They Don’t Believe In Mormonism

That is also how things look to me – from my outsider stance.

I think (rank and file) Mormons are (like many other self-identified Christians, especially liberals) often prone to the typically modern over-/exclusive- emphasis on the virtues of kindness and humility (interpreted as refusal to judge) at the cost of other virtues such as prudence.

This distortion (bringing Christianity more in-line with secular values) was noted and critiqued by CS Lewis, so it seems to have been a problem among Christians for a few generations. It makes Christians gullible and weak, and opens the church to entryism and fifth column subversion.

Even worse, it can be fundamentally dishonest – and people may use public protestations of non-judgmentalism into a moral advertisement, to aggrandize themselves.

Of course, the danger is to avoid using judgement and the need for toughness as a excuse for hatred and spite; but danger is not avoided by over-emphasis and one-sided condemnation.

It is just as bad to avoid judgement (which in fact is itself simply a covert form of judgement) as it is to misuse judgement.

KK’s mentor and off-stage partner in the founding of OW has been Nadine Hansen, admitted apostate; virulent and bitter. If you do even a cursory search of NH’s online activity, it’s obvious where she stands. NH is/was the real power behind OW leadership.

Thanks, Bookslinger, I didn’t know about that. It appears that Hansen actually participated in the public persecution of Mormons after the passage of Prop 8:

http://ballotpedia.org/Boycotts_related_to_California_Proposition_8#Focus_on_Mormons

The fact that Kelly had such a woman submit an brief in her excommunication proceedings suggests that she had no intention of actually staying in the Church.

“Give Women the Priesthood Or I Swear I’m Going to Hurt Myself And It Will Be Your Fault.”

An uncannily accurate parody, Matthias. We may have to agree to disagree about whether it is possible (or wise, even if it is possible) to attempt to divine the strength of another’s testimony or intent (unless stewardship compels us to do so).

But that aside, from where I sat, it seemed increasingly to me as time went on that Kate was more interested in attention than in dialogue. I do think there were (are? is it still a thing?) a lot of sincere members of OW, and it would have been nice if things could have been handled in a way that reconciliation could have been more likely, but ultimately, you can’t reconcile with somebody who isn’t open to it.

The GC no vote was a non-event. I don’t have a problem with somebody voting no if it’s a sincere objection, and the conference center is a big place, so in that case, you might need to yell to make sure that the person conducting noted your vote, but these guys never seemed sincere to me.

JKC,

I think the OW no-voters were quite sincere. They were indicating, quite sincerely, that they did not sustain President Monson.

My problem is that their reason for not sustaining President Monson, sincere as it was, put them out of harmony with the Church.

Maybe. I don’t claim to have any special insight into their inward thoughts. But my sense, from reading a few things written by those that were trying to organize a large no vote was that they were more interested in attention than in actually expressing their vote as part of the sustaining process. That struck me as insincere.

I get where you are coming from, Vader, but I hesitate to go so far as to imply that voting no puts somebody out of harmony with the church. It is possible to disagree in good faith with a particular proposed sustaining, and to accept the outcome of the sustaining vote and support the newly sustained leader, I think, without being out of harmony with the church. I don’t think we should condemn the act of voting no, even if for reasons that we disagree with, as long as it is done in good faith.

Of course, that may not happen very often.

I don’t think you need worry about questioning someones testament here.

You have a situation where someone said the leadership of the church is wrong about the truth of the issue, so even if the leadership compromised it would essentially undermine their authority (i.e. the person would lose faith anyway, and think they should just push the church in whatever direction the wind blows).

JKC, but we _do_ have to judge, every time we listen to someone, or read something they write. We have to decide to beleve them, disbelieve them, or suspend disbelief.

Or as Epictetus put it, to approach/emulate them, or to avoid them.

There are wolves in sheep clothing in the church. KK and John Dehlin were such. JD is a crap weasel who claimed to keep people in the church while at the same time he was inching them towards the door. he stopped believing the truth claims of the church before he started his online efforts, but couched his public statements in a way to make peope think he still believed.

Some of the popular long time LDS blogs, one where Adam blogged, are also populated by people who dont believe the baisc truth claims of the church, or at least nuance them away so as to effectively disbelieve.

yet they put themselves forth as being in the mainstram of the church in order to get unsuspecting people to buy into their heterodoxies bit by bit.

It was month or years before I saw the trend-line of certain players, and realized “Heyyyyy,…. Wait a minute.” They were actually promoting doubts and quenching faith instead of building up faith in others. Instead of _answering doubts_ with doctrine, scripture, encouragement, positive personal experiences, or correct history, they were literally _promoting doubt_.

So yeah, when people like KK or JD or certain players at T&S or BCC say things publicly, it is very important to know if those speakers actually believe the foundational truth claims of the church. Was Joseph Smith a true prophet, with authority from God to do and say what he did? Did a resurrected Moroni actually give him plates? is the BoM what it claims to be? is Thomas Monson the rightful holder of Joseph Smith’s seat?

I have every right to demand the answers to those questions of people who want to influence me with their words, in terms of church doctrine, history, or as to what they say I should believe and do in the here and now.

And in regards to the answers to those questions, her actions of public protest, and public disagreement with the prophet spoke much louder than KK’s claims to be a “faithful” Mormon.

I think that “you shouldn’t question another person’s testimony” is good rule of manners and comity, but would make a bad universal commandment. By analogy, it’s boorish to question the patriotism of someone who supports/opposes a particular political policy, but it’s downright imperative to question the patriotism of, say, Robert Hanssen or the Rosenbergs.

I actually agree with JKC that there were many faithful Mormons who were part of the OW movement, which is precisely why I think it’s important to point out the leaders’ mendacity. Just imagine, for example, if Kate Kelly had said, during her very first press conferences, that she doesn’t really believe that Thomas S. Monson has any special connection with divine revelation, or that she doesn’t believe that Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon. What happens to her movement? I say it would never get off the ground. Because who would take seriously Kelly’s claim that women’s ordination is consistent with Mormon doctrine when she doesn’t even believe in said doctrine? Without a sincere testimony in the restored gospel, Kelly would have nothing but sophistry on her side. And a substantial number of her followers, those who do have a sincere testimony, would have known they were being led astray.

Mormons are trusting people, because our trust has been so frequently rewarded by the good deeds of our brothers and sisters. But that makes us a frequent target for scammers and charlatans. Some serpentine wisdom is in order.

@BS and MC – Well Said Both – and much needed saying.

The incremental process reminds me of the sordid business by which perverts ‘groom’ their victims.

Those last two comments by Books and MC were the high point of the thread.

The debate between “judge not that ye be not judged” and “but we have to judge everyday.” has been pretty played out and I don’t think there’s much to be gained by retreading old ground on that point. Suffice it to say that there are good points on both sides, and being wise ans serpents certainly involves a certain level of judgment and discretion. I personally think, though, that we are called upon to judge the message, not the heart or intent of the messenger. Somebody may have a testimony and still promote a destructive message. I think there was enough wrong with the message and the actions of OW that that was sufficient to reject the message without needing to get into judging whether Kate believes in the restoration as she claimed to. But like I said, we may just need to agree to disagree on that point.

That said, while we can’t know for sure her inner thoughts and intent, from where I sit it sure doesn’t look like the actions of somebody who believes in the restoration the way I do.

@JKC – While I understand your point that a rush to judgement may serve as an excuse for hatred and spite; what you are advocating comes close to self-inflicted autism.

Humans are supposed (indeed evolved!) to infer the motivations and intentions of others, and if we refuse to do this (or censor and deny our own spontaneous tendency to do it) we have made ourselves socially-impaired – perhaps socially incompetent; and vulnerable to exploitation and abuse of many kinds.

Also, given that this ‘theory of mind’ is built-into all normal humans, it can almost amount to dishonesty (ie. a refusal to acknowledge reality, a denial of the truth) to suppress this vital type of information.

In sum, I think it is not just a matter of opinion, but actively harmful to advocate non-judgment.

On the other hand, we must try to ensure that negative judgment of someone is not poisoned by wicked motivations such as Schadenfreude (and indeed, the reverse: to try and ensure that positive judgment is not a mask for covert destructiveness or indifference or suchlike); and we should always try to be open (and willing) to revise that judgment on the basis of further or more reliable evidence.

You might have misunderstood me, Bruce, if you think that’s what I’m advocating.

I agree with you that at times we have to make provisional inferences on what somebody’s motivations appear to be, in order to decide how we will respond to the message, but we should be honest with ourselves that that’s what we are doing, making inferences of what things appear to be, that may be incorrect, for the purposes of formulating our own responses, not for the purpose of actually determining facts.

We may be evolved to judge, but we are also evolved to fight and act selfishly. Jesus expects more of us, and calls us to deny our natural tendencies.

“On the other hand, we must try to ensure that negative judgment of someone is not poisoned by wicked motivations such as Schadenfreude (and indeed, the reverse: to try and ensure that positive judgment is not a mask for covert destructiveness or indifference or suchlike); and we should always try to be open (and willing) to revise that judgment on the basis of further or more reliable evidence.”

That’s exactly my point. It’s not an easy balance to strike. If I had to err, I would rather err on the side of compassion, but I don’t want to err, I want to strike that balance precisely.

I think we have a great deal of agreement and mutual understanding here. Still, though, if I could quibble about this

“I personally think, though, that we are called upon to judge the message, not the heart or intent of the messenger. Somebody may have a testimony and still promote a destructive message.”

I would quibble that under mortal conditions we rarely have enough information to judge the message and the messenger separately. Knowledge of the messenger always encodes important information about the message. Indeed, I think one could make an argument that in the gospel the message is only an aspect of the messenger, and that one of the most pernicious features of classical liberalism is reversing this truth.

“we rarely have enough information to judge the message and the messenger separately. Knowledge of the messenger always encodes important information about the message”

That’s a fair point. And if I could counter-quibble, I would only say making provisional inferences about the messenger to the extent necessary to judge the message, rarely, if ever, requires us to make a determination of the inner belief or righteousness of a person, for precisely the reason you identify: under normal mortal conditions we simply don’t have access to the kind of information necessary to make that kind of determination. The Lord is able to look on the heart, but we are limited to looking on the outward appearance.

In short, we shouldn’t let ourselves be paralyzed by refusal to judge, but we should also have the humility to know when to say that we just don’t have enough information, and to be okay not knowing.

@JKC – The disagreement seems to be small indeed! I hope I am not just nit picking. But perhaps it still remains?

When you say “I would rather err on the side of compassion” that may indeed be advisable for you personally due to your natural constitution (and probably this would apply to me, personally, as well, as a compensation) – but other people, and perhaps this is the norm nowadays – err on the side of unbalanced and excessive compassion. If *they* adopted the practice of adding further compassion to this innate tendency toward excess, they would be doing more harm than good.

The very fact that it sounds shocking to say that someone has ‘too much compassion’ is evidence of our modern (primarily secular) tendency to over-emphasize what is, after all, only one of several virtues – and all virtues, even compassion, turn to evil when they are pursued to excess or without balance.

So I would have to reject *as a general statement* even what sounds like the modest assertion of erring on the side of compassion!

Especially here-and-now, in this culture – especially among the ruling elites, even this would probably result in more harm than good if adopted as a general maxim.

!

*specially among the ruling elites*

This is key, of course. For those who are in authority, compassion to one can be cruelty to many.

Indeed. Elite compassion for sinners caught in the trap of same-sex attraction is about to become cruelty to Christians defending Christian marriage.

The Catholic priest pedophile/ephebophile scandals are an example. The hierarchs thought they were being compassionate to the priests by giving them more chances and not exposing them to the world.

A tip o’ the hat to Michelle Malkin as my source for the “crap weasel” phrase.

Just one bit of correction.

You claim to have known excommunicated Mormons who paid tithing. That is not possible, since the church does not accept tithing from excommunicants.

MB: the donation recording software may now be sophisticated enough to prevent that. But prior versions were not so sophisticated as to prevent it if the clerks were unaware or the donor’s status or of church policy. The system is, or at least was recently , set up to accept non-tithing contributions from non-members.

You are correct in that excommunicants are not _supposed_ to pay tithing.

Thanks, Mark, I’ve corrected that. The “tithing” part was based on a particular individual I knew, but I must have misunderstood the situation or been misinformed.

Bruce, I was speaking for myself. I know my own natural man self well enough to know that if I start justifying myself in judging the inner righteousness of a person, it will quickly become difficult for me to distinguish between what is truly justified and what is me rationalizing my own tendency to judge. For me, vigilance is absolutely necessary. I have no problem with making provisional judgments on what things appear to be, but I have learned by sad experience that I have to be vigilant to remind myself of the beams in my own eyes, otherwise I would quickly fall into self-righteousness, and from there, bitterness, anger, and fear.

But I am speaking only for myself. You are probably right that there are people out there for which such an attitude could be detrimental. As for what is recommended as a general rule, I don’t know. I can only speak for myself.

@MC, You may be channeling an episode from The Miracle of Forgiveness where a man tells the high council that he has been giving his tithing to his mother to pay because he didn’t feel like it was his to keep.

Welp…

http://www.standard.net/State/2015/09/17/Utah-Planned-Parenthood-hires-Ex-Ordain-Women-leader-Kate-Kelly.html