| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 428.1 | One day it will happen ... | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Tue Apr 27 1993 12:13 | 36 |
| RE: <<< Note 428.0 by AKOCOA::BTAYLOR >>>
> Phil Donahue has taped a segment for broadcast with a woman who has
> written a book alleging complicity on the part of the Church in her
> mistreatment by her husband.
I do not watch Phil Donahue because he makes me sick to my stomach,
and, besides, he airs when I am at work. I will, however, alert my
wife to look for this episode.
Unfortunately, there are too many bishops out there who do not take
physical abuse of women seriously. They will be sorry when the Lord
holds them accountable for that.
> Parts of her book that recounted the Temple ceremony were reprintd in
> the April issue of Cosmopolitan. Did anyone see this article or this
> segment of the Donahue show?
It is unfortunate this woman gives up her chance for exaltation
just because of the callousness of men. The sacred ordinances of
the temple should not be trifled with.
> I am a Mormon Feminist and do feel that the Church could do a number of
> things differently as they relate to women, however, I also cherish a
> testimony that this is the Lord's church and work hard to
> make it a loving and acceptable place for everyone.
It must be trying at times.... Just this last week the Stake
President instructed bishoprics to spend as much time with the
Young Women as they do with the Young Men (this was also discussed
in topic 230). At least the Brethren are taking steps because
this direction was from Elder Ashton when he was here for our
regional conference.
Charles
|
| 428.2 | How terribly sad :-( | TEMPE::D_PYLE | | Wed Apr 28 1993 09:01 | 24 |
| I believe that, if I have the right person and article, that her
name is Deborah Laake. She is an editor for a (rather liberal IMHO)
weekly newspaper here in Phoenix called New Times. As long as I have
read her articles I have been under the impression that she had been
excommunicated. I discovered only recently that she hadn't been. I
have heard rumblings that a visit with her bishop or SP has been
arranged, possibly for a court (heard from her), but I'm not sure.
The whole situation is rather tragic and quite sad. Shades of Sonia
Johnson. From what I've read of her statements this situation seems
to smack of provocation on her part towards the church authorities.
She seems to want them to take action against her so she can put the
church in as negative a light as possible and come out as the innocent
and oppressed woman in that bastion of male dominance. If change is
required (rhetorically speaking) what a terribly poor way to go about
it. In my view using these type of tactics could only agravate (sp)
the problem.
Let's all say a prayer,
God bless,
Dave Pyle
DEC, Tempe, Az. (just up the street from Phoenix)
|
| 428.3 | From MORMON-L Mailing list. | CSC32::S_JOHNSON | Scott Johnson CX03-2/J4 592-4251 | Wed Apr 28 1993 09:45 | 574 |
| Return-Path: decwrl::MORMON-L%[email protected]
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 11:06:02 -0600
From: decwrl::MORMON-L%[email protected] ((MORMON List ))
To: Multiple recipients of list MORMON-L <MORMON-L%[email protected]>
Subject: Deborah Laake on Larry King-Transcript (LONG)
The size of the Message Text is 19309(> 6K), So it is kept in the First
Attachmen
***** ATTACHMENT: mailman.txt *****
Here is my transcription of Larry King's interview with
Debra Laake, author of _Secret Ceremonies_, April 22, 1993.
Any errors are mine.
L = Larry King
D = Deborah Laake
C = Caller
[] = My comments
[The first few seconds are missing]
D: [Speaking of the Mormon church] .. religion, and in fact
it is much richer and deeper and more colorful and more
dangerous than that.
L: And would you say its a religion that non-Mormons
probably know very little about?
D: Yes, I think they know very little about the real
religion because there is a great deal of effort put
into creating a particular image.
L: You write for who?
D: I write for New Times, which is a chain of weekly
newspapers like the Village Voice in the Southwest and
in Miami.
L: And you're based in Phoenix?
D: Based in Phoenix., we have four papers. We cover things
like crime and politics, primarily, why things happen
the way they happen. I think I try to do social
history with whatever I'm involved in, that's another
reason why this particular story interested me.
L: Why does the cover have a wedding gown, and why is it
called Secret Ceremonies?
D: Well, its called Secret Ceremonies because my
impressions of my life and as a Mormon woman and the
lives of other Mormon woman whom I have know, at its
foundation was an inability to talk about what we
really felt what was really happening to us because the
that emotions we were supposed to be having were more
important to us than the emotions we were actually
having. The world, I think, thinks that it is called
Secret Ceremonies because it deals in detail with the
temple ceremonies with which only the Mormons can
participate in, and which are not well understood or
publicized in the outside world
L: Is it considered out of order to have written this?
D: Very out of order. It is my understanding that I'm to
be excommunicated on Sunday.
L: This Sunday? How do they do that?
D: They call a church tribunal, I haven't attended a Mormon
church in more than 10 years.
L: It's like losing your dinosaur?
D: (Laugh) Yes, exactly. This book was excerpted in Cosmo
in April. As soon as it came out the head of the
Mormon church in Phoenix was on the phone to me, really
demanding a meeting, summoning me to a meeting on a
church matter. It shouldn't have surprised me.
Because what the book is about is the way that Mormon
men are literally empowered and how that effects the
most complacent of them.
L: Did you go to the meeting?
D: Well, he said that I could meet with him at his office
or the church. And He kept pushing it, and I finally
said, I told him that I didn't want to meet with him
and that if he wanted to meet with me he could come to
my office. And he did.
L: How did that go?
D: It was very uncomfortable. Do you understand the
concept of Mormon priesthood and what that is all
about?
L: I've done a lot of interviews with Mormons. I remember
talking at great length with George Romney a lot about
the faith when he had a lot of problems with being in a
church that didn't allow blacks to be high priests.
Has that changed?
D: Yes, that has changed, blacks now can hold the
priesthood. But, unlike many religions where there are
only a few ministers, all Mormon men grow up to be
ministers, and the leaders of the church. They are
told from the youngest age that at age 12 they will
become empowered, literally, as supernatural beings.
And the way its put is that they have the authority to
act for God on earth. They believe that this enables
them to heal people, and to cast devils out of people
and to perform miracles, and in general to receive a
level of personal revelation that I think is foreign to
most people's understanding. And what happens with
that, I mean with the good men, nothing much happens
with that. But you combine it with an ego that's
unbalanced, or egotistical, and these are not unknown
qualities in many men, and you have a match to
dynamite. And I think it makes Mormon society much
riper for potential of abuses than society at large.
So that what I was up against with this.
L: Is this purely an American church?
D: No, there are 8.2 million , but only 4.2 million are in
the US. There are 44,000 missionaries deployed in 100
countries.
L: Why is it the best place, before we move to the bad
parts, to find family history?
D: Because there is such concentration on it. Mormons
believe that we are families not only for this life,
but in the after-life. But that you can only be
together as a family if certain religious ordinances
are performed in this life. And those ordinances take
place in the temple, in the ceremonies I that have
written about.
L: But they trace Jewish families, they trace every family,
right?. You can't go to a better place than the Mormon
church.
D: Yes, they trace ancestry.
L: Yea.
D: What they are doing is getting as far back in their
ancestry as they can. Then those names are sent to the
temple, and people go through the temple and perform
ordinances for those who have died, by proxy, which
gives them the opportunity to accept the Mormon church,
wherever they are, in the after-life.
L: Your husband was chosen for you?
D: No, no. My husband chose himself for me.
L: What do you mean? This is your first husband, right?
D: Yes, I was at Brigham Young University and I was dating
a fellow who was my brother's roommate and for whom I
had slight fondness, and he asked me to marry him, and
there's a tremendous drive to get married among
Mormons. You can't get into Mormon heaven unless
you're a married person. And girls in particular feel
that motherhood and wifehood is their only calling. So
I wanted to get engaged and have an engagement ring.
And when I tried to break up with him, having gotten
the engagement ring and being ready now to not marry
him, he told me that he had had a revelation from God
that I was to marry him. And this was not an uncommon
thing at BYU for a fellow to have a revelation that,
'Hey baby, it's you.' So I tried for my own
revelation. When I couldn't get one, I told him that
and he said, 'That's just Satan getting in the way of
God's plans for us to have a happy home together.' By
that time I was horribly confused, and I had genuine
reverence for priesthood power for all men.
L: How old were you?
D: I was 19.
L: So you got married?
D: So I got married.
L: Had a child?
D: No.
L: How long were you married?
D: A little less than a year.
L: How do you divorce in Mormonism?
D: Well you divorce civily the way you ever divorce, but I
assume the divorce you are thinking about is the
divorce for the afterlife, since these marriages are
binding forever.
L: Yea.
D: And that is a very convoluted process that in fact I
never achieved.
L: But you're not excommunicated for being divorced?
D: No.
L: You married a second time?
D: Yes.
L: Was that for love?
D: No. that was because being a divorcee at age 20 I felt
so completely out of it. I didn't know how to fit into
my culture then. I was sexually experienced, which was
frowned upon. Many of my friends weren't even married
yet and I was already divorced and I'd had terrible
experiences and I already felt old. But I did feel
that I didn't deserve a good Mormon man because I was
divorced.
L: So along came?
D: So along came a fellow who is called Lowell in the book.
And I married with the idea that I would win him into
the fold, that I would convert him.
L: He was not Mormon?
D: He was not Mormon.
L: What happened?
D: I couldn't respect him because he wasn't a priesthood
holder. He didn't have this supernatural power. I was
the only woman in our congregation without a husband
who attended services, and the priesthood power was so
visible. Other children were being healed by their
fathers, and other wives were being blessed by their
husbands with good moods, and all those things that the
priesthood could provide, I came to feel that our home
was impotent. I simply could not respect this man who
was not undeserving of my respect.
L: As you look back, was that a mistake?
D: You mean would I wish to be with him now?
L: Um-huh
D: No. I think that ...
L: But you were wrong in treating him as lesser because ..
D: Oh Oh. That was a mistake. Absolutely. That was a
mistake.
L: No children from that?
D: No.
L: So you leave the church?
D: Right.
L: And you leave the man again and become a reporter,
successful...
D: Well there was a lot more before that. I had a complete
emotional breakdown right before I left my second
husband, and he called an excommunication court on me
then for things that had happened in our marriage, when
he realized that I couldn't relate to him as a man
since my entire concept of manliness was about being
God's representative. He called me to account in front
of people that he felt I would respect.
L: Because he was not a Mormon?
D: Right.
L: But he could do this?
D: Right. He was a man. He was still the husband and head
of the home and he could convene a court on me. And he
did. Ultimately after I left him I left the church. I
was so disorientated, I mean, it was so completely my
world that I was living here at the time actually, I
was in graduate school, that and I tried to kill
myself, and I was in an institution here for an entire
summer.
L: What brought you out of it, what helped?
D: When I finally began to understand that there were
legitimate options outside of Mormonism. That there
were other ways of life that were satisfying and
credible. I'd just never had any other frame of
reference. It's such an insular culture. I wouldn't
have even had the language to ask my parents or anyone
I was close to , 'Well hey, do you think what's wrong
is I'm just not cut out to be a Mormon?' because that
wasn't a possibility, it just was not an option. When
I began, actually when I saw,... I was hospitalized
with a lot of extreme psychotics; people who thought
they were horses, who had psychotic fits, and I really
saw a range of life I had not seen before. And I
realized that life was about pain, and it wasn't about
being perfect.
L: In Mormonism can you have more than one wife?
D: Well, there's duplicitous rhetoric about that.
Mainstream Mormons are excommunicated for practicing
polygamy in this life. But the temple arrangements
that have to do with arrangements for the after-life.
Polygamy is permissible there.
[Break]
L: We're back with Deborah Lake, author of Secret
Ceremonies. St. Thomas, Pennsylvania. Hello.
C: I am a member of the church now, not of the reorganized
church.
D: So am I.
C: So you are LDS?
D: Yes.
L: What's the question?
C: I am very strong in my beliefs and I'm so sorry that you
had a bad experience with the church. It has been so
wonderful for me. I am a convert, I've been a member
of the church for 12 years, and I'm a little nervous,
but I'm so sorry and I wish it had been better for you.
D: I know that there is a wide range of experiences in the
church and I'm glad it has worked out so well for you.
C: Yes, because I don't want to tell you I hope you have a
change of heart, and I don't want to say anything to
make you angry, as in God loves you, because I think he
loves us all, but I just really think it's unfortunate,
and I've been so truly blessed, and I hope that you
might be in the future.
L: Thank you, to SLC.
C: Hello, Larry. I have a question and a comment. My
question is, I'm Mormon and I go to BYU. First of
all, I'd like to know, is she, is your family members?
D: Yes, they're very devout.
C: How have they reacted to this?
D: Well, I think they just been swell. Their attitude has
been, I mean they lived through this with me, and they
know how difficult it was, their attitude has been
'Love you, Hate your book.'
[Larry chuckles.]
C: I sure there are bad experiences in the Mormon church.
I'm happily married, was married 4 months ago, like she
said there are wide range of experience. I was
inactive until 19 and I came back to the church and
I've been really happy here.
D: And I do understand that there is a wide range of
experiences. But I don't think that it is a society
that is like society at large, because of the
foundational belief about the priesthood and the way
that many men react to that perception of power. I
think that there is a potential for great abuse. I
don't think that it always occurs.
L: Mannsfield, Ohio.
C: I have 2 questions. Are the Churches of Christ and the
Mormon religion similar?
D: I don't know anything about the churches of Christ, but
I know that they're not affiliated in any way. The
full name of the Mormon church is the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints, so perhaps you're
confusing it that way.
C: That might be. I've always heard that the Mormon always
take care of their own poor people and that you never
see a Mormon on relief or welfare.
D: They do have a very well organized welfare system, that
is insular.
L: Seattle
C: Yes, I have a question for her. I was wondering if you
ever heard of any kind of ritual abuse that happens in
SLC.
D: Kind of what abuse?
C: Ritual abuse, involving cults.
D: Ritual abuse?
L: Yea, are there, like Mormon cults?
C: Yes. There were several stories in the Phoenix
newspaper several years ago about satanic cults in the
Mormon church. I wonder if you ever heard of it.
D: I have no experience with that.
L: There were no strange things you had to do as a Mormon,
no strange sexual things?
D: Mine has been a very typical experience, which is one
reason that I think it is important. At the time I got
ready to write the book I interviewed many Mormon
woman, and since it's come out I've heard from many
Mormon women who have told me that they feel so much
better that someone has finally talked about this.
[Break. Call 1-800-632-0600 to order book direct. Use a
major credit card and she will autograph it.]
L: SLC
C: I have a question. I would just like to ask you
Deborah, I can understand everyone having their own
convictions and obviously calling from SLC I am a
devout Mormon and come from a devout Mormon family. My
only concern would be your need to divulge, if you
will, the ceremonies that do take place in the temple.
D: Yes, and that also has been a concern of church
authorities. I didn't do it lightly. I knew I
undertook a task that was going to offend many people
like you, and far more than that it was going to offend
my parents, and has, I mean both of my parents have
been temple workers in the past.
C: I really highly want to commend your family for the
attitude they have taken. I think that is wonderful,
hate the book, love you.
D: Pretty swell, yea, it's pretty swell. But ultimately
what I had to examine was this. I went to the temple
as a young girl and I experienced it as a horrifying
ceremony. And now I am being censured for breaking
vows that I made that I didn't know I was going to have
to make. And I really think that anything that is
worthwhile and worthy can stand up to scrutiny. And
that openness in government and religion, openness
between people, always is a better thing than things
that happen behind closed doors.
L: Communicating is better than not communicating?
D: Yes
L: By the way, is this some kind of strange ritual that
they protect?
D: Yes. Well I think it's a strange ritual. Many people
find it immensely moving.
L: Is this the marriage ceremony or other ceremony?
D: No, this is temple work itself. This is the performing
of ordinances for the dead.
L: Montgomery, Ala.
C: Kind of an odd question. In a conversation recently,
somebody told me that Mormons had selected some
marketing data, or lifestyle information on people
throughout the united states that would rival some of
the marketing companies in the US. I guess this goes
back to the genealogy thing you about a minute ago. Is
there any truth to that whatsoever , about them having
a tremendous amount of marketing information or
demographics about people in America.
D: I don't know anything about that.
L: Seattle
C: I'm in Seattle and I went through the same things that
you did. I'm 22. I'm not a Mormon or anything, but I
was baptized in the Jehovah's Witness religion. I want
to say that I applaud you and I think that what you are
doing is great. I respect other people in their
religions, but each individual has their own choice and
their own path in their life and I think that what you
are doing is great. And I just wanted to support you.
D: Well, thank you.
L: Have you run into a lot of flak?
D: Yes, I've run into a tremendous amount of flak. I
called my voice mail in Phoenix an hour and a half ago,
and there were 3 messages from the same Mormon guy who
quoted scriptures at me. He had to keep calling back,
he was so upset. Most of the radio shows I've done
have been duplicates of that.
L: But in turn the book should be fascinating to people.
D: I hope so.
L: It's something we don't know about.
D: I think it's a truly untold story.
L: Will they inform you if you're excommunicated?
D: They will indeed.
L: How will they do that?
D: I guess by letter.
L: Not by phone call? [Larry makes funny voices and she
laughs.]
D: They allow me to send a representative to the trial, I
wanted to know what was gonna go on there. But I was
told I could attend myself, which I opt not to do.
L: But no lawyer in absentee?
D: No lawyer. They won't record it for me. They can say
what they like and do what they like.
------------
Ken Nicholas Compaq Computer
[email protected] Houston, TX
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA00274; Fri, 23 Apr 93 10:03:38 -0700
% Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8734; Fri, 23 Apr 93 13:02:40 ED
% Received: from PUCC.BITNET (NJE origin LISTSERV@PUCC) by PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1887; Fri, 23 Apr 1993 13:02:38 -0400
% Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 09:13:58 CDT
% Reply-To: "(MORMON List )" <MORMON-L%[email protected]>
% Sender: "(MORMON List )" <MORMON-L%[email protected]>
% From: Ken Nicholas <Ken=Nicholas%Sys=Dev%[email protected]>
% Subject: Deborah Laake on Larry King-Transcript (LONG)
% X-To: [email protected]
% To: Multiple recipients of list MORMON-L <MORMON-L%[email protected]>
|
| 428.4 | impressions from what I've read/experienced so far ... | ECADSR::SHERMAN | Steve ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 MLO5-2/26a | Thu Apr 29 1993 15:41 | 74 |
| Interesting reading. The lady has something to gripe about, sounds
like. Her actions, however, appear to be inappropriate. Kind of a
"two wrongs" to make a right kind of thing. Long-winded reply here,
but hey, this was a lot of stuff to read and I have a batch job I'm
nursing so ...
I know of a sister who was abused by her husband. She turned to the
Church and they didn't help at all. Rather, leaders were so focused on
making things right between them that they wouldn't aknowledge the
extend of physical abuse she was taking. And, as is often the case,
she was not his only victim or his only wife.
Her solution was to basically leave the area. Having learned of her
situation and getting to know her, I think that eventually was the best
thing for her to do. My impression? The Priesthood leaders (Bishop, HC
and SP) were NOT honoring the Priesthood. Knowing the circumstances I
cannot come to any other conclusion.
What should be done in these situations? WOMEN NEED TO SPEAK UP TO ANY
PRIESTHOOD LEADER THAT CAN BE TRUSTED TO LISTEN AND TO HELP. My
opinion, anyway. The WORST they can do is remain silent. This is
actually part of "sustaining" people in their callings, in my opnion.
In her situation, I don't know that even that would have worked,
assuming that the people she was working with absolutely refused to see
what was happening (even when she had to be rushed to the hospital).
Also, sometimes we need to rely on local authorities (police, social
workers and such) for certain situations. We can't forget that. Sometimes
I think we get the impression that being self-sufficient means taking EVERY
concern to the Bishop. Not so. Anyway ...
Abuse of Priesthood has been with the Church pretty much since its
restoration. It is always an awful thing and members have to always be
vigilant. Happened in the original Church, too. In the Bible, Paul's
letters reflect that he had an awful time with that.
One powerful message in the interview of note .3 is the constant
reference to Priesthood as something that transforms men into
supernatural beings. This was a shock. I've never felt that way about
Priesthood. Priesthood is a tool and those who have it are expected to
serve others, not to use it for personal gain. I can't bless myself
with Priesthood. But, obviously, some who get Priesthood DO try to use
it for personal gain or otherwise abuse it. They are accountable. As
the Scriptures say, "amen to the Priesthood of that man." I don't
blame her for her impressions. I think that idea of Priesthood
transformation of men into "supernatural beings" might well be part of
Mormon culture in some places, but I don't regard it as part of the
Gospel -- big difference.
As far as this lady goes, she has apparently been wronged and the
Church should investigate this where feasible. I appreciate that some
authorities have pointed out practices which are NOT in keeping with
the Priesthood, such as getting a "revelation" for a girl that she's
supposed to marry you. Also, while at BYU I observed that the marriage
pressure can be very real and distressing. This may again be part of
Mormon culture -- but not necessarily part of the Gospel. This is
important. I have a testimony of the Gospel. I do NOT have a testimony
of Mormon culture. (For example, I do NOT believe that mowing the lawn
is strictly a Priesthood responsibility, to cite a trite example.)
This lady would probably have my sympathy if only she didn't rebel
and reveal sacred things (much of it apparently intended as an
attack on the Church). What is the justification for doing this
type of damage? In reality, it is not as much the Church that is
being threatened. My impression from the temple is that the
secrecy is not to protect the Church, the secrecy is to protect those
who are not yet ready to receive the information. And, this is where
damage is done when the temple ceremonies are revealed. The damage she
does to the Church have more to do with being rebellious and in
promoting materials that speak against the Church. But, the publishing
of temple details are, in my view, more damaging to the public and
herself than to the Church.
Steve
|
| 428.5 | | QBUS::F_MUELLER | Good Tea, Nice House | Thu Apr 29 1993 19:37 | 42 |
| I found .3 to be very interesting. When I had seen the title I
expected the text to be nothing but church bashing. But it wasn't like
that. She had several good points, but also several misleading ones.
Unfortunately it's very hard to separate the church from it's members.
I have no doubt that the church is true and that all of the Standard
Works are true. But I have to question what people do or say in church
sometimes, but that is what is nice about the gospel since it
encourages person revelation. This combined with common sense allows us
to be able to separate the wheat from the chafe.
Another interesting point is the concern about revealing some of the
Temple ceremonies. Most people who read her book (if it's even
semi-accurate) will realize that there is no deviate things going on in
the Temple and just forget about it, IMHO. Remember the book and movie
called "The Godmakers"? It caused quite a stir of concern amongst the
members in my area because everyone worried that the Temple ceremonies
had been desecrated. Yet now, "The Godmakers" is never mentioned inside
or outside of the church.
Steve brought up several good points about abuse, both of the
Priesthood, and of the family. It really is good that wives and
children are starting to defend themselves and bring this out in the
open. I don't think that Priesthood holders are any more immune to the
trappings of power and abuse. But in these latter days it is EXTREMELY
important for Priesthood leaders to learn to recognize and deal with
abuse, not just try to get broken families back together again.
If someone out there is either a Priesthood leader or wants to learn
more about the world of abuse then I highly recommend the book "Secrets"
by Blaine Yorgansen (sp) and Sunny Oaks. Although it is fictional it is
based on real accounts and is very informative. It was hard for me to
read, not because of the writing style, but because of the subject
matter. But I came away from it with alot more insight into the
terrible tragedy of abuse. My wife and I lent the book to our bishop
who like it so much that he bought his own copy for reference.
Oh well, enough rambling.
Take care and may Heavenly Father bless you,
Frank M.
|
| 428.6 | potpourri | SWAM2::ROGERS_DA | | Sat May 01 1993 14:52 | 27 |
| re: -.1
Actually i've heard references to "The Godmakers" and in at
least a couple of church settings in the last three years. Of
course, part of the reason might be because its "creator" was an
apostate from our stake.
in gen:
I find it interesting whenever anyone claims to have had a
revelation regarding someone_else, such as those previously
mentioned. Anyone who actually understood the gospel would know
that each of us is entitled to revelation, but ONLY for matters
involving our own stewardships. In the case of a student who is
not married, how can he claim stewardship regarding a woman to
whom he is not yet married?
I think it is a shame that any young woman gets out of MIA
without a clear understanding of this - and i certainly intend
that it won't happen with any whom i have the opportunity to teach.
I can identify, however, with the sentiment about not being
properly prepared for the committments that one is asked to make
at the temple. Would i have made them anyway? Yes. But, i think
that the church would have fewer loose cannons if the only folks
who took out endowments were those who were acting under *informed
consent*. That's hardly the case, when your only opportunity to
back out comes _before_ you are told what vow you are about to take.
|
| 428.7 | Here we go again! | TEMPE::D_PYLE | | Tue May 04 1993 03:56 | 13 |
| I heard that Donahue had a show recently where he had several former
members of the LDS church on and they all did a lot of 'bashing' of
the church. Anyone see the episode and care to comment? When Sonia
Johnson was prominent in the news Barbara Smith went on his show and
refuted a lot of her comments. Think it may happen again? I guess
the old adage may prove true that there is no such thing as bad
publicity.
God bless,
Dave Pyle
DEC - Tempe, Az.
|
| 428.8 | I saw it. | KOLFAX::ASHFORD | | Tue May 04 1993 11:12 | 97 |
| I just happened to be home last Friday in the afternoon when this show
aired in California. I stumbled onto it by accident. I almost wish I hadn't
seen it. As Elders Quorum President I guess it would be important to know
something about it.
There were 3 women who are former members or who will soon be former
members of the church and one single sister age 29 from Provo Utah who
was championing the church. The show of course was overwelmingly biased and
gave very little time for the single sister. The thrust of the show was
based around the book by Deborah Laake(sp), Secret Ceremonies. Deborah had
been a very active member of the church yet some what rebellious and liked
to stretch the boundaries of the church as much as possible. She cited in
her book about wearing mini dresses at BYU. She described heavy petting and
masterbation just prior to her getting married to her husband in the Temple.
Of her engagement and subsequent marriage, she claims that her
boyfriend, who was a holder of the Priesthood, said he had had a revelation
that she was to be his wife. She prayed about it and claims that she
accepted only because he held the priesthood. The day of her wedding she
called her father and told him she was bored of her husband to be. He, being
a priesthood holder, told her to pray about it and it would be OK. Her main
point was that we claim that the priesthood is a real physical supernatural
power bestowed upon young boys and men. This "power" fills the male members
of the church with feelings of superiority and thus opens the strong
possibility of husbands abusing their wives.
She claims that she was abused by her husband. Then she let slip that
most of the violence occured after they separated. Before she separated she
sought the help of the leaders of the church. She claims that all the
leaders were interested in was her sex life. Her bishop, supposedly, asked
her if she masterbated and she conceeded that she did. He then asked her to
check in with him on a weekly basis and let him know how she was doing to
stop this practice. She says she never gave it up.
In terms of why she divulged the sacred issues of the temple... She
really had no compelling reason. She gave no valid reason other than it's
just another of those subjugating aspects of the Mormon church. They talked
briefly about the "special underwear" that must be worn by all temple goers
and how they dont allow for the new fashions of today.
At one point Phil made the statement that 1) the Relief Society
President of the church had sent him a letter reminding him that the temple
ordinances are sacred and that he use caution in and around this subject,
2) There were 3 elders of the church who had been invited to appear and had
declined just prior to the show.
The other 2 former members of the church also descirbed the abuse they
had received from their husband and how ineffectual the church was in
helping them. One has formed a feminist organization aimed at "helping" LDS
women.
The lone single sister defended the church admirably. She was clearly
outnumbered and not given much time. She was good at getting the point
across that all have freedom of choice in the church. No one is compelled
to do anyhting. She said the priesthood is cheepened by associating it with
a supernatural power. She made it clear that these women had had bad
experiences but that the church did not cause there problems nor support any
man who abuses his wife. She inferred that she was taught freedom of choice
and that these woman gave up that choice by not following the dictates of
there own minds and being honest with themselves when making the choice
of a spouse.
I think the highlight was when a member of the audience said "I see that
you three have had bad experiences but these things happen to a lot of
people. What does it have to do with the Mormon Church?" everyone applauded.
Many times Phil encouraged and left the door wide open for these women to
really put down the church. He made statements that put down the church. Not
one of the three women took him up at those moments. Many of them still
defended the rightness of the churches family structure and ideals. They
just claim that Patriarchal rule is outdated and leads to male dominance and
abuse of women(where have we heard that before)
All in all, it wasn't that demeaning of the church. In the course of 1
hour the 3 women showed their true colors and people began to realize that
they were just disgruntled women who have had bad experiences and weren't
able to get the help they needed from the church. The one lone sister was
very poised, never flustered, open and revealed the true pioneer stock from
which we descend from. She was forceful yet never put anyone down. At one
point Phil asked here "Do you think Deborah should be excomunicated?" her
response was "I...Well... she has trampled on some very sacred things...but
...It's not up to me to decide!".
I was deeply hurt by this afront to the church. I've seen many members
who trample the pearls of the gospel beneath their feet and treat them as
not. I'm not angry but hurt that people can do that. I love the Lord and
I appreciate all the wonderful things he has done for me. I'd feel just as
badly if someone spoke that way about my own parents and there home. I honor
the sister who stood up for the church. I honor all women of the gospel I
cherish the Relief Society and honor the women that serve in that
organization. Many of the best things I've done with my quorum are
because of examples from the Relief Society. I love my wife as myself. For
any of you that know the story of Johnny Lingo, I love and revere my wife
as an 8 cow wife.I know the church is true. I know the Lord knows who I am
and he loves me, inspite of my faults. His love I want to have forever.
Carter...
|
| 428.9 | I saw it also. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Tue May 04 1993 11:37 | 31 |
| RE: <<< Note 428.8 by KOLFAX::ASHFORD >>>
Carter,
Very well done summation. I support everything that
you said or pointed out.
One thing you missed, though, was the preoccupation
that Phil Donahue had with all the sordid sexual details in
the book. The three anti's had a laugh at Phil's expense when
they had discussed in commercial break that he had gotten to
all the sexual things except one, and then after the break
he got to it.
I will say that I was impressed with the way the anti's
did not allow Donahue to twist the truth. They put him straight
every time.
I felt very sad that people don't really understand that
priesthood is only effective in the stewardship in which it is
applied, and that power comes only through *righteous* use. It
should more rightly be used for direction and guidance than any
sort of control. But the ways of the world that the devil is
constantly blasting at us has taken quite a toll. The parable
of the sower was shown to be true with the anti's on that show,
and can really be seen with any ward you choose. It can make one
really sad to watch good people fall to the wayside over little
and inconsequential pittances.
Charles
|
| 428.10 | | ECADSR::SHERMAN | Steve ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 MLO5-2/26a | Thu May 06 1993 10:13 | 14 |
| You know, I think that Phil is really doing what folks outside the
Church have been doing for a long time; portraying the Church as
something it isn't so that it's easier to knock down. The alternative
is to actually learn about it. Not knocking Phil, but just trying to
grasp his methods here. According to the reviews here, he wanted the
Church to be some sort of bizarre sexually-oriented cult, which it's
not. In a way, it was a missed opportunity. He *could* have focused
on abuse of Priesthood and drawn attention to that. This is an area
that is good for Priesthood holders to constantly be reminded about.
Also, I think it's good for Priesthood holders to continually be
reminded that Priesthood is given so that one can serve others, not so
that one can get personal gain.
Steve
|
| 428.11 | *MOST* people don't understand priesthood. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Thu May 06 1993 10:46 | 12 |
| > In a way, it was a missed opportunity. He *could* have focused
> on abuse of Priesthood and drawn attention to that.
Steve,
How could someone *outside* the church, who doesn't know about
or understand the real purpose and intent of the priesthood,
draw attention to it as an item of debate when most people *in*
the church have the same problem?
Charles
|
| 428.12 | | ECADSR::SHERMAN | Steve ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 MLO5-2/26a | Thu May 06 1993 12:40 | 8 |
| Well, for starters, he'd have to learn about the Church ... I'm pretty
sure Phil wouldn't take the time to do that. But, given that he did do
that it could prompt discussion within the Church that could be
helpful. What I would have hoped for would have been thought-provoking
journalism rather than cheap sensationalism. But, then, I'm not Phil
... :^)
Steve
|
| 428.13 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Thu May 06 1993 13:18 | 16 |
|
> What I would have hoped for would have been thought-provoking
> journalism rather than cheap sensationalism. But, then, I'm not Phil
> ... :^)
But that is what keeps him on the air (that's why he wants to air
a real live execution!).
I was impressed that the ladies did not allow that to happen no
matter how hard he tried, but they put him straight every time.
For the most part, I thought this particular try of his showed what
a real jerk he is.
Charles
|
| 428.14 | | BLUMON::QUAYLE | my cup runneth amuck | Fri May 07 1993 09:12 | 28 |
| There will always be some who attack the Church, I suppose. To me, the
worst thing about this whole uproar is the knowledge that some sisters
(and brothers) have broken their sacred covenants. The implications are
eternal. My sorrow is for them, more than non-members who have not,
yet :) made these promises.
Reminds me of the frequent occasions when my non-member former
husband would say, very accusingly (from the depths of the Baptist
and Methodist teachings of his youth, I'm sure), "You think I'm a
sinner because I *drink!"
* alcohol
Summoning up as much patience as I could muster, I would reply, "No, I
don't. If *I* take a drink, it's a sin - not because of the alcohol but
because I promised the Lord I would not drink." (Finally one evening,
he slurred the same old accusation, but I varied my response, "I don't
think you're a sinner because you drink. I think you're stupid because
you drink." I believe, I mentioned that he is my former husband -
no wonder, hitched to an old meanie like me! ;)
Actually, the whole sorry situation has caused me to think a great deal
about the covenants I made, and to consider how fully I strive, or
don't, to honor them.
aq
|
| 428.15 | | ECADSR::SHERMAN | Steve ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 MLO5-2/26a | Fri May 07 1993 12:06 | 7 |
| re: -.1
Wow. That's a tough situation! I'd probably have reacted the same
way. Losing you was his loss. My guess is he probably doesn't even
realize yet how much of a loss it was.
Steve
|
| 428.16 | Godmakers is still around. | TEMPE::LENF | Len F. Winmill @TFO, DTN 566-4783 | Fri May 07 1993 16:29 | 35 |
| re .3 Godmakers.
There is some very significant and organized efforts to discredit the
LDS Church out here in AZ.
A couple of years ago I listened to the local "Christian" radio station
on a regular basis. Then one time I heard them advertizing that anyone
who wished to see Godmakers could just call the station. That they
would readily lend out video cassettes of versions 1 2 or 3 of this
show. (I didn't even know there were so many versions). I sent them a
letter suggesting that in an area where such a great percentage of the
potential listening audience is LDS, that I would appreciate them not
taking a direct shot like that at us. But that since we both seek to
know the Savior they should accept us as friends and allow the Lord to
lead us each to the truth, whether that be more "Mormon" like or more
Their way.
I got a very polite but specific reply saying that their mission was to
enlighten people as to the dangers of "Cults" and that the LDS Church
is a cult. As evidence to this they enclosed a pamphlet from the Moody
Bible Society that defined some basic tenants of some of the major
"Cults" one of which was the LDS Church.
This saddened me a lot, since I personally feel there is a lot to be
gained by increasing friendship between various denominations. But it
also made me feel that I must boycott that station. (I don't suppose
that my not listening has hurt their ratings very much).
The point is that there is indeed still plenty of people that in their
own beliefs are being righteous in putting down the "Mormons".
Your brother,
Len
|
| 428.17 | A few (well maybe a lot of) thoughts on subject | SUOSW3::WILLOUGHBY | FRANKly speaking | Mon May 10 1993 05:26 | 188 |
| FWIW, I posted a note in the LDS-L mailing list about my feelings about
anti-mormon films on 2-APR-1993. I'll post it here as I think it is
relevant to the current discussion.
*** LENGTH ALERT ***
The following note is a little long (@188 lines), but please read this.
I think the topic is important enough to warrant the length (which is
mostly due to quoting enough of the scriptures so that the context
remains intact).
Just a few thoughts about the films "Mormon Dilemma" & the "Godmakers I & II"
To be honest, I have a problem with this. I think it is _morally & ethically_
wrong to put down other churches - particularly publicly. While I will admit,
that I have not seen the films, from what I have heard & read (those who have
seen them, please correct me), they are trying to ridicule our church & those
things which we hold sacred - particular sacred ordinances which occur in the
temple. It is my understanding that many of our sacred ordinances are
mis-represented & taken out of context badly enough that they allow the viewer
who has no understanding of what our Church is *really* about only one possible,
conclusion - our Church is some sort of cult that has nothing to do with
Christianity.
To set the record straight for those non-members who may be on the list, I
would like to emphasize that we *are* a Christian religion. We have the same
organization & ordinances as were present in Christ's original Church. We
would have to - particularly since our Church is Christ's Church & was restored
by Him (personally).
Getting back to the issue of the films. I sincerely believe that no one has
the right to condemn or publicly ridicule or distribute disinformation about
other Churches. Those who do this (such as the makers of the Godmakers series)
are NOT following the teachings of the bible & discredit themselves in the
process). One particular passage that comes to mind is ACTS 5:38,39 (29-42).
For those who don't happen their bibles handly, I'll quote ACTS 5:29-42 from
the KJV. Verses 37,38 are particularly important.
ACT 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey
God rather than men.
ACT 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a
tree.
ACT 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a
Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
ACT 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy
Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
ACT 5:33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to
slay them.
ACT 5:34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a
doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put
the apostles forth a little space;
ACT 5:35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye
intend to do as touching these men.
ACT 5:36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be
somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who
was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to
nought.
ACT 5:37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing,
and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as
obeyed him, were dispersed.
================================================================================
ACT 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone:
for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
ACT 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found
even to fight against God.
================================================================================
ACT 5:40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and
beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus,
and let them go.
ACT 5:41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that
they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.
ACT 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach
and preach Jesus Christ.
Let's read verses 38,39 one more time (for emphasis)..
================================================================================
ACT 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone:
for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
ACT 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found
even to fight against God.
================================================================================
It would behoove ALL of us to refrain from putting down other churches.
If the church is NOT God's Church, it will never succeed (sort of a problem
which takes care of itself). If the Church IS God's Church, then NOTHING
that you do will stop it. Those who (unknowingly or not) put down (or
fight against) God's Church will find themselves in opposition to God.
This is not exactly a particularly prudent position to be in.
Any church or organization which puts down (particularly publicly) and
intentionally distorts, falsifies, misrepresents other Churches is in
direct opposition to the above verses from the Bible & discredit themselves
in the process ("by their fruits ye shall know them").
FWIW, even if the above verses weren't in the Bible, such actions would
still be in direct opposition to the doctrines of tolerance & love that
Jesus Christ taught ("Love one another").
Also, remember that a sign of Christ's True Church is that they will be
persecuted as illustrated in John 15:17-20 (17-25) which follows:
JOH 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved
you.
JOH 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for
his friends.
JOH 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
JOH 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what
his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard
of my Father I have made known unto you.
JOH 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that
ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that
whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
================================================================================
JOH 15:17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.
JOH 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
JOH 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because
ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the
world hateth you.
JOH 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater
than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if
they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
================================================================================
JOH 15:21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake,
because they know not him that sent me.
JOH 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin:
but now they have no cloak for their sin.
JOH 15:23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
JOH 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did,
they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my
Father.
JOH 15:25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that
is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
Again, it is my sincere hope and prayer that those who the sow seeds of
discord in whatever form (put down other churches, propagate dis-information,
etc) would stop this practice & get on with living the Gospel as Christ
preached it. Personally, I enjoy discussing the Gospel of Jesus Christ
with members of other Churches, & am interested in knowing what they believe
& why. I think this fosters tolerance and understanding. It also gives me
a better appreciation of His Gospel and it usually is a testimony-builder.
Best Regards,
Frank
|
| 428.18 | Look at 224.31 for additional. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Mon May 10 1993 11:03 | 0 |
| 428.19 | | ECADSR::SHERMAN | Steve ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 MLO5-2/26a | Mon May 10 1993 11:59 | 5 |
| re: .17
Nice note, Frank!
Steve
|
| 428.20 | can't blanketly accept .17 | FRETZ::HEISER | raise your voice in shouts of joy | Thu May 13 1993 12:54 | 34 |
| >Any church or organization which puts down (particularly publicly) and
>intentionally distorts, falsifies, misrepresents other Churches is in
>direct opposition to the above verses from the Bible & discredit themselves
>in the process ("by their fruits ye shall know them").
Since the LDS church considers themselves to be the one true church,
don't they do this by default? And what about the faiths that are
blatantly opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the ordinances of
the New Testament church? I think Christ was clear on this:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in
thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done
many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye
that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23
>FWIW, even if the above verses weren't in the Bible, such actions would
>still be in direct opposition to the doctrines of tolerance & love that
>Jesus Christ taught ("Love one another").
Jesus also called us to judge in Matthew 7:1-6. In condemning the
Pharisees on their self-righteous attitudes, he also said to
Christians:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls
before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again
and rend you." Matthew 7:6
You can't discern this without judging (using God's Word as your basis).
Mike
|
| 428.21 | Judge... but do it carefully. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Thu May 13 1993 13:51 | 68 |
| RE: <<< Note 428.20 by FRETZ::HEISER "raise your voice in shouts of joy" >>>
-< can't blanketly accept .17 >-
>>Any church or organization which puts down (particularly publicly) and
>>intentionally distorts, falsifies, misrepresents other Churches is in
>>direct opposition to the above verses from the Bible & discredit themselves
>>in the process ("by their fruits ye shall know them").
>
> Since the LDS church considers themselves to be the one true church,
> don't they do this by default?
Do what? Intentionally distort, falsify, or misrepresents other
Churches? Not by any active LDS member in good standing. It does
behoove that person to know the *differences* though... We do not
encourage the membership to stand on the street and do those things
like other churches do against us.
> And what about the faiths that are
> blatantly opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the ordinances of
> the New Testament church?
The reference in Matthew 7:21-23 only applies to those who *profess*
to follow him. All the rest will be taught at the proper time so
that "every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the
glory of God the Father." Philippines 2:11 (Also see verse 11 of the
quote below.)
>>FWIW, even if the above verses weren't in the Bible, such actions would
>>still be in direct opposition to the doctrines of tolerance & love that
>>Jesus Christ taught ("Love one another").
>
> Jesus also called us to judge in Matthew 7:1-6. In condemning the
> Pharisees on their self-righteous attitudes, he also said to
> Christians:
>
> You can't discern this without judging (using God's Word as your basis).
>
Let us look at Matthew 7:1-5 to see *how* to judge. John 8:1-11 is
also instrumental in determining *how* we should judge. I basically
get, from these two sources, that, first, I must not have a sin (mote)
greater than the one whom I am judging, and, second, that those who
have sins should not cast the first stone. Since Jesus Christ was
the only sinless person the world has ever seen, then the rest of us
should not be casting "stones." Paul says the following :
Romans Chapter 14
7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die,
we die unto the Lord; whether we live therefore, or die,
we are the Lord's.
9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived,
that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at
nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the
judgment seat of Christ.
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee
shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more; but
judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an
occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Let the word of Christ define a persons way of life and actions,
but they should be very careful in the way they judge.
Charles
|
| 428.22 | I'll listen to the still small voice, thank you. | QBUS::F_MUELLER | Good Tea, Nice House | Thu May 13 1993 19:36 | 17 |
| I know that we're quoting from the Bible here, but I found an
interesting verse in the D and C.
D+C 11:12 And now, verily, verily, I say unto thee, put your trust in
that Spirit which leadeth to do good- yea, to do justly, to walk
humbly, to judge righteously; and this is my Spirit.
Obviously these are wise words to live by. I always think of the verse
in the Bible that goes "Judge not, lest yea be judged......(Sorry I
don't have my Bible with me). I feel that Christ has given us the power
of the Holy Spirit to determine (judge) truth, not people. We all need
to remember that we are not any better than anyone else that has come
to this earth (except Jesus, of course ;-) ).
Take care,
Frank M.
|
| 428.23 | | BLUMON::QUAYLE | my cup runneth amuck | Fri May 14 1993 07:41 | 12 |
| I think the word judge often has negative connotations, in part because
of the scriptures quoted earlier in this string. To me, there are
(at least) two meanings: to judge as to condemn, and to judge as
to discern. We are God-like in that he has given us agency to choose
between good and evil. We may choose good *or* evil; the agency is ours.
The ability to choose implies judgment or discernment, a necessary good.
We are commanded not to judge (condemn) others, though we cannot avoid
recognizing actions and behavior, and discerning between the good and
the evil, with the help of the Holy Spirit.
aq
|
| 428.24 | What's it really say? | CSC32::S_JOHNSON | Scott Johnson CX03-2/J4 592-4251 | Fri May 14 1993 09:35 | 6 |
| Whenever anyone quotes the scripture out of the bible where Christ
condemns judging, I always remember how much this verse changes when we
look at the Joseph Smith translated version. It says something like
"Judge not unrighteously,...." or something like that.
scott
|
| 428.25 | All depends on what is being judged. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Fri May 14 1993 09:54 | 98 |
|
First of all, only God and Christ have the right to judge other people.
D&C 76:68 These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God
and Christ are the judge of all.
D&C 76:111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and
every man shall receive according to his own works, his
own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared;
D&C 137:9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works,
according to the desire of their hearts.
There are decisions we, as a person, must make and this is where the
Spirit helps us to try and make a righteous judgement.
D&C 10:37 But as you cannot always judge righteous, or as you cannot
always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say
you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all these
things known unto the world concerning the matter.
D&C 11:12 And now, verily, verily, I say unto thee, put your trust in
that Spirit which leadeth to do good--yea, to do justly, to
walk humbly, to judge righteously; and this is my Spirit.
When given the keys, or authority, a person sitting as a judge in Israel
can act on their behalf, but final judgement is still up to God and Christ.
D&C 58:17 And whoso standeth in this mission is appointed to be a
judge in Israel, like as it was in ancient days, to divide
the lands of the heritage of God unto his children.
D&C 58:18 And to judge his people by the testimony of the just, and by
the assistance of his counselors, according to the laws of
the kingdom which are given by the prophets of God.
D&C 58:19 For verily I say unto you, my law shall be kept on this land.
D&C 58:20 Let no man think he is ruler; but let God rule that judgeth,
according to the counsel of his own will, or, in other words,
him that counseleth or sitteth upon the judgment seat.
D&C 64:40 And even the bishop, who is a judge, and his counselors, if
they are not faithful in their stewardships shall be
condemned, and others shall be planted in their stead.
D&C 107:68 Wherefore, the office of a bishop is not equal unto it; for
the office of a bishop is in administering all temporal
things;
D&C 107:69 Nevertheless a bishop must be chosen from the High
Priesthood, unless he is a literal descendant of Aaron.
D&C 107:70 For unless he is a literal descendant of Aaron he cannot
hold the keys of that priesthood.
D&C 107:71 Nevertheless, a high priest, that is, after the order of
Melchizedek, may be set apart unto the ministering of
temporal things, having a knowledge of them by the Spirit
of truth;
D&C 107:72 And also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the
church, to sit in judgment upon transgressors upon testimony
as it shall be laid before him according to the laws, by the
assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen or will
choose among the elders of the church.
D&C 107:73 This is the duty of a bishop who is not a literal
descendant of Aaron, but has been ordained to the High
Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.
D&C 107:74 Thus shall he be a judge, even a common judge among the
inhabitants of Zion, or in a stake of Zion, or in any
branch of the church where he shall be set apart unto this
ministry, until the borders of Zion are enlarged and it
becomes necessary to have other bishops or judges in Zion
or elsewhere.
D&C 107:75 And inasmuch as there are other bishops appointed they shall
act in the same office.
D&C 107:76 But a literal descendant of Aaron has a legal right to the
presidency of this priesthood, to the keys of this ministry,
to act in the office of bishop independently, without
counselors, except in a case where a President of the High
Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, is tried, to
sit as a judge in Israel.
So unless a person is a bishop, they have no right to judge other people,
and even a bishop has the right only over those in his stewardship. We,
the general person without the keys to sit in judgement, must not judge
other people. Same thing Peter was told, and in addition to what Paul
said, but more forcefully, the Lord has given us this instruction :
D&C 64:9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one
another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses
standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in
him the greater sin.
D&C 64:10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it
is required to forgive all men.
D&C 64:11 And ye ought to say in your hearts--let God judge between me
and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds.
Charles
|
| 428.26 | | SALIS1::JOLMAMA | I'm either the bug or the windshield. | Tue Sep 21 1993 15:07 | 21 |
| regarding notes .16,.17, .25
Please forgive this tardy entry. I rarely enter this notes conference.
(I should do so more often. The reading is most interesting!)
On the issue of spreading discourse and disharmony between those who
hold to the tenants of orthodox Christianity and those who hold to
the tenants of the LDS Church, did not your prophet Joseph Smith state
that all other churches are apostate. And his (your) church is the only
true church?
This was clear to Smith and should be to us: at their core, LDS orthodoxy
and Christian orthodoxy are, incompatible. Both cannot be correct.
Rather than continue the charade "we are both "Chrisitian", lets be
honest with one-other, but always with love and with charity.
Let us be honest about our differences. All eternity for you and
for me depend upon this.
"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
|