Conference tecrus::mormonism

              <<< CACHE::USER3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MORMONISM.NOTE;1 >>>
                     -< The Glory of God is Intelligence >-
================================================================================
Note 97.20                         The Godhead                          20 of 41
CACHE::LEIGH                                         50 lines  11-AUG-1988 11:16
                    -< "The TRUTH About 'The God Makers'" >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re .10, .18

To those who have either read or seen "The God Makers", I recommend that
they also read "The TRUTH About The God Makers" so they can have a balance
in their study.

This book analyzes "The God Makers" line by line and explains from the
viewpoint of a Mormon why the information being presented in "The God Makers"
is biased and distorted.


   The TRUTH About The God Makers, Gilbert W. Scharffs, Publishers Press,
   Salt Lake City, Utah, 4th printing, 1986, (available through LDS
   bookstores in your area; $10.95)


From the Cover:

In their book and movies the authors of "The God Makers" characterize The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a dangerous and immoral fraud.
In his response Gilbert Scharffs rebuts this charge and asserts his reasons
for accepting that organization as the true church of the Master.

While the book and the movie make similar charges, this response is specific
to the book.  It is in two major parts: an overview giving brief responses
for quick reference, and a point-by-point analysis that sets out the charges
and supplies detailed answers and explanations.  Using this pattern along
with a simple, convenient reference system that relates the charges to the
answers, this book addresses the issues raised by "The God Makers"--issues
such as polygamy, grace vs. works, the LDS church's alleged ambition for world
domination; Latter-day Saints and the Savior's second coming; the route to 
godhood; temple ceremonies; Masonry, Mormonism, and the "occult"; to mention
only a few.  From his background of doctrinal and historical scholarship plus
research specific to this purpose, and bringing biblical and other scriptures
to his aid, Dr. Scharffs corrects the misinterpretations, misconstructions,
factual mistakes, historical inaccuracies, false premises, and other errors
he finds in "The God Makers", and sets forth the true facts as he sees them.

Despite the offensive tone and the multitude of inadequacies the author
perceives in "The God Makers", the tone of his book is restrained and dignified,
and the content is a reasoned case for the faith and convictions he professes.
Readers of all religious persuasions will appreciate and respect his
approach and will be informed and edified by his book.

Gilbert W. Scharffs received his bachelor's degree from the University of
Utah, his master's from New York University, and his Ph.d (in history of
religion, Bible, and modern scripture) from Brigham Young University.  He
has taught religion at the latter institution and has served as director
of an LDS Institute of Religion.  As a seminary and institute teacher, he has
taught in the Church Education System for twenty-seven years.

I have seen both "The God Makers" film and "The Temple of the God Makers"
film, but I have not read "The God Makers" book.

My impressions at the time I saw the films were that they gave a very
one-sided and distorted picture of Mormonism.  I am 53 years old and have been
a LDS all of my life.  I've studied the scriptures in a lot of depth, and I
am well acquainted with Church policies and with "the LDS culture".  The 
perspective of Mormonism that I saw in the films was not that which I had
known through my own experiences and studies.  I felt that the films presented
historical and scriptural information out of context and in the form of
"half-truths".  I also felt that persons not familiar with Mormonism would
probably naively accept the films at face value and come away with a distorted
and incorrect impression of the LDS Church.

I feel that the only acceptable response to books and films such as "The
God Makers" is to calmly and objectively explain our "side of the story".
Emotional reactions have no place and do more harm than good, because they
do not really answer the charges being made, and they project a view of
fear and uncertainty.

The replies I give to this note will be taken from Scharffs' book, "The TRUTH
About the God Makers".  Immediately after seeing the films, I obtained his
book and read it.  Scharffs has a deeper knowledge of the scriptures than I
have, and he has access to historical information that I do not have, and I
feel that his book provides a good balance to those that see or read "The
God Makers".  I should mention that I do not have time to discuss all of the
points made in "The God Makers" and in Scharffs book, and I will be selecting
individual points to discuss.  Persons reading this note should thus realize
that this discussion is only a partial discussion of "The God Makers".

I hope that others (both pro and con) will participate in this note, so this
discussion can be an objective discussion of "The God Makers" rather than just
a rebuttal of the book and film.

I will be giving quotations from "The God Makers" book.  Since I do not have
the book itself, I am giving the quotations as they are given in Scharffs book.
Since I will be using a secondary source for the quotations, there is always
the danger that I (actually Scharffs) may be quoting "The God Makers" out of
context, and I invite and encourage those who have "The God Makers" book to
check on the context of the quotations and comment as they see fit.


Allen

From "The God Makers", page 8, lines 2-9.

    "Giving its official approval to the Church's trampling on human rights,
    in 1975 the Utah Supreme Court with its Mormon majority handed down a
    surprising decision, that, as summarized by the Denver Post -- 'The First
    Amendment to the U.S. constitution--which guarantees freedom of speech,
    freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion--did not
    apply in Utah but was only a limitation on the federal government.'"

Scharffs commented (p. 66) that "The authors, as did the 'Denver Post',
failed to mention that this was a pornography case, State of Utah vs. Phillips.
The following statement from the legal proceedings is significant: 'Defendants
have made no contention that the materials were not pornographic, *but concede
that fact*' (Emphasis added [by Scharffs].  Vol. 540 'Pacific Reporter', 2nd
series, pp. 936-946)."

Scharffs further commented (p. 67) that "Attorney Arthur M. Wood told me, 'It
is difficult to understand how the authors could believe that conviction for
the distribution of 'conceded pornographic material' is to be considered
'trampling on human rights.'"

"The God Makers", page 13, lines 16-18 and the back cover:

    "Mormonism's darkest secrets that those privy to them have sworn upon
    penalty of death not to reveal," and "temple rituals that even most
    Mormons have never seen...and the elite who have must keep it secret or
    be killed."

From Scharffs (p. 73):

    The temple ceremonies are sacred to Latter-day Saints.  To preserve that
    sacred character, those who participate are obligated not to discuss these
    ceremonies outside the temple.  The importance of this obligation and its
    binding quality on the conscience of the participant is emphasized but
    there is no mention or expectation in the temple ceremonies that a person
    who violates it will suffer any penalty at the hands of men.  The Church
    policy governing violations of this nature is encompassed in its statement
    that religious societies have no right or authority to take any person's
    property, "or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict
    any physical punishment upon them.  They can only excommunicate them from
    their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship" (D&C 134:10).

Rather than have "even most Mormons" never seeing the temple ceremonies, the
Church would have *every* Latter-day Saint attend the temple and receive his
or her endowments.  Wards have special educational programs that are designed
to help persons prepare themselves to go to the temple.  Latter-day Saints who
have not received their temple endowments have chosen not to prepare for and
attend the temple; it is their choice!

See notes 93.3 and 93.4 for further comments on the sacredness of the temple.

"The God Makers", page 15, lines 31

    "Joining had been easy...getting out was something else."

From Scharffs (p. 74, 72):

    The undocumented statement is from an anonymous and disgruntled former
    LDS member.  This statement is misleading.  Converts must show a
    willingness to pay one-tenth of their income, abstain from alcohol,
    tobacco, tea, and coffee; observe the Sabbath; attend meetings; live
    chaste lives; keep the ten commandments; and so on.  This to many is
    not "easy."

    All any member has to do to have his name removed from the Church is
    write a letter. (p. 74)  Any person who asks in writing to have his
    name taken from the records of the LDS Church will have that request
    granted.  the person making the request is invited to a hearing, but
    need not attend.  This inquiry gives that person a chance to vent his
    feelings, but those conducting try to leave the person desiring to
    withdraw from the LDS Church with a good feeling and an open invitation
    to return at some future time. (p. 72)

"The God Makers", page 17, line 24

    "There have been death threats against some of those who have dared
    to show the film [The God Makers]."

From Scharffs (p. 74-75):

    By whom?  Where?  Why not be specific?  Why not document this?  This
    is something the authors should take to court.

"The God Makers", page 22, line 17

    "To be eternally pregnant" in the next world is LDS doctrine.

From Scharffs (p. 74-75):

    I have never heard of any LDS Church pronouncement on how spirit
    children are created or whether the mortal method of procreation is
    God's way of producing spirit offspring.  Again no reference is used
    nor is the anonymous woman who related her feelings identified.

"The God Makers", page 24, line 22; page 25, line 38

    "For some inexplicable reason we aren't 'Gods' by birth."

From Scharffs (p. 79)

    Although the book calls it inexplicable, experiences in life show that
    accomplishments, whether becoming a physician, athlete, musician, or
    any worthwhile attainment, are preceded by learning and experience.

    The book makes light of the LDS idea that God can produce spirit children
    and have them housed in physical mortal bodies.  The idea that man has
    a spirit is commonly accepted by most of Christianity and other religions.
    Christians generally believe this spirit lives after death.  If a spirit
    continues after death, as Christians teach, why couldn't man's spirit
    have existed as a separate entity before mortal birth?

    Elsewhere the authors emphasize the omnipotence and omniscience of God
    and yet here they deny God's ability to produce spirit children.  Paul
    taught, "We are the offspring of God" (Acts 17:29).

re .1

� Scharffs commented (p. 66) that "The authors, as did the 'Denver Post', 
� failed to mention that this was a pornography case... 

Although this puts the quote from The God Makers in a different light, 
since the original quote is primarily an opinion this is not exactly
a powerful refutation. The book quotes the Denver Post, referring to a
summary of a Utah Supreme Court decision that in essence stated that the 
1st Amendment did not apply in Utah. This point was not contested, yet, 
if blame is to be laid, it should be with the Denver Post, not The God 
Makers. Also, the comment by the lawyer is an opinion, the same as the
quote from the book is an opinion of the authors. 

re .2

� The temple ceremonies are sacred to Latter-day Saints.  To preserve that
� sacred character, those who participate are obligated not to discuss these
� ceremonies outside the temple.  The importance of this obligation and its
� binding quality on the conscience of the participant is emphasized but
� there is no mention or expectation in the temple ceremonies that a person
� who violates it will suffer any penalty at the hands of men. 

A certain part of a temple ritual could be interpreted as symbolizing
that violence might somehow happen to one who violates temple "secrets", 
although I have been told by practicing Temple Mormons that it actually
means something else instead. Out of respect for their wishes, I will
not go into any detail, nor do I feel it would add anything of value at this
point. I know of some ex-Mormons that I could ask about this - perhaps 
they could add some insight.

It has been rather frankly admitted in this conference that there is
quite a remarkable parallel between Mormon temple ceremonies and Masonic
rituals, and I find it interesting that Masons also take a "blood oath" to
keep the secrets of Masonry, something along the lines of "May (horrible
things) happen to me if I should (whatever)". I expect the Mormon temple
oaths are basically the same. 

Ed

My first-hand experience is that there is nothing sinister about Mormon 
temples and that just the opposite is true.  For me to interpret that someone
representing the Church would physically threaten me implicitly or explicitly 
with the consent of the Church is absurd.  Such would be unfounded and would 
be in sharp contrast with my experiences with the Church and within Mormon 
temples.  In fact, Church members making physical threats to anyone could find 
themselves subject to exclusion from Church membership.  


Steve

    Since the beginnings of the church, the leaders of the LDS church have
    taught that the jurisdiction that the church has over any member is
    limited to the right to exclude him or her from membership. The church
    claims no right or privilege to inflict any other punishment or harm
    upon offenders, except as may be exercised by the just provisions of
    civil law. 
    
    Those who are foolish enough to violate sacred covenants that they have
    made in the temple only mock God when they do so. Though they may lose
    their membership in the church, punishment beyond this will be between
    them and God. As for me, I would not want to be in their shoes when
    they stand before God to be judged. Even so, God allows them that
    choice. 
    
    Consider how sacred the ark of the covenant was to the children of
    Israel. We regard the temple and its sacred ordinances with the same
    reverence and respect. Just as God made sacred covenants with the House
    of Israel, so he makes sacred covenants with all those who enter
    worthily into His Holy Temple. 
    
    Rich
                                   

Re .9

Hi Ed,

>� Scharffs commented (p. 66) that "The authors, as did the 'Denver Post', 
>� failed to mention that this was a pornography case... 
>
>Although this puts the quote from The God Makers in a different light, 
>since the original quote is primarily an opinion this is not exactly
>a powerful refutation. The book quotes the Denver Post, referring to a
>summary of a Utah Supreme Court decision that in essence stated that the 
>1st Amendment did not apply in Utah. This point was not contested, yet, 
>if blame is to be laid, it should be with the Denver Post, not The God 
>Makers. Also, the comment by the lawyer is an opinion, the same as the
>quote from the book is an opinion of the authors. 

It is true that the quote from "The God Makers" is the opinion of Decker and
Hunt, but it is more than just an opinion; it is a direct and specific charge
that the Mormon church is depriving Utah residents of their First Amendment
freedoms.  That is a serious charge!

    "Giving its official approval to the Church's trampling on human rights,
    in 1975 the Utah Supreme Court with its Mormon majority handed down a
    surprising decision, that, as summarized by the Denver Post -- 'The First
    Amendment to the U.S. constitution--which guarantees freedom of speech,
    freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion--did not
    apply in Utah but was only a limitation on the federal government.'"

Notice, Ed, the use of inflammatory words: "trampling on human rights",
"surprising decision", "The First Amendment...did not apply in Utah".

To substantiate their charge, Decker & Hunt referred to the Denver Post and
a 1975 decision by the Utah Supreme Court.  Instead of giving details of the
court decision and explaining how that decision was "surprising", how it did
"trample on human rights", and how it invalidated the First Amendment in Utah,
they merely referred to the court case and to the Denver Post article, and
**by implication** inferred that their charges were true!

This giving of facts without detail and then **implying** that the facts
"prove" certain charges is common in the book and is (in my opinion) one of
the weaknesses of the book and one of the things that we LDS object to.

In pointing out that the court case concerned the legal status of pornography,
Scharffs was saying that the court case had nothing to do with the Mormon
church "trampling on human rights", had nothing to do with the First Amendment
in Utah, and was not "surprising", that is, that the court case had nothing
to do with the charges made by Decker & Hunt.

Decker & Hunt mentioned that a majority of the Justices on the Utah court
were Mormon, an obvious attempt to imply that they were letting their
religious beliefs overshadow their integrity.  Decker & Hunt gave no evidence
to support this implication, first that a majority of the Justices were in
fact LDS, and second that they were being unethical in their profession.


>if blame is to be laid, it should be with the Denver Post, not The God 
>Makers. 

The Denver Post is to be blamed for any inaccuracies in its article, but Decker
& Hunt are to be blamed for making unsubstantiated charges in their book.


>Also, the comment by the lawyer is an opinion, 

Agreed.

Allen

    RE: .3, .9, others
    
    Everyone knows, correct, that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that
    pornography and the distribution thereof is *NOT* covered by the
    first ammendment to the constitution.
    
    Just making sure.
    
    Dave

� In pointing out that the court case concerned the legal status of pornography,
� Scharffs was saying that the court case had nothing to do with the Mormon
� church "trampling on human rights", had nothing to do with the First Amendment
� in Utah, and was not "surprising", that is, that the court case had nothing
� to do with the charges made by Decker & Hunt.

� Notice, Ed, the use of inflammatory words: "trampling on human rights",
� "surprising decision", "The First Amendment...did not apply in Utah".

� The Denver Post is to be blamed for any inaccuracies in its article, but
� Decker & Hunt are to be blamed for making unsubstantiated charges in
� their book. 

Allen, I'd rather not get caught up in a discussion of "inflammatory" words
or "unsubstantiated charges" over this. Only books written by historians 
painstakingly document *every* statement, and I even wonder about that. 
For you to complain that they should have to prove that the Utah Supreme 
Court has a Mormon majority is being a little too picky, since, given the 
large percentage of Mormons in Utah, their upward mobility, their bent 
for public service, I would be surprised if they *didn't* have a majority 
on the bench, as well as in many other areas. As far as the rest of it 
goes, I'd say that if, in rendering it's legal opinion, the court did say 
that the First Amendment did not apply (in some way) in Utah, then it 
would be surprising. Anyone wishing to research this to their satisfaction 
should get a copy of the court's decision and come to their own conclusions,
but I'm not going to spend any more time in this potential rathole.

I would much prefer to keep this discussion on things that are more 
easily dealt with, though I'm beginning to suspect that we may be getting 
into a real can of worms. We'll see.

Just out of curiousity, Allen, do you have a copy of "The God Makers"?

Ed

>Allen, I'd rather not get caught up in a discussion of "inflammatory" words
>or "unsubstantiated charges" over this. Only books written by historians 
>painstakingly document *every* statement, and I even wonder about that. 

Well Ed, if we don't discuss the inflammatory words and unsubstantiated
charges made by Decker & Hunt, we may not have much to discuss.  I think we
have to understand that "The God Makers" is not an objective study of
Mormonism.  I believe it was written for one purpose: to convince people
that Mormonism is a cult and is evil.  Decker & Hunt use inflammatory words
to arouse the emotions of the readers, and they make many unsubstantiated
charges to imply things that they don't clearly explain (and which we LDS
think are not true).  Examples of this are in the replies I've posted to
this note:

    188.3   Unsubstantiated charge that LDS church trampling on human
            rights.  Use of inflammatory words that convey the impression
            that the LDS church really must be a cult and evil.  If I read, 
            for example, that organization "A" has deprived persons of their
            human rights and that organization "B" has trampled on their human
            rights, I likely will form a more negative attitude toward
            organization "B", due to the words used by the writer.
            
            Unsubstantiated charge that Utah Supreme Court has a Mormon
            majority (more on this below) and the implication that those
            Justices acted unethically in letting their religious views
            influence their professional conduct.

    188.4   Unsubstantiated charge that persons revealing Temple ceremonies
            will be killed.

    188.5   Unsubstantiated charge that leaving the LDS church is difficult,
            implying that members are prisoners of some form.

    188.6   Unsubstantiated charge that death threats were made against those
            who showed "The God Makers" film, implying that the threats were
            made by the LDS church or at least with approval or condonance of
            the church.

    188.7   Undocumented claim that it is LDS doctrine that LDS women will be
            eternally pregnant, implying that no one would want that as their
            eternal reward.  The phrase "eternally pregnant" is inflammatory
            and I think calls upon the negative feelings that many women have
            concerning morning sickness to create the idea that LDS women
            will suffer those feelings for the eternities.



>For you to complain that they should have to prove that the Utah Supreme 
>Court has a Mormon majority is being a little too picky, since, given the 
>large percentage of Mormons in Utah, their upward mobility, their bent 
>for public service, I would be surprised if they *didn't* have a majority 
>on the bench, as well as in many other areas.

The important thing about this "Mormon majority" thing is not whether the
court really does have a majority of LDS, but that Decker & Hunt made the
unsubstantiated statement to *imply* that those Justices had acted unethically
in letting their religion influence their professional actions, and hence the
Mormon church was in fact trampling on the human rights of persons.

However, the charge of a "Mormon majority" does merit further thought.  Utah
is about half LDS.  Most of the smaller towns are mostly LDS, but Salt Lake
is about half and Ogden is less than half.  The metropolitan Salt Lake/Ogden
area is by far the huge majority of the population, and so I would expect that
the religious ratio of the state would be that of the metropolitan area.  Now,
only about half of the LDS are active in the church; this is because once a
person is baptized LDS, they stay on the records of the church regardless of
their activity or attitudes unless they are excommunicated.  This means that
many of the LDS are not really LDS in the sense that their religion means
much to them or in the sense that their behavior reflects the influence of 
their religion.  Thus, Ed, only about 1/4 of the state is active LDS, and if
the religious activity of the Justices were to follow this profile, only about
1/4 of them would be in a position to let their religion influence their
professional conduct on the bench.  As I mentioned above, I think the important
thing is not whether the court actually has a [active] Mormon majority, but
the use of that phrase by Decker & Hunt to imply that the church was using
the court to trample on the human rights of Utah citizens.


>I would much prefer to keep this discussion on things that are more 
>easily dealt with, though I'm beginning to suspect that we may be getting 
>into a real can of worms. We'll see.

Many Christian churches are using "The God Makers" as the basis of their
"cult" classes, and I'm glad for the opportunity through this note to get
some of the fallacies of the book/film out into the open so people can see
that the book is not an objective look at Mormonism but is propaganda.


>Just out of curiousity, Allen, do you have a copy of "The God Makers"?

As I mentioned in .2, I haven't read the book (implying I don't have it)
but have seen both films.  By not having the book itself, I'm having to rely
on quotations from Scharffs, and I'm taking a risk that Scharffs may have
quoted from the book out of context.  Since I have seen the movie, and the
movie seems to have followed the book quite closely, I'm able to check on
the context of the quotations from the book.  As we discuss in this note, I'm
hoping that persons who do have the book will check on the context of the
quotations I give from Scharffs and speak up if they feel I have given
quotations out of context.

Allen

Just thought I'd interject....

According to a recent "This People" magazine, the population
of Utah is 70.22% Mormon. 

I have no way of knowing what percentage of the above figure
could not care less what the Church says about local political
issues. Anyone care to guess?

/kevin

Hmmm....  Interesting.  Apparently the smaller towns account for more of
the population than I had assumed.  That would put my model of the Justices
up from 25% to 35%.  Thanks, Kevin.

Allen

    The National Conference of Christians and Jews has said  this
    statement about The God Makers:
    
    "It makes extensive use of half truth, faulty generalizations,
    erroneous interpretations, and sensationalism.  It is not reflective
    of the genuine spirit of the Mormon faith."
    
    I, myself, read the first 50 pages of the book and gave up because
    the distortions and outright lies/errors were so blatant that I
    considered the book a total waste of time.  
    
    Paul
     

The replies concerning Dr. Walter Martin and "The Maze of Mormonism" have been
moved to note 192.

Allen

 -- moderator

re .15

� Well Ed, if we don't discuss the inflammatory words and unsubstantiated
� charges made by Decker & Hunt, we may not have much to discuss.  

This is only one aspect of The God Makers, while it is probably the most 
relevant to the Mormons in this conference. I do not yet concede that 
their words are inflammatory nor their charges unsubstantiated, else we 
would have no topic. I would like us to hopefully get to some of the 
"nuts and bolts" as well, that is, beyond whether or not something is 
"inflammatory", but if it's important enough to you to discuss this 
aspect as well, then we should. I agree that Decker and Hunt use very
direct and, at times, strong wording to get their point across, but I
can't go quite so far as to say that it's inflammatory. 

� Unsubstantiated charge that Utah Supreme Court has a Mormon
� majority (more on this below) and the implication that those
� Justices acted unethically in letting their religious views
� influence their professional conduct.

Note that Scharff did not contest the mention of a Mormon majority
in the Utah Supreme Court. Since Scharff's purpose in writing his book is 
to supposedly reveal the 'errors' in The God Makers, we must conclude that 
that Decker and Hunt were correct in this, otherwise Scharff would have
quickly pointed this out. I do not have any problem with Decker and Hunt
not documenting this fact. Simple matters of public record do not have to
be so well documented as you seem to be suggesting should have been done
in this case. It is either true or it isn't, and I have confidence that
it is true, based on Decker, Hunt, and Scharff's writings. I think you
are going a bit overboard by including the "Mormon majority" statement in
your list of unsubstantiated "charges". I also believe that your 
extrapolation of census figures to estimate the likelihood of a Mormon 
majority in the court is irrelevant, since there are many examples of 
minorities having a disproportionate degree of influence in some 
societies. For instance, the percent of Palestinians having college and
graduate degress is quite high, and the number of Communist Party members 
in the Soviet Union is few compared with the population in general, yet 
they seem to occupy the vast majority of positions of influence in their 
country - this is just an aside, please, don't anyone reply to this...

Another point is that the Utah Supreme Court, having a Mormon Majority, 
passed a decision, the text of which stated in some fashion, that the
1st Amendment did not apply in Utah, but was a limit upon the Federal 
Government. This point also was not contested by Scharff. Rather, he,
using a similar approach to Decker and Hunt, constructed his own approach
strongly suggesting that Decker and Hunt contrived to paint a blatantly
false picture of the influence of the Mormon Church in the State of Utah.

So far we have Scharff not contesting the Mormon majority issue and not 
contesting the text quoted from the court decision, upon which Decker and 
Hunt's point seems to hinge. If Scharff could have proven that the court
decision did not contain what was summarized by Decker and Hunt, I believe 
that he would have. Therefore we have Sharff not so much proving that
Decker and Hunt told "lies" so much as they have read something into a
situation that is consistent with what they believe about the Mormon
Church. Scharff's mention of pornography as an aspect of the court
trial creates a distasteful association and implies that whatever the
court said about the 1st Amendment could not possibly have been
"startling" nor influenced by the "Mormon majority" in the court. 

� The important thing about this "Mormon majority" thing is not whether the
� court really does have a majority of LDS, but that Decker & Hunt made the
� unsubstantiated statement to *imply* that those Justices had acted unethically
� in letting their religion influence their professional actions...

Be careful how you use the word "unethical". Ethical action is no more 
than acting in a manner consistent with one's basic beliefs. In what area
does one's religious beliefs not influence his professional actions? 

� Many Christian churches are using "The God Makers" as the basis of their
� "cult" classes...

According to your own standards, this could be construed as an 
"unsubstantiated charge". How many? Which churches? Where? When? 

Grace Chapel, where we attend, is the largest non-denominational
evangelical Christian church in New England, and does not, to my
knowledge, use The God Makers as the basis for any "cult" classes. 

Ed

    Seems to me that to prove that the Utah court was trampling 
    first ammendment rights you would have to show a history of such
    violations.  One case (and a pornography case at that) is pretty
    weak evidence.  How many other rulings were made in Utah courts
    in which first ammendment rights were protected?  Or, how many other
    rulings have trampled first ammendment rights?  Even if the court was 
    guilty of trampling first ammendment rights, one judgment seems a pretty
    small sample and is even laughable when considering that other
    (non-Mormon) states have made the same or similar rulings.  Consider
    also that it usually takes several similar rulings for a court to set 
    precedences.  This is partly why lawyers have to do so much research
    before a case.  Lawyers understand this, but evidently some journalists
    do not or are so eager for a controversial story that may not point 
    this out to the public.

    Steve

re .15

�  188.5   Unsubstantiated charge that leaving the LDS church is difficult,
�          implying that members are prisoners of some form.

It might be worth your while to get a copy of The God Makers yourself, 
Allen, since there are several accounts of people who decided to leave 
the LDS Church and the difficulties they encountered.

�  188.6   Unsubstantiated charge that death threats were made against those
�          who showed "The God Makers" film, implying that the threats were
�          made by the LDS church or at least with approval or condonance of
�          the church.

� "The God Makers", page 17, line 24
�     "There have been death threats against some of those who have dared
�     to show the film [The God Makers]."

� From Scharffs (p. 74-75):
�     By whom?  Where?  Why not be specific?  Why not document this?  This
�     is something the authors should take to court.

Anyone familiar with threats, especially cowardly death threats, knows
that most of these are made anonymously, either over the phone or in some
other equally remote way. Usually, the only thing to do is to simply
ignore the threat and go on, realizing that it is almost always just a
threat. Scharff's scornful treatment clearly implies that these threats
may never have occurred. He presumes to give legal advice by telling them
that they should take these things "to court". He clearly wishes to know
who made the threats, where and when. He fails to acknowledge that even
if the authors did care to give the names of those who made the threats
(if known - and they are probably anonymous), that they would almost
certainly be open to charges of slander, and likely invite further
threats as well. I think that if Scharff were so interested in knowing
whether or not these threats actually took place, he would have contacted
the authors and asked them for the names of some of those threatened, and
attempted to verify their stories. All he accomplishes is to put Decker
and Hunt in the worst light possible. He hasn't gotten any closer to the 
truth of the matter. 

You exaggerate the matter by calling the death treat statement an
"unsubstantiated charge". For it to be a charge, someone would have to be
named (charged), which they were not. Further, you said they implied
"that the threats were made by the LDS church or at least with approval
or condonance of the church." I think your statement is unfounded. The
death threats could have, and probably did, come from individuals acting
on their own. I'm sure the LDS church leaders would never stoop to such 
tactics.

Ed

I took your suggestion, Ed, and picked up a copy of "The God Makers".

Re: First Amendment rights discussion
re .15


>Another point is that the Utah Supreme Court, having a Mormon Majority, 
>passed a decision, the text of which stated in some fashion, that the
>1st Amendment did not apply in Utah, but was a limit upon the Federal 
>Government.

The statement that the 1st Amendment did not apply in Utah and was only a
limit upon the federal government was made by John Farrell of the 'Denver
Post' and was given as a quote by Decker & Hunt.  I would be very surprised
if the text of the court decision said that.  Scharffs pointed out that the
Utah court decision concerned pornography.  He quoted from the legal
proceedings to show that the defendants acknowledged that the materials
involved in the case were pornographic.

    "Defendants have made no contention that the materials were not
    pornographic, but concede that fact" (Vol. 540, 'Pacific Reporter',
    2nd series, pp. 936-946, as quoted by Scharffs, p. 66)

Scharffs included the comment from an attorney named Arthur M. Woods to point
out that conviction of distributing pornographic materials is hardly "trampling"
on human rights.  That comment is, as you pointed out, only the opinion of
Woods, but it does emphasize the point that the court case did not directly
involve human rights.  I don't understand why Farrell felt that the Utah case
was one of trampling on human rights, and we would need to read his full
article to get the context for his statement, but we need to recognize that
the statement that the court case trampled on human rights was his wording.


>So far we have Scharff not contesting the Mormon majority issue and not 
>contesting the text quoted from the court decision, upon which Decker and 
>Hunt's point seems to hinge. If Scharff could have proven that the court
>decision did not contain what was summarized by Decker and Hunt, I believe 
>that he would have. Therefore we have Sharff not so much proving that
>Decker and Hunt told "lies" so much as they have read something into a
>situation that is consistent with what they believe about the Mormon
>Church. Scharff's mention of pornography as an aspect of the court
>trial creates a distasteful association and implies that whatever the
>court said about the 1st Amendment could not possibly have been
>"startling" nor influenced by the "Mormon majority" in the court. 

Scharffs did contest the text quoted from the 'Post.  The whole point that
Scharffs was trying to make was that the court case was a conviction of persons
who were distributing pornographic materials, and he and Wood felt that a
conviction of distributing pornographic materials was not a "trampling" of
human rights. Farrell of the 'Post and Decker & Hunt felt that it was.  


>� Many Christian churches are using "The God Makers" as the basis of their
>� "cult" classes...
>
>According to your own standards, this could be construed as an 
>"unsubstantiated charge". How many? Which churches? Where? When? 

You're right, Ed.  I was guilty of making "unsubstantiated charges".  My
experience with churches using the "The God Makers" has only been with one
church and indirectly through a friend with another church.  I am aware that
the film has had wide audiences, and I generalized my experiences with cult
classes.  Sorry for doing that without substantiating my charge.

Ed, in past replies, we've discussed several topics.  Now that I have a copy
of the book, I would like to go back and discuss those topics in more detail
prior to going on to new ones.

Re .5, .25; leaving the Church

"The God Makers" begins with the following.

    Intent upon researching and producing an unusual feature story, 'Denver
    Post' staff writer John Farrell, accompanied by 'Post photographer Jim
    Richardson, spent 13 weeks during the summer and fall of 1982 traveling
    throughout "The Church State"(1) of Utah.  Their assignment?  To penetrate
    what has been called "The Zion Curtain"(2) erected by the Mormon Church
    to protect its vast wealth and influence.  The Church of Jesus Christ of
    Latter-day Saints so effectively controls one of the 50 American states,
    where it is "the largest private property owner,"(3) that "the line between
    worship and government has become so blurred that some civil rights have
    evaporated."(4)  In this unusual state, "Jews are called Gentiles" and
    a "majority of non-Mormons" consider themselves to be victims of
    discrimination(5).

    As anyone knows who has lived very long in Utah, far from encouraging 
    freedom (as one might expect), the all-pervasive presence of the Mormon
    Church hangs like a heavy cloud of oppression that can't be escaped
    anywhere.  One gradually acquires the uneasy feeling that "Big Brother"
    is always listening and watching.  Farrell and Richardson discovered that
    in some ways conditions behind the Zion Curtain were uncomfortably similar
    to those behind the Iron Curtain.  This was particularly true concerning
    two of the rights that Americans have traditionally held most dear:  freedom
    of speech and freedom of the press.  In Utah these are not exercised without
    "widespread constraint" imposed upon everyone by the Mormon hierarchy's
    long arm that reaches everywhere. (p. 7; footnotes 1, 4, 5 reference the
    'Denver Post' article of November 21-28, 1982; footnote 3 references the
    'Los Angeles Times' for June 26, 1983, and footnote 2 is a remark about the
    use of the word 'Gentile' in Utah)

Ed, this is the context established on p. 7 (1st page of the book).  This
context is further strengthened with the following from p. 8.

    Farrell and Richardson discovered that in this bastion of capitalism and
    conservatism behind the Zion Curtain it was extremely difficult to find
    individuals who were willing to speak openly and freely in response to
    questions about the almost omnipotent religious power that tolerates no
    interference in its control of the Church State.  They soon learned that
    "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not take kindly to
    dissent."  For a resident of Utah to openly question the irresistible and
    self-serving influence exerted everywhere in Utah by the Mormon Church--or
    its activities, morals, or doctrines--could call down the wrath of a
    totalitarian power upon ones head.  The results are sometimes frighteningly
    similar to those suffered by dissidents within the Soviet Union or some
    other Communist country.

Then on page 9

    And in Utah, the Church State, even non-Mormons feel the pressure to
    conform to a power that insists upon overriding both conscience and God.

In Chapter 2, the story of "Jim and Judy" is given as "typical converts
to the Mormon Church.  Their conversion to Mormonism is outlined, and then
their dissatisfaction with the Church is explained.

    It was only after several years that Jim and Judy began studying the
    Bible and asking God's guidance and only then realized what they were
    'really' involved in.  The experience almost cost them their marriage.
    The true facts about Mormonism were entirely different from what they
    had been led to believe.  Joining had been easy, reinforced as it had
    been with so much love.  Getting out was something else.  What they had
    thought was genuine love expressed over and over by Mormons who had
    become their closest friends suddenly turned to a severing of relationships
    and false accusations.

Now for my comments.  In .5, I quoted Scharffs in which he said that leaving
the Mormon Church was relatively easy--a matter of requesting in writing that
ones name be removed and then waiting for the hearing to occur.  Scharffs was
focusing on the procedure involved but he ignored the social factors involved.
Decker & Hunt brought out the social factors in their statement about a severing
of relationships.  It is true that if people leave a church they will
experience difficult social adjustments that in many cases will involve the
severing of relationships with both family and friends.  This can be difficult
for the people involved, and this social factor is not limited to persons
leaving the LDS church but applies to people leaving any church.  The
*immediate* context for the statement by Decker & Hunt that leaving the LDS 
church was "something else" is this social pressure against leaving.  However,
there is a second context established by Decker & Hunt--that of the Zion
Curtain, as I established in the lengthy quotes given above.  I think their
use of the phrase "Zion Curtain", which was originally coined by Farrell, is
part of the inflammatory language in the book.  That phrase draws upon the
parallel with the stereotype of the "Iron Curtain" and suggests that Latter-day
Saints are prisoners of the Mormon Church much as citizens of Eastern Europe
are prisoners of their governments.  This suggestion is reinforced in the
quotes I gave above.

My experience with non-LDS in Utah has been very different than that reported
by Farrell and used by Decker & Hunt.  I grew up in Cedar City, Utah and had
about as many non-member friends as member friends, and I never heard either
my friends or their parents express feelings that "a heavy cloud of oppression
that can't be escaped anywhere" hung over them.  I never heard any comments of
them feeling "that 'Big Brother' is always listening and watching."

After high school graduation, I attended Utah State University in Logan for six
years and had many non-LDS friends.  I never heard any of my friends express
the feelings reported by Farrell.  While at USU, I was one of the more active
letter-writers to the school newspaper and debated church-related topics.  The
main issues in the debates were the no-smoking-in-buildings rule and the belief
of some non-LDS that we LDS lived in our own world and did not understand what
the "real" world was all about.  I don't recall any comments as reported by
Farrell & propagated by Decker & Hunt.  While at USU, I attended the meetings
of the campus Christian fellowships with my non-member friends, and again I
never heard the comments claimed by Farrell.  My wife and I thought it
interesting that when we moved to Maryland, all of the public buildings banned
smoking.  We realized that no-smoking in buildings was not a Mormon issue, as
the letter-writers to the school paper had claimed, but was a more general
condition.

I worked two summers at the University of Utah for my brother-in law.  He was
a baptized Mormon, but he had left the Church and claimed to be an atheist.
I discussed the Mormon religion with him and his colleagues (who were all
non-LDS); again no comments like those claimed by Farrell.  Those people
couldn't accept the Christian concept of a Messiah and the Atonement.  In
addition, they felt that Mormons tended to limit their social involvement to
other Mormons, but I heard no comments about oppression or big brother.  They
enjoyed living in Utah.

My wife's parents rented their basement apartment for many years, and many of
the tenets were non-LDS, people who enjoyed associations with LDS and enjoyed
living in Utah; my wife still corresponds with one family.

I read the comments about the Zion Curtain and I think of my own experiences
with non-LDS in Utah, and I wonder if the people interviewed by Farrell were
typical representatives of the non-LDS in Utah.  There is in Utah a group of
non-LDS who are bitter towards the Mormon church and who probably have the
feelings expressed by Farrell, and I wonder if he might have limited his
contacts to those persons.  I am critical of Decker & Hunt propagating the
picture of Utah as a Zion Curtain since my experiences with many non-LDS were
the opposite.  This is one of my serious criticisms of "The God Makers", that
of presenting conditions as the norm without sufficient evidence to support
that position.  This is one reason why I feel the book is propaganda, designed
to turn people away from the LDS church.

Allen

I must agree with my dad.  I was in Utah going to school.  Except for the fact
that the area is economically depressed, and being able to walk to church
(instead of driving), (and be able to go to a store and strike up a
conversation with somebody there and find out he was in your same mission
5 years ago... :-), I found Utah to be like anywhere else.  The church
puts no undo political, social, or other types of pressure on the citizens.

The press is free there to publish what they want.  The non-LDS live
how they want.  Those who desire the vices of the world can easily find
them, etc.  Just like anywhere else.

The language used in the passages from the " Godmakers " as quoted
in the previous reply brings to mind a bit the propoganda from the
Third Reich and Joseph Goebbels.  I am not going to go into detail as
it has been a long while since I was reading a lot about that time
period and I don't have any desire to do it again now.  That is just
what appeared in my head as I read it.  It also brings to mind the language
of the Soviet propoganda I have heard about internally in Russia about the
Western world.

Chad

    Re: Note 188.27 by CLIMB::LEIGH

>                            -< A "Zion Curtain"? >-

    I found your note very interesting about the picture that "The God
    Makers" portrays of life in Utah. 
    
    I grew up most of my life in Utah, and, like others, find the
    descriptions from the book to be inconsistent with my experience. I do
    not doubt that there are some who feel alienated in Utah, but I would
    consider it to be no more so, and probably less than, normally occurs
    when a person of one cultural experience happens to live in a community
    that is predominantly of another cultural experience. For example, if a
    Irish Catholic person were to live in a predominantly Jewish community. 
    
    I also do not doubt that there are some who feel that the Mormon church
    controls the politics of Utah. However, in my experience, the LDS
    church goes to great pains to distance itself from political issues,
    and becomes involved only when it considers an issue to be a moral
    issue, such as abortion and gambling. 
    
    The LDS church does not endorse candidates or ballot issues (with the
    above exceptions), will not allow its buildings or pulpits to be used
    for campaign or voting purposes, and does not tell people how to vote,
    except to encourage them to prayerfully consider the alternatives and
    to carry out their responsibility to vote. 
    
    I suppose that it seems to some that the LDS church controls politics
    in Utah, but I assert that this is not the case, but may seem so, only
    because the majority of Utah citizens is Mormon, and when the majority
    votes the results sometimes reflect Mormon values. This is one of the
    results of living in the sort of political system that we do, where the
    voice of the majority determines the direction of government. 
    
    Interestingly enough, a striking example against the idea that the
    Mormon church controls politics in Utah was the repeal of Prohibition.
    Though opposed by the church (as a moral issue), the state of Utah went
    against the church position and became the deciding state in the repeal
    of prohibition. 
    
    Re: Non-LDS hating it in Utah
    
    I live in Montana, about 500 miles from Utah. One of my friends went to
    work for DEC in Utah. He is not LDS, and was advised by some people
    that he would hate it there, because of the Mormon domination. His
    experience has been the opposite, and he considers it to be a great
    place to live, and to raise a family. He has found the people to be
    friendly and has been glad he made the move. 
    
    I work with many of the people out of the DEC Salt Lake office, both
    LDS and non-LDS. On several occasions the subject of the church has
    come up in conversations with non-LDS, and I have posed the question of
    how they feel about living in Utah, and whether they feel that being
    non-LDS in Utah puts them at a disadvantage. Their response has been
    consistent: They like it in Utah, they are aware of the Mormon majority
    but are not bothered by it, and they do not consider themselves to be
    at a disadvantage because they are not LDS. 
    
    This is not to say that there are not some who may carry opposite
    feelings, but I share this to say what my experience has been. In
    short, the description of Utah from "The God Makers" would be amusing,
    as ridiculous as it seems, if it did not smack more of slander,
    and is certainly not a fair appraisal of the general state of things
    in Utah, in my humble opinion.
    
    Rich

    
 From .27:

   >As anyone knows who has lived very long in Utah, far from encouraging 
   >freedom (as one might expect), the all-pervasive presence of the Mormon
   >Church hangs like a heavy cloud of oppression that can't be escaped
   >anywhere.  One gradually acquires the uneasy feeling that "Big Brother"
   >is always listening and watching.  Farrell and Richardson discovered that
   >in some ways conditions behind the Zion Curtain were uncomfortably similar
   >to those behind the Iron Curtain.  This was particularly true concerning
   >two of the rights that Americans have traditionally held most dear:  freedom
   >of speech and freedom of the press.  In Utah these are not exercised without
   >"widespread constraint" imposed upon everyone by the Mormon hierarchy's
   >long arm that reaches everywhere. 


 A question for Ed and/or others who believe the book:  Do statements like the
 above and others quoted by Allen in .27 affect at all the credibility (even
 if only from a *journalistic*, and not a scholastic, viewpoint) of the authors
 in your eyes?

 I lived in Utah for 25 years.  Does that constitute "very long"?  My experience
 was very like Allen's in that even from my non-member friends, many of whom
 were quite vocal in their opposition (and sometimes disdain) of the church and
 its teachings, I never heard complaints like those quoted from the book.
 In my opinion, the state in which I now reside has much more of a "Big
 Brother" environment than Utah had.  I had several non-member teachers in
 college, both at Dixie Jr. College in St. George and at the U. of U. in
 Salt Lake who commented that although they could make more money elsewhere
 (out of Utah), they were content to live and work in Utah because of the
 environment in which to raise their families.

 As for "widespread constraint" imposed upon everyone by the Mormon hierarchy's
 long arm that reaches everywhere, I haven't a copy of the book, but let me
 guess: the authors attempt to uphold that statement by dragging out the
 pornography case discussed earlier in this note, right?  Am I close?

 I congratulate Paul Rondina for sticking with the book as long as he did.  I
 would have tossed it out after 2 pages--any author, in my opinion, who is
 willing so early in their work to discard so easily their credibility shows
 a great disrespect for their audience and is not worth reading.  They would
 have a great future at the National Enquirer or other papers of that ilk.

 Dave                                                                      

> As for "widespread constraint" imposed upon everyone by the Mormon hierarchy's
> long arm that reaches everywhere, I haven't a copy of the book, but let me
> guess: the authors attempt to uphold that statement by dragging out the
> pornography case discussed earlier in this note, right?  Am I close?

    Farrell and Richardson discovered that in some ways conditions behind
    the Zion Curtain were uncomfortably similar to those behind the Iron
    Curtain.  This was particularly true concerning two of the rights that
    Americans have traditionally held most dear: freedom of speech and freedom 
    of the press.  In Utah these are not exercised without "widespread
    constraint" imposed upon everyone by the Mormon hierarchy's long arm that
    reaches everywhere.

    These rights are further inhibited by the disturbing fact that "the state's
    largest evening newspaper and...leading TV station are owned by the church,"
    (6) which has been described as "America's biggest, richest and strongest 
    home-grown faith."(7)  Giving its official approval to the Church's
    trampling on human rights, in 1975 the Utah Supreme Court with its Mormon
    majority handed down a surprising decision, that, as summarized by the
    'Denver Post'--

           and so on


Footnote 6 is to the Denver Post article, and footnote 7 is to the LA Times
article.

Re .6, .15, .25  death threats

In .15 I said that I felt that the mention of death threats by Decker implied
that the threats were either made by LDS officials or by their approval or
condonance.  Now that I have my copy of "The God Makers", I've checked the
context of Decker's statement, and it is clear that he was referring to
individual LDS and not to the church as an organization or to its leaders.  
I agree with Ed that I wouldn't expect Decker to put specific names of
persons making the threats into his book; whether Decker might decide to
take legal action against such persons is another matter and not part of this
discussion.

Allen

Re .7, .15  "eternally pregnant"

In .7 I referred to Decker & Hunt's use of the phrase "eternally pregnant"
and gave Scharffs reply.  In .15 I referred to .7 as an example of what I
felt was Decker & Hunt making undocumented claims about LDS doctrine and the
use of inflammatory words to arouse negative feelings about the LDS
church in his readers.  After studying the context of Decker & Hunt's
statements about "eternally pregnant", I still feel the way I did when I
wrote .15.

This is what Decker & Hunt said.

    To the average person who only knows the mask that Mormonism wears and
    not the real face behind it (and this includes many Mormons), it is
    staggering to hear a beautiful and seemingly intelligent young woman
    express the incredible hopes she had as a Mormon wife.  After Jolene
    comes on the screen in "The God Makers" and begins to tell her astonishing
    story, the audible gasps all through the audience voice the sudden shock
    felt by most viewers of this hard-hitting expose.  Then the gasps turn
    into embarrassed laughter.  How could any intelligent person really think
    like that?  Is it a joke?  Yet Jolene is obviously sincere and deeply
    emotional as she says:

        Ever since I was a little girl, I was taught that my primary purpose
        was to become a goddess in heaven so that I could multiply an earth.

        I wanted that, I wanted to become a goddess with my husband...to be
        eternally pregnant and look down on an earth and say, "That's mine,
        and all those babies down there, I had!"

    If that sounds bizarre, then Janet's testimony assures us that Jolene was
    not the only Mormon woman who took seriously the promise of becoming an
    eternally pregnant goddess.  [Decker & Hunt then give the case history of
    Janet] ("The God Makers, p. 22)

There are two points that we need to address.   First, whether the LDS church
teaches that LDS women will be eternally pregnant.  As Scharffs pointed out
(in .5), the LDS church has never made any pronouncement about "how spirit
children are created or whether the mortal method of procreation is God's way
of producing spirit offspring."  It seems pretty obvious to me that Decker
& Hunt did make an undocumented (and incorrect) claim about LDS doctrine.  I
expect that someone will say that it wasn't Decker & Hunt but was Jolene that
accused the LDS church of teaching that women will be eternally pregnant.  I
think that is a flimsy argument, because we don't know if Jolene actually
exists as a person.  She might be a real person, or she might be a composite,
or she might be an imaginary person to put over a point.  Regardless of who
she is, Decker & Hunt used her story to put over the point they wanted to make,
and they are responsible for it being in their book.

Second, the quotation given above from p. 22 of "The God Makers" seems pretty
inflammatory to me.  I think the style of writing used by Decker & Hunt in
that passage is intentionally designed to arouse negative feelings in the
readers towards the LDS church.  Notice their use of the following phrases
to affect the emotions of their readers:

   mask that Mormonism wears and not the real face behind it

   staggering to hear

   incredible hopes she had as a Mormon wife

   her astonishing story

   the audible gasps all through the audience voice the sudden shock felt by
        most viewers of this hard-hitting expose.
   
   Then the gasps turn into embarrassed laughter

   How could any intelligent person really think like that?

   Is it a joke?

   Yet Jolene is obviously sincere

   If that sounds bizarre, then ...


That whole passage is filled with ridicule and contempt for the LDS church!

Allen

    Allen,

    I haven't had the time lately to really get into this topic, partly
    because I don't see a lot of use in defending the style in which a book
    is written, when you - and others, apparently - seem determined to label 
    it "inflammatory". The parts of the book that I have read, and those 
    that you have quoted, do not, to me, seem nearly as "full of ridicule 
    and contempt" as they obviously do to you. However, I will say that, 
    had I written the book, it would have been in a different style, more 
    subdued perhaps. Still, I see their style as similar to the Boston 
    Herald's as it is often contrasted to the Globe's, irritating to some
    while excellent and correct writing is often found in it just the same.
    
    I think you're especially overdoing it on the "eternally pregnant"
    bit. Really now! I've read that part of the book too, and I don't 
    see how, as you concluded earlier, that it was calculated to impart a 
    sense of dread in women by causing them to contemplate eons of morning 
    sickness! Is it not true that Mormonism believes that the ultimate goal 
    for anyone is to become a god, like "heavenly father", having one's own 
    planet and populating it with spirit children? And is it also not true 
    that this is accomplished between an eternally married husband and wife, 
    (god and goddess, if you will) and that, somehow, procreation is carried 
    on in eternity? That's how we all supposedly got here in the first place, 
    isn't it? If that's so, then it certainly seems a worthy goal for a 
    Mormon girl or woman to want to achieve this. 
    
    Please comment.
    
    Ed

    I would like to add a word or two here.  I am a woman and a mother (5
    children).  The idea of being "Eternally Pregnant" is riduculous.
    
    I believe that we are here on earth to provide maternal love and
    nurturing to ALL children, not just our biological children.  As
    a woman, I think that we can be fulfilled in this role not by how
    many children we can bring into this life, but by how many children
    we can direct along the right path.  
    
    The idea of being a human breeding machine is not my idea of what
    motherhood is meant to be.  We are all "Children of God" and "being
    pregnant" is not the only part of mothering.  As far as being
    "Goddesses and having Many Spirit children",  that is something
    only Father in Heaven knows and the truthfulness will be known to
    all in the hereafter.  
    
    Writing a book about something you obviously know absolutely nothing 
    about is like speculating about the weather. I guess it makes them
    money.  The God Makers is purely speculation and should be read for 
    entertainment (fantasy) only.  Personnally, my time can be better
    spent.
    
    Anyway, this is just my opinion.
    
    Louise

   Louise,

   First of all, the context of this "eternally pregnant" topic is after 
   death, in eternity, hence the "eternally" part of the term. Your comments 
   on earthly motherhood are well taken, but not relevant to the discussion.
   
   Allen has basically made the statement that Decker and Hunt made this
   whole idea up to frighten women with fear of never-ending morning 
   sickness (which I can find no basis for) and hold the LDS church up to 
   ridicule. I replied that, as I understand it, the highest hope of most 
   LDS women is to continue in the role of mother into eternity as a goddess.
   
   I also asked to be corrected if that understanding is wrong.
   
   Can I assume, then, that you are saying that LDS women have no such 
   desire?
   
   Ed

    Louise,
    
    Thanks for your comments.  From what I'm reading here, I sense the
    makers of 'God Makers' are holding up for ridicule the idea of eternal
    motherhood.  In particular, it seems the focus is on, as you point
    out, only one or a few aspects of motherhood.  I appreciate your 
    perspective and contribution to this discussion as it draws attention 
    to how this earthly existance has a parallel in eternity in that
    having children is only one aspect of parenthood.  Also, I sense
    from the descriptions here that 'God Makers' portrays Mormon women
    as having been fooled into accepting some sense of eternal 
    inferiority to men.  I certainly don't think of a mother as
    inferior and suspect that to even hint that I was sympathetic
    with such a concept would draw intense and withering fury from my 
    wife.  She would be justified because the Church teaches that parents
    are equal partners, that men and women have responsibilities that are 
    different in function but equal in importance.
    
    Steve

Re .34

Hi Ed,


>    Is it not true that Mormonism believes that the ultimate goal 
>    for anyone is to become a god, like "heavenly father", having one's own 
>    planet and populating it with spirit children? And is it also not true 
>    that this is accomplished between an eternally married husband and wife, 
>    (god and goddess, if you will) and that, somehow, procreation is carried 
>    on in eternity? That's how we all supposedly got here in the first place, 
>    isn't it? If that's so, then it certainly seems a worthy goal for a 
>    Mormon girl or woman to want to achieve this. 

Yes, the ultimate goal of a Mormon is to reach the state of exaltation in which
we become like God and receive all that He has.  Yes, it is true that that
condition will only be given to eternally married husbands and wives.  Both of
these points are taught in our LDS scriptures.  We assume that procreation in
some form is carried on in the eternities, because the scriptures teach that
we are literal offspring of God, but the scriptures say nothing about how
spiritual procreation would occur or even that it does occur.  Thus, the 
concept of being "eternally pregnant" is not part of Mormon doctrine.  In fact
the phrase "eternally pregnant" is not a Mormon phrase.  By that I mean that
it is not in common use within the church.  The first time I ever heard the
term was when I saw the film.  I can understand how individual Mormons might
think of spiritual procreation as being one of "eternally pregnant", but that
is their own thinking.  Exaltation is "a worthy goal for a Mormon girl or woman
to want to achieve", but being "eternally pregnant" is not a goal at all.

I've given my reasons why I think Decker & Hunt presented the concept of being
"eternally pregnant" as Mormon doctrine.  Why do you, Ed, think they did that?

Allen

    
    		There is a point I see missing out of this particular note.
    	I wish to comment on the discusion of the "eternally pregnant"
	concept.  It seems to me that a most important point has not been
	introduced - resurrection.  From what I perceive, there will be no
    	morning sickness, much less any pain.   Either that or the Scriptures
	are wrong in regards to a resurrected body.   I do not want to drag
    	this out into other topics that could arise about resurrection,
    	but that I don't think there is any point in worrying about it.  
    	Maybe the authors don't believe in the resurrection of a perfected body?

	.-1	Also, I would like to point out that "procreation" is
	a mortal or human function.  Resurrected spiritual personages would
	participate in "creation."
    
		I have not seen the "God Makers" movie, or read the book.
	Nor do I intend to do so.  I have, however, had the pleasure of
	seeing and hearing Dr. Walter Martin.  I ,therefore, feel that one 
	Korihor in this lifetime is enough!  My *opinion* of the afore 
	mentioned movie and book is in the same vein and I do not wish to
	waste my time with them.  Personally, I believe that the Bible
	teaches us that we are the children of God and that we will become
	Gods. The only thing LDS doctrine does is expand and enlighten us on
	that subject.

Hi!
    
    I've got to get into this one!  Even though the concept of
    "Eternally Pregnant doesn't appear  to be taught scriptually
    it has played a part in the teachings of the church in the
    past.  Orson Pratt stated in "The Seer" in his discourse on
    the pre-existance the following; I start off at page 38 sec.31
    "If we admit that one personage was the father of this great family,
    and that they were all born of the same mother, the period of time
    intervening between the birth of the oldest and youngest spirit
    must of been immense. If we suppose, as an average, that only 1
    year intervened between each birth, then it must of required,
    over one hundred thousand million years for the same mother to have
    given birth to this same family"....he goes on to give a dissertation
    on the length of term of pregnancy in the celestial realm, states
    that the term probably is similar to here on earth,etc.  One way,
    he states that the Father of these spirits could have shortened this time
    frame, is through the taking of many wives through the everlasting
    covenant of marriage..... You see, it's difficult for us to deal
    today with many of the early teachings of the church when opponents
    of the church use our very words and concepts that we once taught.
    One of the reasons of plural marriage may have been to populate
    worlds in a shorter time span.  But then, what's time when we are
    talking eternity...  I just wanted to demonstrate that even though
    today we try to explain away these "misconceptions", it is implied
    by what we have taught.  Orson Pratt was charged with the respon-
    sibily of carrying the word to the world in his day by the Prophet.
    Even though today, we don't ever read any of his works, the enemies
    of the church sure do and never miss a beat when it comes to 
    criticism.  So, why did Decker and Hunt present that concept of
    being "Eternally Pregnant"? simple, it was implied in our early
    teachings! 
    
    Kevin

This note was beginning to fragment into a new discussion concerning
whether statements from individual church leaders are church doctrine or
not, so I created note 211 for that discussion and moved three replies to it.

If you would like to discuss that question for its own sake, please use note
211.  If you would like to discuss "The God Makers" from the context of that
question, please continue to use this note.

Allen

 -- moderator

Hi Kevin,

I had read part of Orson Pratt's "The Seer" while a missionary 32 years
ago, but I had either forgotten about it or didn't read his discussion of
"eternal pregnancy".  I have to agree with you that this does put a different 
perspective on the use of the phrase "eternally pregnant" by Decker & Hunt.

I feel that in creating a model of "eternal pregnancy", Orson Pratt was
giving his own ideas and not giving the position of the Church, and I find
fault with Decker & Hunt for mapping Orson's speculations into Church
doctrine, but that is a topic for note 211.

Allen

   Re .38
   
   � I've given my reasons why I think Decker & Hunt presented the concept of
   � being "eternally pregnant" as Mormon doctrine.  Why do you, Ed, think
   � they did that? 
   
   Really, Allen, such a leading question!
   
   If you want my opinion, I think that you have taken the words "eternally
   pregnant" and used them to a far greater degree than that of which you
   accuse Decker and Hunt. As you are well aware, those words came first
   from a young Mormon woman (who you clearly suspect is not a Mormon at
   all), and Decker and Hunt merely repeated them in summation. You accuse
   Decker and Hunt of making an "unsubstantiated charge", "accusing the LDS
   church of teaching that women will be eternally pregnant", yet I think your
   accusation is, in itself, a distortion. It seems to me that what they are
   saying is that Mormon women, based on their beliefs, hope one day to be a
   goddess and give birth to an entire world of their own. Yet, you take
   their term "eternally pregnant goddess" to a doctrinal extreme, throw in
   morning sickness, (which they never even hint at) and use it to paint a
   picture of extreme, church-hating, distortionists, fabricating
   "unsubstatiated charges" out of thin air, bent on giving the world a
   ludicrous, warped picture of Mormons, while your entire case is built on
   the two words, "eternally pregnant"! 
   
   I don't hear you arguing with Jolene's other statement about wanting "to
   become a goddess in heaven so that I could multiply an earth." Is this
   also a distortion of Mormons beliefs? If it is, then please say so, but
   if it is not, then, how, in this context, is the concept of an "eternally
   pregnant" goddess so inappropriate? As Kevin St. Thomas so aptly pointed
   out, for a goddess to give birth to a world of people, "spirit babies" or
   otherwise, she would certainly expect to be in some state of pregnant
   anticipation for a very long time! 
   
   You take such great offense at Decker and Hunt's summation of some 
   Mormon womens' statements, yet you really only disagree with how they 
   say it rather than what they say! Since you have already demonstrated 
   that Mormons believe in some form of procreation in "the eternities", 
   then this whole flap is really only over terminology. I think that if 
   Decker and Hunt had used "eternally procreating" instead of "eternally
   pregnant", then you would have no case at all...
   
   Ed

    

    In my opinion, we should be very careful about labeling.  The term
    "eternally procreating" seems much more in tune with the teachings
    of the church than does "eternally pregnany".  As a woman, I would
    be much more receptive to the Church's teaching about procreation
    than if they made it sound like I would be pregnant for eternity.
     Maybe to you it is the same thing, but to me it is not the same
    at all.   Women have a tendancy to connotate being pregnant as being
    large, sickly (sometimes), uncomfortable, etc.  However, I seriously doubt 
    that as a Goddess in Heaven we would have to withstand the discomforts 
    of earthly pregnancy.  Being a Mother in Heaven certainly sounds
    more desireable than being a Baby Factory for all eternity which is
    exactly the way this concept as presented by Decker and Hunt comes
    across.  No wonder this type of terminology (which D & H present
    as truth) is not met with enthusiasm. 
    
    Perhaps Jolene actually meant "eternally procreating" and it was 
    misinterpreted as "eternally pregnant".  This would be a terrible
    disservice to women investigating the LDS faith.  But perhaps this
    is exactly what they (D & H) intended to do.  
                                 
    Louise
                                                  

    Just a thought.  If Decker and Hunt had left out entirely any
    references to being pregnant or procreating, would there have been
    much point to the interview with the young woman?  If so, what would
    it have been?  If not, then what was their intent?
    
    Steve

Hi Ed,

We've beat this "eternal pregnancy" thing quite a bit, but I'm not sure that
we understand each other.

>   As Kevin St. Thomas so aptly pointed
>   out, for a goddess to give birth to a world of people, "spirit babies" or
>   otherwise, she would certainly expect to be in some state of pregnant
>   anticipation for a very long time! 
   
Since we have no knowledge about "eternal procreation", we have no reason
at all to expect that exalted women would be in "some state of pregnant
anticipation for a very long time".  We have no reason to expect anything
about the condition they would be in.


>   You take such great offense at Decker and Hunt's summation of some 
>   Mormon womens' statements,

I don't think that Decker and Hunt merely gave a "summation" of a woman's
statement.  I think that they gave the woman's statement in a context of
scorn and ridicule.  They presented the woman's statement as an "astonishing
story", one that caused "audible gasps all through the audience", one that
caused "sudden shock" in the viewers, one that caused the "audible gasps"
to turn to "embarrassed laughter", one that caused the audience to think
"How could any intelligent person really think like that?  Is it a joke?"
After they had created this context that the woman's statement was in fact
a joke, then they [in their book] presented the statement itself.  It seems
very obvious to me that in choosing their words and sentences, they presented
the woman's statement in a way that the reader of their book would also have
"audible gasps", "astonishment", and "sudden shock".


>   yet you really only disagree with how they [D & H]
>   say it rather than what they say!

I feel that I am disagreeing with what they say as well as how they say it.
They said that the LDS church teaches that exalted women will be eternally 
pregnant, and the Church does not teach that.  They did not say in a
general way that exalted women would have eternal procreation of some kind
(which we believe).  They said that exalted women would have a specific
kind of eternal procreation, that of being pregnant in the mortal sense
of pregnancy.  My disagreement is with their advocating a specific type
of procreation, as well as how they did it.

I've expressed my opinion that Decker and Hunt used the phrase "eternally
pregnant" rather than "eternally procreation" (or something similar) because
they wanted to influence their audience against the Church.  The description
they gave of the "audible gasps", "sudden shock", and "embarrassed laughter"
indicate that their use of "eternally pregnant" did have the effect that I
claim was their real purpose.

In her reply (.44), Louise gave a nice summary that the effect of "eternally
pregnant" had upon her; my reaction to the phrase was similar when I saw
the movie, since my wife had a lot of morning sickness.

    The term
    "eternally procreating" seems much more in tune with the teachings
    of the church than does "eternally pregnany".  As a woman, I would
    be much more receptive to the Church's teaching about procreation
    than if they made it sound like I would be pregnant for eternity.
     Maybe to you it is the same thing, but to me it is not the same
    at all.   Women have a tendency to connotate being pregnant as being
    large, sickly (sometimes), uncomfortable, etc.  However, I seriously doubt 
    that as a Goddess in Heaven we would have to withstand the discomforts 
    of earthly pregnancy.  Being a Mother in Heaven certainly sounds
    more desireable than being a Baby Factory for all eternity which is
    exactly the way this concept as presented by Decker and Hunt comes
    across.


>    Since you have already demonstrated 
>   that Mormons believe in some form of procreation in "the eternities", 
>   then this whole flap is really only over terminology.
   
This whole flap has nothing to do with terminology per se.  The term "eternally
pregnant" refers to a specific method of procreation, and it draws upon our
understanding of mortal procreation and suggests that eternal procreation
will be similar.  The term "eternal procreation" is a general term that
gives no suggestions about how that procreation would occur.  The two terms
are very different, and I think that had Decker and Hunt used "eternal
procreation", the audience would have had far fewer "audible gasps", etc.

I've reviewed the previous replies to see if I need to make additional
comments now that I have my own copy of "The God Makers".  I think, Ed, that I
am ready to go on to something new.  So far, the topics we've chosen from
the book have been ones I selected.  You might like to select some that you
want to focus on.

Allen

.42
� I feel that in creating a model of "eternal pregnancy", Orson Pratt was
� giving his own ideas and not giving the position of the Church, and I find
� fault with Decker & Hunt for mapping Orson's speculations into Church
� doctrine, but that is a topic for note 211.

.43
� Since we have no knowledge about "eternal procreation", we have no reason
� at all to expect that exalted women would be in "some state of pregnant
� anticipation for a very long time".  We have no reason to expect anything
� about the condition they would be in.

Allen, 
    
I am disapointed at how far you have been willing to stretch this issue 
of "eternal pregnancy" in your attempts to discredit Decker and Hunt. I 
have read and re-read the portions of the book that are germane to this 
subject, and I find no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that
they made "unsubstantiated charges" regarding LDS doctrine. You have more
or less created this entire issue by accusing Decker and Hunt of
something they clearly did not do, and that is, make statements about
LDS *doctrine*. They made statements about what some Mormons *believe*,
but not about LDS doctrine. 

There is also no evidence to support your statement that they were "mapping
Orson's speculations into Church doctrine". How did they do that? What
reference did they make to Orson Pratt? Are you saying that Decker and
Hunt could not have come to their conclusions without input from his
writings? It's very interesting to note that their conclusions about what
Mormons believe on this topic are very much in keeping with Pratt's
writings, especially considering the high regard Mormons have for him. If
their conclusions about Mormon beliefs are consistent with Pratt's
writings, then they can't be too far off, can they? 

� they wanted to influence their audience against the Church. The description
� they gave of the "audible gasps", "sudden shock", and "embarrassed laughter"
� indicate that their use of "eternally pregnant" did have the effect that I
� claim was their real purpose.

By claiming that their "real purpose" for using the term was for it's
affect on the audience, you are accusing them of fabricating what they
claim is a frank testimony of a young Mormon woman, then lying about it.
You are free to believe this if you like, but you ought to be willing to
prove it. 

It seems that you either have a double standard that allows you to employ
the same distortionist tactics of which you accuse others, or you are so
zealous to discredit them that you are willing to overlook the obvious.
In this case, you took one relatively insignifigant passage, and built an
involved counter argument against it, getting more and more away from the
facts as you went along. 

� I think, Ed, that I am ready to go on to something new.  So far, the
� topics we've chosen from the book have been ones I selected.  You might
� like to select some that you want to focus on. 

I'll be glad to choose the next topic.

Ed

RE: < Note 188.47 by CASV02::PRESTON >

Ed,

May I mention that I can hardly believe you would defend this book to such
an amazing extent? Forget 'eternal pregnancy' for a moment. Do you
seriously contend that this book as a whole truly represents Mormon beliefs? 

You've asked us to read this book. It seems that at least some of us have 
done so. I'd like to ask you to read "The Truth about 'The God Makers'",
one Mormon's rebuttal to the assertions of Decker and Hunt. If you want to
borrow my copy, I'd be happy to lend it to you. Or give it to you if you
want it. There is much, much more that can be said in rebuttal to Decker 
and Hunt than further regurgitations of 'eternal pregnancy.' 

The nicest thing I can say about 'The God Makers' is that it is comprised
of wall-to-wall lies, distortion, and innuendo. My personal opinion is that
it is also a piece of bigoted filth. Perhaps *that* isn't Mormon doctrine
either, but at least this Mormon believes it. 

Allen will always avoid offense if possible. But I just can't let it go 
unsaid that this book is deeply offensive to Mormons and tramples on our 
most sacred beliefs, and apparently does so to promote the idea that our
religion is really an evil conspiracy. From what other time in history
might you have heard that same, terrible assertion? It isn't the first time
such lies have been foisted on the world in the name of righteousness. 

In short, anyone who believes that 'The God Makers' is true is seriously, 
sadly misled. Perhaps this isn't my most positive entry in this notesfile, 
but this really needed to be said.

/kevin

>I am disapointed at how far you have been willing to stretch this issue 
>of "eternal pregnancy" in your attempts to discredit Decker and Hunt. I 
>have read and re-read the portions of the book that are germane to this 
>subject, and I find no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that
>they made "unsubstantiated charges" regarding LDS doctrine. You have more
>or less created this entire issue by accusing Decker and Hunt of
>something they clearly did not do, and that is, make statements about
>LDS *doctrine*. They made statements about what some Mormons *believe*,
>but not about LDS doctrine. 

Decker & Hunt said, "To the average person who only knows the mask that
Mormonism wears and not the real face behind it (and this includes many
Mormons), it is staggering to hear a beautiful and seemingly intelligent
young woman express the incredible hopes she had as a Mormon wife."  I
feel that the phrase "the mask that Mormonism wears" indicates Decker &
Hunt are talking about LDS doctrine not just beliefs of LDS people.

Then they said, "If that sounds bizarre, then Janet's testimony assures us
that Jolene was not the only Mormon woman who took seriously the promise
of becoming an eternally pregnant goddess."  I feel that the phrase "the
promise" indicates they are talking about LDS doctrine.  I have to admit
that they did not explicitly say who made "the promise", but I feel that
implicitly they are saying the LDS Church made "the promise".

I think, Ed, that if a person who knew little about the LDS church read that
part of the book, they would come away with the idea that the LDS church did
teach that women could become "eternally pregnant".  So, from my viewpoint,
I think that Decker & Hunt were making claims about LDS doctrine, but in an
indirect and subtle way.  


>There is also no evidence to support your statement that they were "mapping
>Orson's speculations into Church doctrine". How did they do that? What
>reference did they make to Orson Pratt? 

You have a good point; I made an assumption in my thinking.  Originally,
I felt that Decker & Hunt had fabricated the phrase "eternally pregnant"
because it is a phrase that was not used in the Church; it is a phrase that,
as Louise explained, gives an undesirable "flavor" to the Mormon hopes of
exaltation.  After Kevin pointed out that Orson Pratt had written about
"eternally pregnant", I gave Decker & Hunt the benefit of the doubt and
assumed in my mind that they had probably picked up the phrase from Pratt's
book.  Hence my comment about their mapping the phrase.

>It's very interesting to note that their conclusions about what
>Mormons believe on this topic are very much in keeping with Pratt's
>writings, especially considering the high regard Mormons have for him. If
>their conclusions about Mormon beliefs are consistent with Pratt's
>writings, then they can't be too far off, can they? 

That depends on how close Pratt's writings are to Church doctrine, and in the
case of "eternally pregnant", Pratt was way off base.


>By claiming that their "real purpose" for using the term was for it's
>affect on the audience, you are accusing them of fabricating what they
>claim is a frank testimony of a young Mormon woman, then lying about it.
>You are free to believe this if you like, but you ought to be willing to
>prove it. 

The "real purpose" that I referred to is to write a book that will create
a negative attitude in their readers about the LDS church, rather than to
write a book that objectively discusses the Mormon church.  Whether Jolene
is one real Mormon, a composite of real Mormons, or a fabricated Mormon
isn't very important.  It seems very clear to me as I read pp. 22-23, that 
they intentionally created a setting for Jolene's story that made it seem 
ridiculous.


>In this case, you took one relatively insignifigant passage, and built an
>involved counter argument against it, getting more and more away from the
>facts as you went along. 

I think I can understand your feelings, Ed, about that being an insignificant
passage, but from my viewpoint it is significant.  I think that Louise
expressed the feelings that many readers of the book will have, i.e. that
the Mormon concept of exaltation is one of being a baby factory.  I'm
not claiming that all readers will have such negative feelings, apparently
you don't, but I did when I saw the movie and Louise did, and I think that
many people will.

Allen

    I realize this is off the topic, but ...
    
    When I was down in Dallas working for Mostek, one of the local TV
    stations announced it was going to show the 'God Makers'.  When
    our Ward got wind of that, they contacted the station, presenting
    to them the opinion that the film was heavily biased, presented
    a distorted view of the Church and had outright lies in it, as I
    recall.  I believe they also protested this being done as a public
    service.  The station issued an assurance that the show would not air.
    The show did air.  There was some talk of the station offering a
    private apology and a hint about an offer for some rebuttal time, 
    but nothing happened besides that.  I remember that this bit of chicanery 
    on the part of those promoting the film at the station infuriated
    members of the Ward.  The members privately voiced their opinions via 
    letters to the station.  But, nothing came of that either.  
    
    This experience demonstrated to me something of the attitude, tactics
    and morals of some who promote this film.

    Steve    

    One last response and then I will let it go.
    
    My question is, how many "Mormon Women" did Decker & Hunt interview
    before they found Jolene?  Was it 10, 100, 1000?  If this is an
    accurate survey of Mormon Women's feelings, then what was the
    percentage of those that agreed with Jolene?  Surely they can not
    present as truth one woman's view.  I have many women friends that
    I asked and funny, but not even ONE concurred with Jolene to her
    interpretation of being "Eternally Pregnant".  This appears as a
    lopsided distortion of what D & H would like everyone to believe.
    
    "The God Makers" tends to present a distorted view of Mormon Women
    and their mentality.  If this one item in their book is an example
    of their truths, then the entire book is a pack of lies and should
    be dismissed as such.  
    
    Our Savior asks us to forgive those who bear false witness against
    us.  I forgive them.  
    
    Louise

I noticed that in my reply in .49, I didn't clearly explain why I feel that
one of the quotes I gave indicated that Decker & Hunt were claiming things
about church doctrine rather than giving opinions of members.  The quote 
concerned "the mask that Mormonism wears and not the real face behind it".
In my comments in .49 I said that the phrase "the mask that Mormonism wears"
indicated that Decker & Hunt were referring to church doctrine.  What I should
have said was that the phrase "and not the real face behind it" gives that
indication.

In other words, Decker & Hunt said that the real Mormonism is different than
the common perception that people have of the church.  Then they went on to
give Jolene's story as the "real face" behind the mask, a clear indication
in my opinion that they were presenting her story as the truth about Mormon
doctrine rather than just the opinion of a Mormon woman.

Allen

================================================================================
Note 200.0                       I LIKE IT HERE                       No replies
KIKETT::HAGUE_LO                                     29 lines   5-JAN-1989 17:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Boy, that was an eye opener.  I was born in Salt Lake, lived in
    Denver, and my husband was raised in Los Angeles.  We both live
    here in SLC by choice.  We were not active members of the church until
    4 years ago.  We were never coerced to become active.  We moved
    back to Salt Lake because it is a great place to raise a family.
    
    The biggest difference between living in Salt Lake and Denver/Los
    Angeles is it is a whole lot safer here and the people
    are a whole lot friendlier.  I lived in Denver for 7 years and barely
    knew my neighbors, whereas after moving back to Salt Lake, I was
    greeted with open arms, meals, friendship and help by my new neighbors
    (by the way, both LDS and non LDS). I was not an active member at
    that time.  The only fault I can find with people here is they tend
    to trust people and sometimes get burned.  It is true, you can not get
    a drink in a restaurant as easily as other cities, and you may find
    a lot less people in the malls on Sunday, (usually, they are all
    at church) but I have NEVER found any rights infringed on because
    of my religious preference or lack of.   I have a lot of non-member
    friends who teasingly complain about this dry state, but they find
    the benefits here outweigh the small inconveniences.
    
    By the way, maybe the promoting of a Zion Curtain is a good idea.  It 
    might discourage some of the undesireables who find our life style 
    too restrictive, from moving here.  Unfortunately, we have those too.
                                                      
    Utah, just a nice place to live.
    
    Louise