I AM SICK OF THE CHURCH BLAMING EVERYONE ELSE! (insert row of angry emojis here)

[NOWmormon]

The new Ensign article about Doubt says doubt comes from Satan.
-
Seriously? So if I doubt something in the church, it is because Satan has gotten into my heart and my mind? (per the article)
-
For almost two centuries now, the church has hidden truths, twisted facts, distorted numbers, changed stories and perpetuated “carefully worded statements”.
-
Not to mention that
-Yesterday’s revelation is today’s renouncement
-Yesterday’s “anti” is today’s essay
-Yesterday’s “literal translation” is today’s “inspired translation”
-

The church has only itself to blame for the creation of doubts.
-

Link to article:
https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/06/over ... t?lang=eng

And what continues to be infuriating, is the church's hypocritical teachings like:
"Study it out in your mind"
and "The glory of God is intelligence"
and everything good comes from God, everything bad comes from Satan.
I say hypocritical, because if you come to the right conclusion, it is from God;
If you come to the wrong conclusion, then it comes from Satan, and you must not be doing something right and it is your own fault, and as such, you receive the blame.

So to recap, if it's good, it is from God.
If it's bad, it's your fault.
When the church teaches this, it gives TBM's license to judge others the same way (while at the same time the TSCC teaches not to judge--again hypocritical---do as I say, not as I do kind of thing).

And just so TBMs can understand this, I will rephrase this in a Chiasmus pattern, so I cannot be trapped in a carefully worded statement:
If it is bad, it comes from Satan,
If it is good, it comes from God,
And the glory of God is intelligence.
If you are not intelligent,
there is no glory of God,
And it is not good,
So it comes from Satan,
and it is bad.

[Not Buying It]

What an unhelpful article: doubt is like a fungus, my wife and I got robbed one time making tortillas, two guys refused to renounce their faith and got,executed, so don't doubt. Man, that article was all over the place. Elder Montoya had a little trouble sticking to his topic.

Of course, that may be because he didn't have any good arguments for why we shouldn't doubt.

[Culper Jr.]

They never answer the concerns that are causing people to doubt. If faith is the evidence of things not seen, and the evidence is found to be lies, where does that leave my faith? Every article and talk the church releases about doubts treats them like some kind of arbitrary disease or temptation that we allow into our lives, and the cure is blind faith that ignores verifiable facts. No answers to questions, no acknowledgement that there provable problems with church history and doctrine. My doubts stem from the church's lies. And yes, they are lies; willfully misleading and withholding information to make someone see doctrine and historical events as something different that what they really are is lying. I have a doubt problem as long as the church has a truth problem; I am the victim and the church is the perpetrator.

[Give It Time]

The way to overcome the danger of doubt is to solve the problem.

My reasons for doubt are because of DV. I recently told a bishop a story of clear, inexcusable abuse my now x did. He did it to the first child when he was a baby, then two years later, he did it to the second. Except, when he did it to the second, he was a little worse. It was a life threatening thing he did.

Now, someone with an innocent, trusting frame of mind who believed we should have as many children as possible could put this concern on a shelf and "have faith" and have​ another child. I'll be honest. Instead of leaving the SOB, like I should have, I stayed to make my eternal marriage work, I actually considered a third child. In hindsight, at this moment, I think a large part of this consideration was social pressure. How would I explain my small family? I did eventually meet a woman who would obsess over small families and wonder what was behind the decision. President Monson was a favorite target of speculation. Anyway, I stopped at two.

I told my bishop my story and he could see the clear, inexcusable abuse. Even if it was written off as stress, my ex had two years to figure out a better way to handle it. My bishop could see that "having faith" in such a situation only gives an abuser time and opportunity to escalate.

I realize this is about religion and not marriage, but marriage is such a huge part of our religion and people, so often, are told to have faith regarding their marriages, that I believe the application of the term here is valid. The solution to abuse is not faith. The solution to abuse is taking clear action. It will vary from case to case, but the solution is action. Always. This is one of the reasons I say the "that's just some bishops" should be an absolutely inexcusable statement in a church that says it doesn't tolerate abuse in any form. That statement shouldn't be tolerated and it shouldn't be tolerated as long as it has been. There needs to be training. There needs to be checks, balances, ways to investigate and report. If an admitted abuser's temple recommend is signed off by a member of the stake presidency, the victim of the abuse has no one to report to. This auditor/investigator needs to be independent, outside the chain of command, nothing to lose for reporting the truth.

Those are my views on doubt and faith. I still have faith. I have faith I can solve the problem and take steps to solve it. Faith, after all, is a verb.

[Not Buying It]

I am so sorry for the abuse by your ex-husband. The Church does great wrong by putting inexperienced, untrained men in positions where they can spout advice that hurts families and convincing the members to go to them with their problems. It is truly messed up.

They never answer the concerns that are causing people to doubt. If faith is the evidence of things not seen, and the evidence is found to be lies, where does that leave my faith? Every article and talk the church releases about doubts treats them like some kind of arbitrary disease or temptation that we allow into our lives, and the cure is blind faith that ignores verifiable facts. No answers to questions, no acknowledgement that there provable problems with church history and doctrine. My doubts stem from the church's lies. And yes, they are lies; willfully misleading and withholding information to make someone see doctrine and historical events as something different that what they really are is lying. I have a doubt problem as long as the church has a truth problem; I am the victim and the church is the perpetrator.

This is so very, very true. I agree completely.

[Caligurl2012]

Bill Reel in his episode #268 (Spirtual Trauma in Mormonism) termed what we want thru in Mormonism as "spiritual abuse". I love that term because it describes better what we went/are going thru.

I think it's one of Bills best episodes - thanks Bill!!!!

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/

[Hagoth]

Internet sites can generate doubt by presenting information out of context.

It's kind of sadly ironic that Elder Montoya fails to realize that this article is published on such a site.

I would like to ask him how the tortilla story would be any different if it had happened to a Jehovah's Witness. Would the man have been killed? Would the daughter have needed to be rushed to the hospital with a stomach ailment? Would the community have not come to his aid?

I really dislike the fungus analogy. It's one of those black-and-white techniques that says everyone else's thoughts are wrong if they don't think just like me. It would work just as well for a nonbeliever as an example of how magical thinking rots your critical thinking skills. I would prefer a story about how keeping a young tree in darkness stunts its growth.

I was also entertained by the way the justice system works in Mexico, according to this story. Apparently the method of dealing with armed robbery and grand theft auto is exactly the same as the American punishment for hitting a baseball though your neighbor's window. Your mom drags you over to apologize and then everything's ok.

[Give It Time]

Thanks , NBI. I'm glad I presently have a supportive bishop. I have to tell you. It makes a huge difference.

[Give It Time]

Confessing to having read the article, now.

Still stand by what I said, earlier. In fact, the Texas Root Rot story is a perfect metaphor for verbal abuse. Perfect.

Just throwing this out there. How his HTs helped him the morning after the robbery, is the best of us and I'm glad he got assistance in that situation.

[NOWmormon]

Bill Reel in his episode #268 (Spirtual Trauma in Mormonism) termed what we want thru in Mormonism as "spiritual abuse". I love that term because it describes better what we went/are going thru.

I think it's one of Bills best episodes - thanks Bill!!!!

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/

Spiritual abuse.
I like that.
That is why I consider myself a NOWmormon (Neglected Or Wounded Mormon)

[NOWmormon]

I am so sorry for the abuse by your ex-husband. The Church does great wrong by putting inexperienced, untrained men in positions where they can spout advice that hurts families and convincing the members to go to them with their problems. It is truly messed up.

They never answer the concerns that are causing people to doubt. If faith is the evidence of things not seen, and the evidence is found to be lies, where does that leave my faith? Every article and talk the church releases about doubts treats them like some kind of arbitrary disease or temptation that we allow into our lives, and the cure is blind faith that ignores verifiable facts. No answers to questions, no acknowledgement that there provable problems with church history and doctrine. My doubts stem from the church's lies. And yes, they are lies; willfully misleading and withholding information to make someone see doctrine and historical events as something different that what they really are is lying. I have a doubt problem as long as the church has a truth problem; I am the victim and the church is the perpetrator.

This is so very, very true. I agree completely.

Agreed -to everything above:
Also, more training of local church leadership needs to happen yesterday.
I have a son with Autism, and we were having severe issues with him.
At church he would go into rages, and even started removing all of his clothes in primary.
We approached our Bishop for any help or ideas or resources he could offer.
His response?---Hmmm....I want to give you a Calling.

[Hagoth]

I just listened to Bill's podcast. Wow.

Yesterday after GD class I was talking to Mrs. Hagoth about some of the things that the lesson got seriously wrong or failed to mention. As usual she said, "why didn't you raise your hand and say something?" That is always a very difficult question for me to understand and answer. It's kind of like asking the mouse why he didn't go for the cheese in that funny looking contraption. I usually say that I'm too shy or that no one wants to hear it, but the very real shock that boils up to the surface every time I come SO close to speaking up has always been a mystery to me. I would never have thought to label it trauma but Bill helped me realize that is the appropriate name for it.

[vankimber]

So the church excoriates doubt, and at the same time has missionaries worldwide seeking to instill it in people of other religions. How can you not doubt a church that is so at odds with itself?

[deacon blues]

Sounds like Elder Montoya is saying there's a fungus among us.

[deacon blues]

Check this out. www.marydemuth.com/spiritual-abuse-10-ways-to-spot-it/

[Grace2Daisy]

There needs to be training. There needs to be checks, balances, ways to investigate and report. If an admitted abuser's temple recommend is signed off by a member of the stake presidency, the victim of the abuse has no one to report to. This auditor/investigator needs to be independent, outside the chain of command, nothing to lose for reporting the truth.

GIT, I could not agree more with your thoughts. No doubt you have read my posts regarding my feelings toward calling young bishops with little experience, and the harm that occurs. As I have mentioned, the major part of my 14 years on the HC was training bishops, and I quickly realized how frustrating it was.

When we stepped away (soft term for stopped attending or participating) from the LDS church we began searching for something else. Down the street from us there was a beautifully old Episcopal chapel, so out of curiosity we attended a service. Having been a BIC I was taken back by the beauty of the Sacrament, the sermon the Priest / Rector (LDS equivalent to Bishop) gave. Everything from the beginning to the end of the service was about Christ.

I emailed the Priest and asked if we could meet privately with him, and we had a meeting with him in his office. During this meeting I asked what he had to go through to be in charge of this particular parish (ward). I was taken back by his response (keep in mind I was BIC and so I had no other teaching):
- The ordination process requires aspiring priests to complete a series of educational and procedural steps.
- An Episcopal priest must complete a program of seminary education leading to a Master of Divinity (M.Div.) degree.
- It requires study in the following subjects: the Bible; church history; Christian theology; Christian ethics; contemporary society, including racial and other minority groups; use of the Book of Common Prayer (the Anglican prayer book); church music and liturgy; and ministry.
- The first requirement for ordination is that aspiring priests complete a period of discernment, in which they have a series of meetings with their priest to discuss their call to the priesthood and engage in deep reflection on their decision.
- A potential Priest must undergo a full background check, medical and psychological evaluation within three years prior to ordination as a priest.
- After a minimum of six months’ candidacy, a candidate becomes eligible for ordination as a deacon, the next step toward becoming a priest.
- The Episcopal Church allows men and women, married or single, to be ordained as priests.

I am only sharing this with NOM to show the process involved in becoming a Priest (LDS Bishop) in the Episcopal Church, which is obviously quite different from how a LDS Bishop is chosen. The LDS church will never change, they do everything based on the "inspiration" given to it's leadership, with little to no training. At least a half a dozen times I had new bishops ask a SP about being trained, the Bishop would had him Handbook 1 and say, "Read it and you will know you have been trained."

[Give It Time]

There needs to be training. There needs to be checks, balances, ways to investigate and report. If an admitted abuser's temple recommend is signed off by a member of the stake presidency, the victim of the abuse has no one to report to. This auditor/investigator needs to be independent, outside the chain of command, nothing to lose for reporting the truth.

GIT, I could not agree more with your thoughts. No doubt you have read my posts regarding my feelings toward calling young bishops with little experience, and the harm that occurs. As I have mentioned, the major part of my 14 years on the HC was training bishops, and I quickly realized how frustrating it was.

When we stepped away (soft term for stopped attending or participating) from the LDS church we began searching for something else. Down the street from us there was a beautifully old Episcopal chapel, so out of curiosity we attended a service. Having been a BIC I was taken back by the beauty of the Sacrament, the sermon the Priest / Rector (LDS equivalent to Bishop) gave. Everything from the beginning to the end of the service was about Christ.

I emailed the Priest and asked if we could meet privately with him, and we had a meeting with him in his office. During this meeting I asked what he had to go through to be in charge of this particular parish (ward). I was taken back by his response (keep in mind I was BIC and so I had no other teaching):
- The ordination process requires aspiring priests to complete a series of educational and procedural steps.
- An Episcopal priest must complete a program of seminary education leading to a Master of Divinity (M.Div.) degree.
- It requires study in the following subjects: the Bible; church history; Christian theology; Christian ethics; contemporary society, including racial and other minority groups; use of the Book of Common Prayer (the Anglican prayer book); church music and liturgy; and ministry.
- The first requirement for ordination is that aspiring priests complete a period of discernment, in which they have a series of meetings with their priest to discuss their call to the priesthood and engage in deep reflection on their decision.
- A potential Priest must undergo a full background check, medical and psychological evaluation within three years prior to ordination as a priest.
- After a minimum of six months’ candidacy, a candidate becomes eligible for ordination as a deacon, the next step toward becoming a priest.
- The Episcopal Church allows men and women, married or single, to be ordained as priests.

I am only sharing this with NOM to show the process involved in becoming a Priest (LDS Bishop) in the Episcopal Church, which is obviously quite different from how a LDS Bishop is chosen. The LDS church will never change, they do everything based on the "inspiration" given to it's leadership, with little to no training. At least a half a dozen times I had new bishops ask a SP about being trained, the Bishop would had him Handbook 1 and say, "Read it and you will know you have been trained."

This is amazing to me. I won't even complain about my issues. This training shows how important the role of ecclestical leader is in other denominations. Just looking at that and it's clear, the leader of a flock is a very serious role.

[Grace2Daisy]

This is amazing to me. I won't even complain about my issues. This training shows how important the role of ecclestical leader is in other denominations. Just looking at that and it's clear, the leader of a flock is a very serious role.

Having been given the assignment to train new bishops, with really no direction, I was in shock to see how much training the Episcopal church gives to it's parish leaders, and how little the LDS church gives to it's bishops.

But being raised in the church I had no idea how it really should work. We are taught to have full faith in our leadership and the sustain them without question. That means when a young bishop is called, he will gain the mantle of the bishop which includes being president of the Aaronic Priesthood and president of the priests quorum, being a common judge in Israel, being presiding high priest, assisting in temporal matters, providing for the welfare of the members through auxiliaries and priesthood councils, and being responsible for tithes and offerings.

All of this, and more, with no training. It's no wonder they stumble, they screw up, it's no wonder issues such a turning off Savannah's microphone and asking her to sit down happens with little concern or compassion.

[2bizE]

NOWMormon,
How close are you to getting a response back from the FP about the historical deception?

[Corsair]

NOWMormon,
How close are you to getting a response back from the FP about the historical deception?

Among the long list of things where I simply don't have faith, this is one of them. Getting the First Presidency to substantively respond to inquiries like that from NOWMormon is unlikely to succeed. The FP released the essays and even put them in the app on everyone's phones. But getting an official "encyclical" on these questions is not going to happen.

I have complete sympathy for NOWMormon and his cause. But I don't see either a fiscal or demographic advantage for a conservative organization like the LDS church if they addressed these issues head on. They would have done so a long time ago if they had good answers. Instead, the LDS church has almost 200 years of short-sighted apologetics that fail to answer questions from a logical viewpoint, then cause harm on an emotional level for people simply asking the question.