Scriptures I hate and why

[Rob4Hope]

OK....so years ago I was at the University of Utah, and being a math major, took a class in analysis. I learned something about proof systems. In math there are a few: deduction, induction (piano axioms), proof by contradiction, and one that actually does get used call the "contrapositive" or proof by contraposition.

That last one I had an inkling about years early on my TBM mission, and when I finally understood it, I understood why it hurt so bad. The scriptures make no sense to me with how they are written in many cases, and it caused damage.

In contraposition, you have logic that makes total sense if you know how to apply it. (And I'm sorry to share this stuff--this is how I think. Just the way it is.)

(A => B) < = > (B' => A')

Read,...'A' implies 'B' if and only if 'B not' implies 'A not'.

A real example makes it easier. "If certain conditions exist, it will rain. AND conversely, if it's not raining, those conditions don't exist" Hopefully that makes sense.

Well, this use to get used against us all the time in the mission, and 2 particular scriptures I HATE!!!!

1 Nephi 3:7. (this one is not an exact fit with contraposition,...but you will get the idea)

The logic is like this: If you have faith, you will baptize because God has prepared the way for you. Therefore, because God has prepared a way for you to baptize and you are not, you don't have enough faith.

This next one is even more clear:

Alma 26:22 Yea, he that repenteth and exerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good works, and prayeth continually without ceasing—unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God; yea, unto such it shall be given to reveal things which never have been revealed; yea, and it shall be given unto such to bring thousands of souls to repentance, even as it has been given unto us to bring these our brethren to repentance.

If you repent, exercise faith, bring forth good works and pray continually, you will bring thousands unto repentance. BUT, if you don't bring thousands unto repentance, then you either haven't repented, had faith, brought forth good works or prayed enough.

Can you imagine what this crap can do to an idealistic youth who had complete belief? These types of approaches to the scriptures destroy.

The question that I often asked was who is wrong? I was doing everything I could, and in Australia,..hey, they don't get baptized much "down under"...you know? So, apparently, the entire mission were slackards! We ALL SUCKED! WE ALL NEEDED TO REPENT! And, in so many ways and words, the leadership communicated this as well.

It never occurred to me at the time that the BofM was a fabrication and full of trash anyway. At that time, I believed it,...and that belief hurt me.

I have since learned that thousands of missionaries still come home emotionally damaged because of guilt. So, this was not unique to my mission or me.

Anyone have some scriptures out there that just make you shudder?

[Palerider]

These "scriptures" and others that Joseph cooked up are just false doctrine. No doubt about that. That's why they create disharmony within the individual.

I really like contrasting 1 Nephi 3:7 with D&C 124:49.

Total revelation of convenience.

[deacon blues]

Anyone, if they are introspective and/or hard on themselves, could fall into the "Trap of Insufficient Faith." And they would be extra susceptible to Gaslighting. Imagine if speakers started getting up in meetings and saying, "The Brethren's lack of faith is holding back the growth of the Church" or "if only the Brethren had the faith to ask sincerely, they would get a revelation that women could hold the Priesthood." And yet they would just be reflecting a theme that Church leaders have used on "the people" since Joseph Smith.
Just outside of Jackson County Missouri (D&C 105:2) Joseph Smith gave the revelation: "Behold, I say unto you were it not for the transgressions of "my people", speaking of the church and not individuals, they might have been redeemed even now." Change the words "my people" to "your leaders", or "Joseph Smith," and the "Trap of Insufficient Faith" works just as well.

[Palerider]

Anyone, if they are introspective and/or hard on themselves, could fall into the "Trap of Insufficient Faith." And they would be extra susceptible to Gaslighting. Imagine if speakers started getting up in meetings and saying, "The Brethren's lack of faith is holding back the growth of the Church" or "if only the Brethren had the faith to ask sincerely, they would get a revelation that women could hold the Priesthood." And yet they would just be reflecting a theme that Church leaders have used on "the people" since Joseph Smith.
Just outside of Jackson County Missouri (D&C 105:2) Joseph Smith gave the revelation: "Behold, I say unto you were it not for the transgressions of "my people", speaking of the church and not individuals, they might have been redeemed even now." Change the words "my people" to "your leaders", or "Joseph Smith," and the "Trap of Insufficient Faith" works just as well.

Excellent observation.

Wonder how it would have gone over with Bednar if someone had said to him, "Maybe you're the one who lacks the faith to heal....???"

But with "Do you have the faith not to be healed", all of the fault goes back on the member. The "apostle" is completely freed from any responsibility or question of righteousness. That's a sweet deal if you can get it.

[Reuben]

The question that I often asked was who is wrong? I was doing everything I could, and in Australia,..hey, they don't get baptized much "down under"...you know? So, apparently, the entire mission were slackards! We ALL SUCKED! WE ALL NEEDED TO REPENT! And, in so many ways and words, the leadership communicated this as well.

It never occurred to me at the time that the BofM was a fabrication and full of trash anyway. At that time, I believed it,...and that belief hurt me.

I have since learned that thousands of missionaries still come home emotionally damaged because of guilt. So, this was not unique to my mission or me.

Critique of "A => B" statements can be hard for humans to do in the moment, while at the same time, those statements can be the most damaging ones for humans to be convinced of. You've already addressed the damage. I'll go for the critique angle.

Think of what happens when a believer hears "if A then B" and both A and B are true for them. (Example: They asked with sincere heart, with real intent, etc., and they received something they regard as a witness.) They count their own experience as confirming evidence, which is by far the easiest kind to accept, and make a hasty generalization. Most don't consider testing the statement using its contrapositive.

(This is totally a human thing, not just a believing Mormon thing. We all love evidence that confirms our most deeply held beliefs or validates our tribes. Most of us hate disconfirming evidence, and the prospect of testing our own beliefs when we're comfortable with them. For completeness, though, I have to say that "God said so" and fear of social consequences now and eternal consequences later makes testing a much scarier proposition.)

Later, when it comes time to apply the statement, the believer will remember the contrapositive. That rain example of yours shows that it's as natural for humans to include it in a chain of reasoning as it is to include the original statement. That's when, if the statement is false, being convinced of it can be damaging.

More modern examples: There's DHO's awful conference talk, in which he repeatedly said things to the effect of, "If you're a good Mormon, then you're against same-sex marriage." For believers, these statements are easy to accept without critique, and easy to use to mentally divide the church into good Mormons and bad ones. There's JRH's recent Facebook post, in which he said effectively, "If you have a strong marriage, then you're doing it using power from heaven." (Heck, he even said that such power is required, which emphasizes the contrapositive.) What about strong atheist marriages? Or mixed-faith ones: is the believing spouse really doing the most important work just by inviting God in?

Fortunately, research using the Wason selection task suggests that humans are perfectly willing and able to consider the contrapositive to evaluate a logical implication when 1) they're asked to evaluate the statement, and 2) the statement is a social rule. So these damaging statements meet criteria #2 already! The problem must be that the statements are regarded as off-limits. IOW, members don't test the statements, they test themselves against the statements.

I can think of a few ways out of this hot, sticky mess.

One is to make it plain that the statements should be under scrutiny. Mormons have scriptural support for this: Alma's experiment (disregarding the crap about assuming truth from the outset) and "prove all things" come to mind.

Another is one of the oldest tricks in mathematics: build and keep handy a mental library of possible counterexamples, some simple, some unintuitive, some pathological. Use the pathological and unintuitive ones to introduce healthy doubt, and the simple ones to disprove entirely.

(I haven't tried these two yet, mostly because I'm not currently in a position to be an agitator.)

Related to the last idea is to be a living counterexample in someone else's mental library. This often puts you in the a vulnerable position of forcing someone to choose between respecting you and believing the scriptures and prophets, so it's not for the faint of heart.

[moksha]

... and one that actually does get used call the "contrapositive" or proof by contraposition.

Sort of like, "If hairless then Oaks" ... "If hairy then not Oaks".

[blazerb]

I hate Alma 27:17-18. I remember a day on my mission that I wanted to toss my scripture out the window when I read it. I am being completely literal when I express that feeling. I did not want my scriptures around. I went through a lot of depression on my mission, and then I read that the truly humble and penitent get joy that overcomes their strength. Like you, Rob, I did not have the tools to deal with this. So many times in the church, this type of thing is communicated. If you are good, you will be happy. Therefore, if you are not happy you must not be good. Now I know it's crap. I am making sure my kids know it's crap. They should not have to suffer like I did.

[Reuben]

Along the same lines, Moroni 10:22 is some prime bullsh*t:

And if ye have no hope ye must needs be in despair; and despair cometh because of iniquity.

[Rob4Hope]

Along the same lines, Moroni 10:22 is some prime bullsh*t:

And if ye have no hope ye must needs be in despair; and despair cometh because of iniquity.

Oh...this one is a doozer. Yep. OUCH!

The church loves plausible deniability in every way possible. You have this scripture that condemns people in despair because, after all, they must have been in iniquity. And you have JRH giving talks on depression. Hunh?

Part of what angers me about this whole topic is it discounts the humanity and experience of people who suffered FOR THE CHURCH. I'm thinking about the misery inflicted by JS, BY and others with how they used women in polygamy. Many of those women yearned and suffered deeply, wishing for death. And this wonderful, beautiful scripture makes it clear....AH,..those women were just iniquitous. If they would JUST SUBMIT COMPLETELY TO THEIR GOD (which wasn't Jesus), then they wouldn't hurt so bad.

What a load of rot. Most correct of any book on earth?...My ass

[Rob4Hope]

The problem must be that the statements are regarded as off-limits. IOW, members don't test the statements, they test themselves against the statements.

I like how you said that here.

What is it?...mind control or something? Speaking for myself, why didn't I test the statement? Why don't members who are still in there and in misery test the statement itself?

It amazes me how I was "groomed" (and I mean that in the context of what a predator does who is grooming prey) my whole life to defer to authority. It is really amazing to me--this whole idea of correlated doctrine and authority. If I recollect correctly (from writings of Greg Prince), the biggest push for the correlated approach came from Harold B. Lee. Was that guy just a power-monger? Was he really that threatened by people who wanted to think for themselves?

Its like the whole program in the church is to create non-thinking "obedient" people who do what they are told. My GAWD,...its the whole plan of Satan!...(if i was believing which I am not, I would be alarmed).

[Palerider]

Harold B. Lee spoke to my missionary group when we went through the temple for the first time.

He was severely serious. He asked if we had any questions. As each question was started he would begin turning to the answer from the scriptures which were in the form of a giant quad on the lecturn in front of him. He would read the answer and then expound on it as necessary. The room was deathly quiet. Not many questions. You could feel the fear in the room.

If there was any humor in him it was not manifest.

I think Lee's big peeve was the free-wheeling instruction that was going on in the church at the time and that a bunch of doctrine that was unsupportable was being taught by maverick teachers.

Hence the creation of "correlation"....

[Rob4Hope]

Harold B. Lee spoke to my missionary group when we went through the temple for the first time.

He was severely serious. He asked if we had any questions. As each question was started he would begin turning to the answer from the scriptures which were in the form of a giant quad on the lecturn in front of him. He would read the answer and then expound on it as necessary. The room was deathly quiet. Not many questions. You could feel the fear in the room.

If there was any humor in him it was not manifest.

I think Lee's big peeve was the free-wheeling instruction that was going on in the church at the time and that a bunch of doctrine that was unsupportable was being taught by maverick teachers.

Hence the creation of "correlation"....

One of the things I remember from when I was small is that some of these guys made it "hard". The fun was gone. I couldn't understand how this was the gospel of joy and happiness when no one ever played, smiled, laughed or had fun.

The temple is serious business....right? This place of joy and happiness?....yeh right.

If this is happiness and heaven, I would rather be with the drinking crowd down at the pub.

[Palerider]

Harold B. Lee spoke to my missionary group when we went through the temple for the first time.

He was severely serious. He asked if we had any questions. As each question was started he would begin turning to the answer from the scriptures which were in the form of a giant quad on the lecturn in front of him. He would read the answer and then expound on it as necessary. The room was deathly quiet. Not many questions. You could feel the fear in the room.

If there was any humor in him it was not manifest.

I think Lee's big peeve was the free-wheeling instruction that was going on in the church at the time and that a bunch of doctrine that was unsupportable was being taught by maverick teachers.

Hence the creation of "correlation"....

One of the things I remember from when I was small is that some of these guys made it "hard". The fun was gone. I couldn't understand how this was the gospel of joy and happiness when no one ever played, smiled, laughed or had fun.

The temple is serious business....right? This place of joy and happiness?....yeh right.

If this is happiness and heaven, I would rather be with the drinking crowd down at the pub.

Probably doesn't happen in all cases but I have observed at times the inclination for those who have never served in the military to take on an almost militaristic air when put into positions of power. Just a thought. Probably only anecdotal.

[Rob4Hope]

Harold B. Lee spoke to my missionary group when we went through the temple for the first time.

He was severely serious. He asked if we had any questions. As each question was started he would begin turning to the answer from the scriptures which were in the form of a giant quad on the lecturn in front of him. He would read the answer and then expound on it as necessary. The room was deathly quiet. Not many questions. You could feel the fear in the room.

If there was any humor in him it was not manifest.

I think Lee's big peeve was the free-wheeling instruction that was going on in the church at the time and that a bunch of doctrine that was unsupportable was being taught by maverick teachers.

Hence the creation of "correlation"....

One of the things I remember from when I was small is that some of these guys made it "hard". The fun was gone. I couldn't understand how this was the gospel of joy and happiness when no one ever played, smiled, laughed or had fun.

The temple is serious business....right? This place of joy and happiness?....yeh right.

If this is happiness and heaven, I would rather be with the drinking crowd down at the pub.

Probably doesn't happen in all cases but I have observed at times the inclination for those who have never served in the military to take on an almost militaristic air when put into positions of power. Just a thought. Probably only anecdotal.

Its easy. HBL was a control freak. So was Bruce McConkie, and it seems like Bednar is kindof like that as well.

[mooseman]

Harold B. Lee spoke to my missionary group when we went through the temple for the first time.

He was severely serious. He asked if we had any questions. As each question was started he would begin turning to the answer from the scriptures which were in the form of a giant quad on the lecturn in front of him. He would read the answer and then expound on it as necessary. The room was deathly quiet. Not many questions. You could feel the fear in the room.

If there was any humor in him it was not manifest.

I think Lee's big peeve was the free-wheeling instruction that was going on in the church at the time and that a bunch of doctrine that was unsupportable was being taught by maverick teachers.

Hence the creation of "correlation"....

I always had understood coorelation came from an attempt to stop splitter groups from forming/recruiting at church. Teacher may be a secrect snufferite or a wanna be polygamist after all. Giving them a set lesson and boundaries means no chance to talk about lack of modern revelation, how God really is racist, blood atonement ect that could lead to the questioning od church authority. Am I the only one who thought this?

[Palerider]

Harold B. Lee spoke to my missionary group when we went through the temple for the first time.

He was severely serious. He asked if we had any questions. As each question was started he would begin turning to the answer from the scriptures which were in the form of a giant quad on the lecturn in front of him. He would read the answer and then expound on it as necessary. The room was deathly quiet. Not many questions. You could feel the fear in the room.

If there was any humor in him it was not manifest.

I think Lee's big peeve was the free-wheeling instruction that was going on in the church at the time and that a bunch of doctrine that was unsupportable was being taught by maverick teachers.

Hence the creation of "correlation"....

I always had understood coorelation came from an attempt to stop splitter groups from forming/recruiting at church. Teacher may be a secrect snufferite or a wanna be polygamist after all. Giving them a set lesson and boundaries means no chance to talk about lack of modern revelation, how God really is racist, blood atonement ect that could lead to the questioning od church authority. Am I the only one who thought this?

This could have been part of it but there's this from wiki which corresponds with how I remember it in 1973.

"Before the correlation movement, the various organizations and auxiliaries of the church, including the Relief Society, Primary, Sunday School, welfare program, genealogy programs, and the Young Men and Young Women organizations were largely under the direction of the stake or ward, and curriculum could vary from ward to ward. Formal organization of a Correlation Committee occurred in 1908. Starting in 1944,[1] the Church Publications Committee approved the content and wording of the lesson materials from each of the auxiliaries making sure that everything that was published conformed to official church doctrine.[2]

By the early 1960s, the rapid growth of the church had created administrative difficulties that needed to be addressed. Marion G. Romney gave an example of a 14-year-old boy who was invited to four swimming parties in the same week, each organized by an independent church organization.[3] David O. McKay charged the General Priesthood Committee, led by Harold B. Lee, to form committees "to correlate the instruction and curriculum of all priesthood and auxiliary organizations of the church."[4] Under Lee, correlation quickly took on a much wider scope than just the church curriculum.[5] For example, to bring priesthood correlation into the local level, Priesthood Home Teaching was introduced replacing the role formerly occupied by ward teachers. Family Home Evening was also introduced. Other innovations include the calling of regional representatives, a uniform annual report from each ward starting in 1967 and further centralization and standardization of tithing in 1970.[3] The Sunday School underwent a reorganization as well.

The changes made by Lee brought the auxiliary organizations more directly under the control of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Privately, McKay had concerns about the overreach of church correlation, referring to it as the "Super Priesthood Committee".[6] McKay's counselors, Hugh B. Brown and N. Eldon Tanner, were worried about the correlation committee taking decision making power away from the church's First Presidency.[7] However, no action was taken by McKay to change the way that Lee was running correlation."

[Rob4Hope]

The scriptures I mentioned above were part of the church's correlated program of encouraging each Compansion in the mission to baptise a convert each month. That was what I was taught. And, we all know the Lord would never direct his leaders to lead us astray--so "We will go and do the things the Lord hath commanded.....".

I believe in reaction to this problem--missionaries coming home with no baptisms and feeling like total failures, the church created this "Preach my Gospel" system to try to reign things in. NO longer is success defined by how many baptisms you have--NOW its how well you follow the mission rules.

How interesting that this comes at a time when missionaries leave the church almost as soon as they get home from their missions.

And what about my generation? Are we all failures because during our time, we were held accountable for the numbers we brought into the church?

Radio Free Mormon did that pod-cast on how the numbers are dwindling. You know, in countries like Australia, there never were any big baptism numbers in the first place, with the exception of the times "Softball Baptisms" went through the country from time to time.

[Corsair]

(A => B) < = > (B' => A')

Read,...'A' implies 'B' if and only if 'B not' implies 'A not'.

I was computer science major and also spent a lot of time on that logic.

Alma 26:22 Yea, he that repenteth and exerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good works, and prayeth continually without ceasing—unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God; yea, unto such it shall be given to reveal things which never have been revealed; yea, and it shall be given unto such to bring thousands of souls to repentance, even as it has been given unto us to bring these our brethren to repentance.

If you repent, exercise faith, bring forth good works and pray continually, you will bring thousands unto repentance. BUT, if you don't bring thousands unto repentance, then you either haven't repented, had faith, brought forth good works or prayed enough.

I had a pretty good mission along with enough baptisms to not feel like a loser. But for a time I felt some guilt over the people that I should have baptized if only I was more obedient.

Perhaps (i.e. "definitely") it's the narcissist in me, but I eventually turned this logic around. I determined that if I was living happily, then clearly God was A-OK with whatever I was doing. "Feeling the spirit" is not an exact science, after all. It did not matter what I was studying or doing as long as I could keep a legitimate smile on my face. This utilitarianism is how far too many crimes are committed, of course.

My major crime is simply keeping a "current" temple recommend (and drinking coffee) (oh yeah, not paying tithing, either). The last question of the temple recommend interview is "Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?" I can honestly, albeit humorously, answer that question with an emphatic "Yes".

[wtfluff]

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

What kind of all-powerful, omniscient, benevolent "father" (god) creates billions and billions of "kids" who are his enemy?

That's seriously the best "plan" this godly being could come up with?

Edit: And then that "father" is going to punish his kids for eternity, because they aren't good enough, when he set them up to fail in the first place?

[Rob4Hope]

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

What kind of all-powerful, omniscient, benevolent "father" (god) creates billions and billions of "kids" who are his enemy?

That's seriously the best "plan" this godly being could come up with?

Edit: And then that "father" is going to punish his kids for eternity, because they aren't good enough, when he set them up to fail in the first place?

Fluff....I have marveled at this scripture more recently than the others I mentioned above. This one is interesting because it sets up, what I consider, a false dichotomy. One of the control tools of the church is to control not only the choices, but to actually limit the available answers as well.

In the church, there are only 2 choices: 1) righteous; 2) wicked. (and the grey between the two).

I've since come to believe there is a 3rd choice...and this scripture is the one that plugs that hole. The third choice is "authentic".

In the LDS faith, you are not allowed to think for yourself, be yourself, and certainly not ACT for yourself. You must submit and do what you are told, be who you are told to be, think how you are told to think, and defer to authority.

Nah. Not for me. I would rather be authentic. I'm OK being me.... and the church can jump in a lake.