Can you at least see why outsiders would see phrases and terms like I've bolded and see massive red flags? No matter how nice and kind the local missionaries are, or how great my LDS neighbours might be, when I read stuff like this I am terrified about how dysfunctional and controlling a community like that could be.  I'd certainly never allow my children to be in an environment like that. It's phrases like that that lead people to label the LDS community a cult.

In reply to Heath (msg # 893):

I'd echo hakootoko's questions.  To me "seminary" is a specialized school someone goes to to become an official church leader (e.g., priest, ordained minister, etc.), and wouldn't be something teenagers would go to.  Sounds like it means something else in an LDS context, and perhaps that's causing me some confusion?  Ditto for sunday school.  To me, sunday school is a thing people (mostly kids) go to that's less formal than adult worship, and tends to involve some manner of religious education (hence the "school" part) rather than just being worship.  Sort of sounds like you're saying for LDS folks it's more of a formal worship event, where answering a teenager's question about the church's history and current positions wouldn't be considered appropriate.  Some clarification might help.

Also, what I said in post 892 was that there were things not to be discussed in sunday school, which seems to be exactly what you're telling me.  I didn't say 'not to be discussed at all.'  The fact that it's considered a verboten topic in sunday school is sufficient to worry me, even if it's "allowed" to be discussed elsewhere.

Perhaps this is the issue at the heart of the question:  Was the teenager wrong to ask the question in sunday school, or was the teacher wrong to answer?  If you're saying it's the former, and the teacher should have just said "Shush, we're singing now, you can ask your questions later," I could understand that.  But if you're saying it's fine to ask questions in sunday school, but that teachers should avoid some topics of discussion, that makes me agree with what Doulos says, and reinforces what I was originally saying: that I get the impression many LDSers are too keen to ignore/silence/avoid discussion of some of the unpleasant aspects of their church's history. Again, it's something I really notice from the LDS folks I've had interactions with, that they understand on an intellectual level that their church is made up of fallible human beings and thus isn't perfect, but become really uncomfortable about admitting any specific instance of imperfection.  As Doulos says, that kind of "no, no, everything is fine!  No, no, don't worry about that thing you just mentioned...in fact, don't mention it again, we don't talk about that here!  Just do as we do and you'll be much happier for it!" response frightens people a bit.  It seems a bit hive-mindy or borg-y or something.  "Central leadership has determined that providing the answer to that question is not beneficial to the collective, initiate 34343.  Continue with your pre-approved lesson plan.  Further enquiries on this topic may result in disciplinary activity.  Trust and obey, initiate!"  ;)

Actually, now that I think of it, the other group that comes to mind for having a similar defensive, circle-the-wagons response to any questions about its imperfections is the scientologists.  Not putting the two on the same level of culty-ness, but they do seem to share that trait of having a lot of members who seem to get agitated and defensive when people question their chruch's past actions.  Doulos has it exactly right when he says it doesn't matter how nice and kind the mormons you meet are, it still throws up big red flags when you see these kinds of "do not question!" responses.

And I stress that it seems entirely unnecessary to me for this to be the case, because every mormon I've ever met has accepted that their church is made up of normal old human beings who sometimes make mistakes.  I've never heard any Mormon claim that their church has never made a mistake.  They don't claim perfection.  So it doesn't seem like it should be hard to just say "yeah, the church leaders back then were just people, and like all people, they sometimes got things wrong.  And one thing they got wrong back then, like so many people did at the time, was the treatment of black people.  It's unpleasant that it happened, but it did, and the best thing we can do is admit it, and learn from it so we don't repeat the mistake."  It seems like even a simple statement like that really makes a lot of mormons very uncomfortable.  And it's that discomfort, I think, rather than the fact that the LDS church suffered from the same prejudices that most of the country at the time suffered from, that makes non-LDS people wary.
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:23, Thu 24 Sept 2015.

So the LDS church announced that it was going to not accommodate children of same-sex couples.

 http://www.sltrib.com/home/316...t-fear-about-new-gay

Really doubling down on being anti-gay. I guess we'll see how that works out.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 899):

Apparently some people are leaving the church because of it: link.

I saw that too. I was wondering what the 'insider view' is. Are there any other instances of baptism being denied people due to their parents' actions?

It's been a while since I was in the LDS church, but I've never heard of it. That would kinda smack of evil being genetic.

Certainly Heath would know more than I (I'm not LDS).

The excuse I read was two-fold. (1) The couple excommunicated themselves by engaging in same-sex marriage. (2) They don't want to create strife within a family by baptizing children of parents who aren't of the faith.

The children are apparently free to join the church when they come of age. It wasn't clear to me if this was legal age, or if there was some specific age of religious consent within the church.

Makes me curious about what their position is on infant/child baptism when one parent is LDS and the other isn't, but I couldn't find that easily.

I spent more time looking into this and the most likely reason why this was done, as far as I can work it out, is simply to try and remove sympathy for gays among their members. If a child grows up in the church who has gay parents (or only one gay parent as even that rules them out - just to take this absurdity and hate to a new level), then they will likely have more tolerance and respect for those who are gay.

The best way to try and cut that cancerous viewpoint out is to marginalize their parents as outsiders and to breed discontent and mistrust among church members.  It's a pretty reprehensible decision at the end of the day and it's doing a good job of pushing away marginal members.

It seems pretty clear to me that this is in response to recent Pew studies that show the acceptance of gays by LDS members, while still low, has risen quite quickly over the past several years.

Secondarily it 'circles the wagons' in a sense. By pushing away more liberal and marginal members with a policy like this it creates a sense of distinctiveness for the church.

Thankfully if your parents are child molesters or murderers you are safe!
This message was last edited by the player at 14:42, Sat 21 Nov 2015.

Would be interested in hearing from some LDS members on the situation regarding worthiness interviews and Bishop Sam Young.

I recently read this article from NewsWeek.

https://www.newsweek.com/mormo...n-interviews-1096856

Well looks like Sam has been excommunicated.  This should go over well.

I've always found the LDS church to be extremely brand-aware.  Members criticising it is not viewed/taken well, even when they're trying to make it better.  So I'm unfortunately not too surprised by the outcome in this case.

Hi guys,

I've been absent for awhile, but I'm more of an active non-believer currently in the LDS church. I'm familiar of Sam Young movement and I'm supporter of it. I was disappointed in the church for excommunicating him.

Church's conservative position against LGBT issues is disappointing, but I understand it. I have a daughter that identifies as Bi and doesn't want to be active when she grows older. My spouse comes from a long line of very believing members of the church. I myself a convert was a very serious believer... now I'm more nuanced in my beliefs.

I cherish complexity and keep the good things that the church has to offer. There is a bad culture of righteousness that seems to be quietly dying out as the church loses strength and fervor it once had.

I'm hoping that the church will adapt and change to embrace more inclusiveness and develop more theologies that are more accepting of diversity of belief. I would much rather claim that we are trying to contribute to Christ's one only true and living church rather claiming to be the one and only true church.

I have a hard time believing the traditional truth claims, but I can understand why we still cling to them. I think the LDS church is a copy of Christianity. It mirror the myth creation upon which Christ was resurrected which is the greatest story of faith of all times.

There is something sweet about belief that brings real psychological comfort, kind of what thinking that you are going to win the lottery ticket does.

I suppose some may have said I've lost my testimony regarding Christ restored church, I like to think that I have grown beyond the constraints of my indoctrination and have emancipated to the point that I chose what I believe and sometimes I wear my Gnostic/Theist hat and other times I wear my Agnostic/Atheist one.

In any case I'm pretty sure we are all just kind of like the blind leading the blind here. It's fun to feel things out and try to understand each other's perspectives.

Nice post, Deg.  It's nice to see people's view evolving over time to be more inclusive and less rigid.  It restored a bit of my faith in humanity, and these days, I can really use that!

Baby steps by the LDS church regarding the LGBT community. Still appalling, but any improvement will be noted. As church growth continues to slow I suspect these types of small moves towards more humane treatment of the LGBT community to continue.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org...p-session-april-2019

In reply to Doulos (msg # 910):

Indeed, every improvement is good to see.  I also agree that we're likely to see more of them as time goes on.

One of the strengths that the LDS church purported to have when I joined was that the gospel was the same wherever you go. While this might bear out among certain groups, some local LDS bishops hold deeply anti-LGBTQ views. I'm not pointing fingers, but here in the deep south we've got a ways to go and the Mormon church isn't helping.

In reply to TheMonk (msg # 912):

Yeah, I expect that can very much be true as well.  I don't expect the LDS church will ever really lead the charge on LGBTQ rights, but it seems good to see (at least part of) the church starting to move slowly in the right direction.  Hopefully you'll start seeing that filter out to your area sooner rather than later.

I'll not get my hopes up, but that's not a reflection on the LDS church.

The Sam Young issue is about a church leader in open rebellion against a church position. You can't both claim to be a church leader and be in open rebellion. He should have resigned his position, not used his position as a "bishop" to support his cause, and then made his case. People who don't know how leadership works might mistake him for speaking on behalf of the church; he's abusing his authority by speaking in open rebellion against a practice which he himself was asked to participate in.

And since sexual purity is part of the worthiness process for entering the temple and receiving certain church rites, people who don't want to be asked those questions should not be going to those interviews. Although it references "children," typically questions like the ones asked are just asked for those who are older--maybe 16 and older or so. For younger children (12-15), simple questions are asked. So this whole incident is way overblown. It's about a rebellious leader who wanted to make a political statement in open opposition (i.e., publicly and in the media) to the church he was a leader in, rather than taking appropriate channels for his concerns. You can't have it both ways.

I personally know two young couples who left the LDS church due to the Sam Young situation. They took the side of vulnerable kids over religious doctrine.

https://protectldschildren.org/see-the-stories/

In reply to Heath (msg # 915):

I have to say, this sounds like rationalizing to me, Heath.  Plenty of people you consider leaders (e.g., Jesus, Joseph Smith) "rebelled" against the leaders of their religion at the time.  Opposing your bosses when you feel they're doing wrong is part of being a leader, I would argue.

Out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about Catholics who speak out about sexual abuse by priests?  For example, if a bishop told one priest not to tell anyone about another priest's abuses, do you feel the first priest would have to resign if they were going to do the right thing and not keep that a secret?

If I recall correctly, you're an LDS bishop, yes?  If someone in church leadership tells you to do something you know to be wrong, will you keep quiet?  I'd like to think you'd have the courage to stand up for what you believe, even if people above you in an org chart told you to keep quiet.

I'm not a bishop. The correct thing for this guy to do would have been to resign his bishop position and take his position up privately instead of going in open rebellion. For example, if you are a military leader and you defy orders and rise up against your leadership, you can't expect to be kept in your position of defying orders. There is a chain of command.

And it is kind of a cop out to say that this in any way hurts young people. I've been through the system. It is there to help "vulnerable" kids who are often going through confusing times. And it may only be once a year or when the child wants to talk. It is counseling, the same as if you go to a confessional or a psychologist. Nothing about it is traumatic, abusive or harmful to children. Just the opposite.

I think this is the situation of people who don't know what they are talking about wanting to make something innocent into something nefarious.

I fear this is one of those cases where I'm just not going to be able to really grasp your point of view, due to the "pillars of morality" thing, where conservatives just care much more than liberals about loyalty to "superiors" and heirarchy.  I can know at a rational level that you really care about it, but I just can't "get it."  That anyone would, after hearing it pointed out that children are being sexually abused, say "the important thing here is that we don't let the church look bad, and the next most important thing is that we do what we're told" is just so foreign to me that I really don't know how to really even discuss it.

I can argue that the church is doing far more harm to its reputation by the way it's reacting to this guy than the guys is doing, but its not going to matter to anyone who thinks questioning authority is a bigger problem than sexual abuse of children.  And at the end of the day, I'm not super invested in whether this guy gets un-excommunicated or not.  On the one hand, I don't want him to be punished for doing the right thing.  On the other, perhaps he does more good out of the church than in.  Anyway, like I say, I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on this one--I simply don't see obeying orders and doing what you're told as a moral good the way that you seem to.


In other LDS news, I noticed yesterday that BYU changed its honor code to remove a ban on homosexual behavior.  This seems like a pretty big deal, considering how many Mormon students go to BYU.  The last paragraph really summed it up for me:

You're right, I don't know as much as Sam Young, or my friends, who were all lifelong members of the LDS church and could no longer stomach what they felt was a dangerous situation for vulnerable young people.