormonism, the “Mysteries” are not to be delved into. This life is for blind “Obedience and Sacrifice” only.

* * *
Stage 9

The Life in Death and Death in Life Stage

Death/Suicide - Numb/Death of Feelings - Dumb/Death of the Mind
Psychological Cannibalism
The Death of Love - Self-Loathing

Experiences by Women

Suicidal
“... I felt that I didn’t even have the right to ask God for help. (You know - when you sin, the holy spirit is withdrawn from you!) I was consumed with thoughts of suicide daily...”
Post #13 See: Stages 1, 5. #13.

Empty of Self
“Because along with the freedom of the mind I was experiencing, was the fact that I no longer had anything to center me. I felt adrift in a black hole. A Mormon will tell you that this is the devil at work, “come back to safety, come back to the light!” But I couldn’t go back to that. ... I know now that I was lost because I had never learned to think on my own, to reason things out. I no longer had anyone telling me who I was or my purpose in life.”
Post # 17 See: Stage 8. #17.

Death of the Mind
“I was so unhappy, but I did not believe I could ever be free from Mormonism. I thought I was doomed to struggle forever. ... I knew that I had given in to this life of anguish, but I would not, as a mother do the same to my child. I would not sentence him to this life of imprisonment. ... I didn’t know all of the documentation that proves J.S. was a hoax, and that the Mormons are still covering up the changes, and the lies. I just knew that though I may struggle the rest of my life with the fear of their power over me, I would not, could not, sentence my innocent child to the same anguish. Does it ever get completely resolved? I still struggle, and I get so frightened of their power over my mind, because I let them have such power at one time.”
Post # 22-3 See: Stage 8. #22-3.

Suicidal Thoughts
“...and (I) mentally debated the merits of suicide vs. admitting defeat ...”

Reclaiming the Self - Reversing back to the Real World
“I will try to complete myself here. ... It is a struggle to become a whole person, it is the learning, it is the growth, that determines the quality of one’s life.”
Post #42 See: Stages 5, 6, 7, 8. #42.

(Truly, one experiences real life for the first time, the real “resurrection” ... of the “dead.”)

Suicidal Thoughts:
“ ... now there was nothing to fall back on at all. I locked myself in my room and cried for hours at a time. Every day for several weeks I was absorbed with the thought of suicide to end my pain & nearly followed through with the plan to end my life.”
Post #48 See: Stages 1, 7. #48.

Suicidal Thoughts:
“Finally one night I was standing at my back door looking out at the beautiful snow while everyone else was asleep and contemplated suicide. I kept thinking, I should be happy, why aren’t I happy, I must be doing something wrong, it’s all my fault etc. etc.”
Post #53 See: Stages 1, 2, 5. #53.

Numbing of the Mind - Perceptions still Alive
“I realize that I had been a prisoner of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints... I was terrified of the “great doom” that would come to me if I left the church. It tormented me for weeks, and into months. I finally decided that even though I didn’t know why the church wasn’t true, that because I felt in my heart that it wasn’t true, that I should leave. It was the most frightening thing I have ever done in my life.”
Post # 55 See: Stage 5. #55.

Depression - Fear of Death
“I’m certain that depression among women in the LDS church is rampant, and I feel that being free of the burden of constant pain and guilt will be one of the greatest accomplishments of my life. ... I felt for years that I was never good enough in God’s eyes, and that I would never be perfect enough to return to him someday. I was constantly afraid of death, and what my fate would be on the other side. I no longer have that fear. Living my life in fear was hell!”
Post #56

Suicide
“I also am personally aware of the oppressive environment the church imposes on others (especially the women) and how difficult it is to leave. I think that is reflected in Utah’s well known high suicide rate.”
Post # 59

Abandonment - Suicide
“I felt abandoned again. I felt alone and discarded and violated. I had shared things with this Bishop that I hadn’t shared with anyone and he just plain didn’t care anymore. I was suicidal. I didn’t believe that God could or would love me if His Bishop couldn’t love and accept me. I truly believed with all of my heart.

“In the meantime, my husband watched me struggle through a suicide attempt and loss of faith in my Church and myself.”
Post #61 See: Stages 4, 5, 6, 7. #61.

Difficulty in leaving Mormonism
“I almost got to the point of leaving the church but had no one to really talk to or no place to turn to. I did try a group of Christians who try to help those leaving the Mormon church but the person they sent to me had never been a Mormon and did not fully understand the difficulty in physically, emotionally and mentally leaving.”
Post #68 See: Stages 1, 2-3, 8. #68.
-

The Enemies of Mormonism - What is Done - Hate
“The LDS church claims to be led by men of God. They are supposed to receive direct revelation from Him. Yet this is a church that turns away from the needs of both its men and its women, a church that will not acknowledge the child abuse/incest that goes on between some of its members—abuse that destroys children and steals their childhood, that creates wounds they carry the rest of their lives. Women in the church—some women, by no means all—are just as scarred and scared, just as abused. Yet those in authority will not deal with these issues. Nor will they deal with women who feel it extremely unfair that they are still to be “subservient” to their husbands, that they are not equal to their husbands, not even in the eyes of the LDS God. Mormonism is a patriarchy. For some, this is an acceptable way to live. For others, it’s a torture chamber. Their treatment of homosexuals seeking help is appalling. While I am not gay, I was involved with a gay member of the church, and the hell he was put through—even as he begged for help—was appalling. Instead of self-acceptance for EVERY member, the church teaches conditional love ... To claim that it’s God’s will that people be hurt this way is emotionally, mentally and spiritually abusive.”
Post #69 See: Stages 2-3, 4, 5. #69.

Experiences by Men in Stage 9

What is Said - “Love”
“My faith was so seriously shaken by those first two years of college that I probably would have left the church or at least become inactive had it not been for Lowell Bennion. He said “look, the important message of the church is love, it’s main mission isn’t proving that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that the Mormon church is the only true church on the face of the earth, it’s about loving our fellow man and Christ. That has to be our highest priority at all times.” That made sense, he had given me a rationale for staying in the church.”
Post #4 See: Stages 5, 8. #4.

The General (One Mind fits All) Vs the Individual - Totalitarianism Vs Personal Freedom
“The use of private, personal correspondence in a Church investigation is, as I clearly expressed, a violation of my privacy, and highly unethical. In addition, the accusation that I personally published ‘anti-Mormon’ material, ascribing to me an article published in the San Francisco Chronicle and comments on it by my correspondent is not only incorrect, but shows the extremes to which the totalitarian mentality which inspired this inquisition will go.”
Post #7 See: Stage 6. #7.

(Members commonly believe that the church agrees with the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights ...that they were divinely inspired ... that we each have equal rights, including the right to privacy. The 12th Article of Faith: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” In Mormonism, what is said by the leaders and what is done are two different things; the leaders claim the right to privacy when it applies to themselves in defending themselves, but when it comes to individual members, they become “exceptions” to that rule of law. This kind of thinking is due to Mormonism’s dual Theo-Democratric basis ... a contradiction in terms, and the outcome of the dual personality of the Binder.)

Brain-Washed
“I would agree, though, that the Missionary Training Center fits a lot of the standard criteria for brainwashing and “cult”-type practices. In the MTC, free thought and free debate are strongly condemned, and contact with outsiders is strictly regulated. These are all traits common to so-called “cults.”
Post #18

Death of Mind and Perceptions:
“I was somewhat offended by his (the Mission President) change in demeanor, and that he would try to manipulate me into doing something that may well have permanent negative consequences as far as my health was concerned. Mormon missionaries pay their own way, and I was no exception, so why should I be made to feel guilty because I didn’t want to sacrifice my health, or even my life for a “cause” that I believed in only marginally? Keeping my composure, I reassured him that I had indeed prayed quite a lot regarding this matter, and that this was indeed the proper, and only course of action. He questioned me once more on this, and I began to weary at his unwillingness to accept my decision about my life.

“Individuals placed in leadership positions often use their supposed superiority to manipulate individuals in their charge. Church members, especially missionaries, are taught that the leadership is “inspired”, and that they should submit their decisions to the “wise counsel” of those who are placed in stewardship over them. Philisophically, this is a bad thing, because it teaches people to question their own ability to make life decisions, and makes them more dependent upon the infrastructure of the church. The entire church organization is set up to make the membership feel commitment. Tithing, endless meetings, ward budget and other contributions, church jobs, and missions, are all designed to keep the membership dependent upon the organization. After all, how many people would want to give up membership in which they have invested so much of their time, money, and energy?”
Post #19 See: Stages 2-3, 4, 5, 6, 7. #19.

(This kind of treatment is due to the dehumanization of individuals in Mormonism. Only human beings can get sick; members are not allowed to be human ... to become physically ill. It implies they are “evil” in that they were not devout enough in their prayers and supplications ... lacked “faith” to remain “well.”

(This is similar to the experience of Post #38 in regards to prayer. It contains another Double-Bind. As with the young man in Post #38 when he was asked to pray for guidance, the implication was that he could expect personal guidance and answers to his prayers. When his prayers and his blessings from priesthood leaders were not answered, nor shown, or, in the case above where this missionary had received an answer, but it was “unacceptable,” they were both judged “guilty” for expecting to be “special” ... “exceptions.” They were damned if they did pray, and they were damned if they didn’t pray. “Yes/” pray, “But” ... why do you think you are so “special” to receive a PERSONAL answer ... one way or the other. (The personal vs the general ... the individual outside the tribal “oneness.”)

(Mormonism consistently kills what it claims to love ... the personal. The Binder, as “Guardian,” ‘loves,’ and at the same time, the Binder as “Enforcer” kills. This is the Love/Hate, Life/Death syndrome. Love/Hate is the double-edged sword of the Binder; it cuts both ways; one kills the other. The “Guardian” and the “Enforcer” continually stand “back to back” in denial of each other. Hence, “Back to back they faced each other, drew their (double-edged) swords and shot each other” ... (arrows of “Love” and “Hate”) ... “Love” kills “Hate,” and “Hate” kills “Love.” The “Guardian” kills the “Enforcer” and the “Enforcer” kills the “Guardian.” The “Enforcer” is the slave of the “Guardian;” both are constantly at war with the other.

(Again, the Binder kills what he professes to love, and loves what he professes to hate ... continually. This is an insidious state of madness! Mormonism is not the benign institution it is advertised to be!)

Numbness - Death of Feelings - Self Loathing
(This young man (and his companion) was sent home from his mission for having a Thanksgiving Dinner with Elders in a neighboring town.)
“As my plane crossed the Atlantic I felt like a condemned man. Or worse, since I was convinced that I was bound to become a Son of Perdition. ...I was destined to join that handful cast into dark and everlasting space with our unexpepiated sins forever weighing on our souls. ... After I arrived in Georgia I lost, for several months to follow, my ability to enjoy the taste of food, or to appreciate music, or see a movie without assuming for myself the guilt that should have been reserved for the villain. Even a Walt Disney movie like “1001 Dalmations” tapped feeling of fear and self-loathing.”
Post #23 See: Stages 5, 6, 7. #23.

(The Bound, required to have One Mind with the Binder, accepts the projections the Binder sends to him. The Bound becomes the mirror image of the Binder through projection.)

Death of Feelings - “Love”
“If you can break through the “best two years of my life” ...., you can get most returned missionaries to admit the truth: an LDS mission has more to do with salesmanship and numbers than it does with heart and soul. ... My mission president ... was consumed with increasing the “numbers” to the point of ignoring the fragile emotional health of the children (I use that term purposely) that served as his proselytizing force. One of his favorite expressions? “You’re sucking a hind teat, Elder!”
Post #26

Self-Loathing - Dehumanization
“The church taught that the Holy Spirit could protect you from temptation. With the Holy Spirit and faith, you could cast off the “natural man”. “Lead me not into temptation, but deliver me from evil” just didn’t seem to be working for me. Of course, I blamed it on myself and thought there was something wrong with me. I thought I was perverted. I felt evil inside. I hated myself.”
Post # 28 See: Stages 1, 2-3, 4, 5. #28.

(The only total way the “natural man” can be “cast off” is through physical castration. Mormonism, through pathological mental and emotional conditioning ... through the “Spirit,” seeks to psychologically castrate both men and women; they become neutered, sexless ... neither male nor female ... a reflection of the self-contained male-female Adam who “begot” Eve. In that “pre-mortal” condition they were both ignorant of sex which, in the temple ceremony today, is reenacted by each member actor as they become another an Adam or another Eve ... before the “fall,” i.e., when ignorant of sex, and therefore “pure.” The effect of this conditioning is to try to benumb ... through “guilt” ... all sensual perceptions by fostering a hatred of the body and labeling it “evil.”)

Blind, Deaf, Dumb, unable to Move
“I had never had a Christian tell me I was lost, not even while I was a missionary. Yet, I was as convinced of it as I could be, and still know that God had grace. I did not see myself as spiritually dead—only blind, deaf, dumb and unable to move. How I wished to see and hear, and yet I could not!! God’s silence even led me to doubt His love for me.”
Post #38 See: Stages 2-3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. #38.

(This young man was caught in every Stage of The Pattern. The “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t” dilemma paralyzes the mind with its no-win snare and leaves the individual confused, full of self-blame and a stranger to his own legitimate needs.)

Psychological Cannibalism
“The more I questioned and tried to make sense of my life, I would have these awful feelings of anxiety because I was sure Satan was slowly tempting me “into carnal security” and other such nonsense. The years of conditioning had solidified a great many anxieties in me. What angers me now is not what was conditioned into me, but what was not allowed to grow because of that conditioned and paranoid environment, namely a sense of well-being and security, a sense of true self, and self esteem. I’ve realized many years later now that much of my anxiety had little to do with Satan and a lot to do with defense mechanisms being shaken and pulled at. Defense mechanisms that shored up a great amount of turbulence and instability at home and in my young life, and years of cruel emotional treatment by this religion.”
Post #65 See: Stages 7, 8. #65.

Psychological Cannibalism - Loss of the Personal in all Relationships and the Will to Live
“Throughout the whole of my adult life, I have ran and hid, side-stepped and avoided, fabricated and lied to avoid upsetting mom and dad. This has been the predominant mode of operation in this and most Mormon families as long as I can remember. There is no open, free exchange of ideas in this family because it’s taboo to upset mom and dad or question the dogmatic status-quo. You don’t share your personal beliefs, fears, doubts, dreams, concepts, theories, discoveries, attitudes, opinions, and views because it will just upset mom and dad. You keep your personal, family, and marital problems locked tightly away from prying eyes until they fester into a cancer that eats away at your will to live because you don’t want to upset mom and dad.”
Post #67 See: Stage 8. #67.

Four parts from this Web site have been edited and published. The book is titled, “The Pattern of the Double-Bind in Mormonism.” Part I describes The Nature of The Pattern and the Double-Bind; it defines and gives examples of what The Pattern is, how it is used in different stages - and what results are incurred in each stage. Parts II and III present personal experiences of The Pattern in the lives of former members of the Mormon church. The last section, Part IV, gives a Summary of The Pattern and its antidote ... in How to Free Oneself from The Pattern.

This book is not just about Mormonism. It is about a universal pattern. Since The Pattern is a form of illogical logic, it is difficult to detect without knowing its stages and where they lead. Once seen, it can be arrested, and disentanglement is possible ... wherever it may be found.

I didn’t know all of the documentation that proves J.S. was a hoax, and that the Mormons are still covering up the changes, and the lies.

Eerily familiar...

Party ownership of the print media
made it easy to manipulate public opinion,
and the film and radio carried the process further.

16. Ministry Of Truth

.......

The Ministry of Truth, Winston's place of work, contained, it was said, three thousand rooms above ground level, and corresponding ramifications below.

The Ministry of Truth concerned itself with Lies. Party ownership of the print media made it easy to manipulate public opinion, and the film and radio carried the process further.

The primary job of the Ministry of Truth was to supply the citizens of Oceania with newspapers, films, textbooks, telescreen programmes, plays, novels - with every conceivable kind of information, instruction, or entertainment, from a statue to a slogan, from a lyric poem to a biological treatise, and from a child's spelling-book to a Newspeak dictionary.

Winston worked in the RECORDS DEPARTMENT (a single branch of the Ministry of Truth) editing and writing for The Times. He dictated into a machine called a speakwrite. Winston would receive articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, in Newspeak, rectify. If, for example, the Ministry of Plenty forecast a surplus, and in reality the result was grossly less, Winston's job was to change previous versions so the old version would agree with the new one. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs - to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance.

When his day's work started, Winston pulled the speakwrite towards him, blew the dust from its mouthpiece, and put on his spectacles. He dialed 'back numbers' on the telescreen and called for the appropriate issues of The Times, which slid out of the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes' delay. The messages he had received referred to articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to rectify.

In the walls of the cubicle there were three orifices. To the right of the speakwrite, a small pneumatic tube for written messages; to the left, a larger one for newspapers; and on the side wall, within easy reach of Winston's arm, a large oblong slit protected by a wire grating. This last was for the disposal of waste paper. Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.

As soon as Winston had dealt with each of the messages, he clipped his speakwritten corrections to the appropriate copy of The Times and pushed them into the pneumatic tube. Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconscious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames.

What happened in the unseen labyrinth to which the tubes led, he did not know in detail, but he did know in general terms. As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of The Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead.

In the cubicle next to him the little woman with sandy hair toiled day in day out, simply at tracking down and deleting from the Press the names of people who had been vaporized and were therefore considered never to have existed. And this hall, with its fifty workers or thereabouts, was only one-sub-section, a single cell, as it were, in the huge complexity of the Records Department. Beyond, above, below, were other swarms of workers engaged in an unimaginable multitude of jobs.

There were huge printing-shops and their sub editors, their typography experts, and their elaborately equipped studios for the faking of photographs. There was the tele-programmes section with its engineers, its producers and its teams of actors specially chosen for their skill in imitating voices; clerks whose job was simply to draw up lists of books and periodicals which were due for recall; vast repositories where the corrected documents were stored; and the hidden furnaces where the original copies were destroyed.

And somewhere or other, quite anonymous, there were the directing brains who co-ordinated the whole effort and laid down the lines of policy which made it necessary that this fragment of the past should be preserved, that one falsified, and the other rubbed out of existence.

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.

Romans 7 (niv)