Temple prep - Endowed from on High "Lesson 5"

I'm reading the Church Education System's manual for temple preparation and adding my two cents. Text found here.

Objective

“I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts” (2 Nephi 28:30). Heavenly Father is the king of mystery. He's a bit like Moriarty in Sherlock only letting us know enough to keep himself entertained.

To help class members understand and appreciate the use of symbols in the temple. Symbols like the majestically phallic spire, upon which Moroni wraps his lips around God's trumpet. Absolutely beautiful.

Preparation

1. Bring a flag of your country or a picture of your country’s flag.
   
2. Ask a class member to summarize the story of how one of the Brethren answered a question about temple garments. The story is found on pages 20–21 and 23 of Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple. This is the story of some dumbfuck hypocrite Protestant chaplin assface who thought garments were "strange" even though he himself was wearing some weirdass clerical getup. It's symbolic, shithead! Duh! I can't stand people prying into my underwear drawer.
   

Note to teacher: Temple ordinances and covenants are sacred, and discussion about them is primarily limited to within the temple. Therefore, class discussion should be limited to the explanations given in this manual. In other words, your temple experience and insight isn't needed for this lesson. You're here just to make sure these kids hear these non-explanatory explanations because we sure as hell can't trust them to read this material on their own.

Lesson Presentation

Ask class members if they have any questions. I have one! Um, why are we taking this class on temple symbolism when the instructions say we can't really discuss the symbolism of the temple? At what point do we actually talk about all the symbols in the temple? I've been through many times and can tell you that the symbols covered in the endowment are pretty unimpressive. The green apron with fig leaf designs that you wear represents the fig leaves Adam and Eve used to cover their uglies. The white clothing represents purity (dark = dirty and yucky). The handshake where you place the tip of your index on the other person's wrist represents the nails put in Jesus' wrists. Is that supposed to be deep? And what about all the symbols that aren't discussed here or in the endowment or any other ceremony? Does anyone ever check with us to see if we noticed them and interpreted them correctly? No, because they don't matter. All that matters is that you convince yourself that you're learning and growing closer to God. Take the time required to answer questions to the best of your ability and as guided by the Lord’s Spirit. On second thought, just act sweet and stick to the script below. Remember that some aspects of temple work must not be discussed outside the temple. If you, dear teacher, tell them something secret, we will stick you in nursery for at least a decade. Keep your lips sealed.

Symbols Are Important in Our Daily Lives

Explain that symbols are used constantly in our everyday lives. Draw the following or other appropriate symbols on the chalkboard. Ask the class members to describe what each symbol means.

Jew. Medical help. Something is not allowed.
Show the class your country’s flag or a picture of the flag and ask them to describe what the flag means to them. Rebellion, war, nationalism, imperialism, oppression and optimism.

• What are some other objects or some actions that show patriotism? (A song, a uniform, a piece of clothing, a holiday, or a celebration.) This is the kind of exercise that breeds "artists" like Jon McNaughton.

Point out that these are symbols that stand for or represent patriotism. Of course they are, that's exactly what you asked the students to list. They came up with whatever symbols they came up with precisely because they thought they were patriotic.

• What are some symbols for love and respect? (A gift or a ring, a kiss or an embrace, a heart shape.) A dick in a box?
• Do symbols convey the same message to all people? No. Why or why not? 'Cause we're all different and understand things differently, if at all.
• Why do we use symbols? They're wonderfully brief and often quite memorable.

Let the class members discuss. They may suggest ideas such as the following:

1. Symbols can help us remember important things. Like how the cross helps some people remember that Jesus supposedly died for each of them personally.
   
2. Symbols can teach us abstract truths that might be hard to learn in other ways. Like how the Taoist yin and yang teach the cyclic nature of all things.
   
3. Symbols can represent feelings. Like emoticons!
   
4. Symbols can teach different principles according to our personal readiness to learn. What student would ever say this? Symbols don't teach on their own, instead we are taught to understand symbols. No one will understand the symbols already discussed in the lesson (Star of David, medical cross, prohibited circle, national flag) without first having had them explained to them. When teaching someone to read do we just give them a dictionary and tell them they'll sort it out with time? No. They will not learn understand the letters, words and function of the dictionary without an appropriate amount of training. SYMBOLS DON'T TEACH PEOPLE, PEOPLE TEACH SYMBOLS.
   

Explain that when the symbols are repeated, we learn to understand them better. Not necessarily. The more the symbols are analyzed and discussed the more we're likely to understand them. Mere repetition is nothing more than busywork.

Jesus Christ and His Prophets Used Symbols

Explain that the Savior repeatedly used symbols when He taught.

• What are some instances in which the Lord taught by using symbols? Let's just look at your examples...

The class members may mention such things as lost sheep (see Matthew 18:12–14); a mustard seed (see Matthew 13:31–32); or a pearl of great price (see Matthew 13:45–46). Christopher Hitchens shared the opinion of my grandmother that no one should be flattered by being compared to a sheep. I think the mustard seed lesson is inaccurate at best. I also think it's a little demeaning of people to refer to them as swine who can't appreciate the importance of something.

• Why do you think the Savior used symbols when He taught? His hyperbolic teachings make an impression on us and are easy to remember.

Let the class members discuss. Then review the following statement:

“The Lord Himself, the Master Teacher, in His own teaching to His disciples taught constantly in parables, a verbal way to represent symbolically things that might otherwise be difficult to understand. Sure, little stories can be easy to remember, but the message is often lost. As I recall he sometimes taught in parables to keep people in ignorance. He talked of the common experiences drawn from the lives of His disciples, and He told of hens and chickens, birds, flowers, foxes, trees, burglars, highwaymen, sunsets, the rich and the poor. … He talked of the mustard seed, of the pearl. But he never once threw in Masonic symbols for the simple fact that Freemasonry wouldn't exist for anther millennium and a half. He wanted to teach His hearers, so He talked of simple things in a symbolic sense. But he never used Masonic symbols. None of these things is mysterious or obscure, and all of them are symbolic” (Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple, 8). So how is it that everyone understands Jesus' parables differently? If they were so clear and straight forward all of Christianity would interpret them the same way. Are you absolutely sure Jesus avoided being obscure?

Explain that the prophets and apostles often used symbols to teach of Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. Many of these "symbolic" teachings can be quite offensive (like telling a girl she's a licked cupcake, ABC chewing gum, or a wilted rose if she ever let's someone touch her) or fail to bear the weight of careful analysis (Alma's seed of faith experiment, for example, proves that faith in the Church is as much a bad seed as a good seed). The Atonement of Jesus Christ is the basis of the gospel and of all the blessings we receive. It makes salvation possible. Therefore, most of the symbols in the scriptures teach us about the Savior and His sacrifice. I'm not sold on the atonement, but stories about forgiveness are probably a good thing.

Ask the class members to read Moses 6:63. This is why we're blessed to see Jesus in toast.

• What things in the earth bear record of the Savior? Footprints? Does he have a footprint or two out there somewhere?

Ask the class members to read Alma 13:16.

• In what ways do priesthood ordinances bear record of the Savior? I think after reading the preceding verses that something about paying tithing to high priests supposedly resembles Jesus. You might want to pick a clearer scripture.

Point out that before the Savior carried out the Atonement, His covenant people sacrificed animals as a symbol of His atoning sacrifice (see Moses 5:4–8). Totally! All that animal slaughter was insane! That practice ended with the Savior’s death and Resurrection. That's right. You're not going to top killing a the son of God! But why did God create a system that requires corporal and capitol punishment? I suppose he, like the rest of us, has his preferences. Now the Lord commands us to “offer for a sacrifice unto [Him] a broken heart and a contrite spirit” (3 Nephi 9:20). The blood lust days are over. And priesthood ordinances continue to help us remember the Savior’s atoning sacrifice. Only if we teach explicitly why those ordinances are designed to help us remember. The sacrament prayers spell it out very nicely, but I'm not so sure about other ordinances. Elder Russell M. Nelson taught:

“Essential ordinances of the gospel symbolize the Atonement. Baptism by immersion is symbolic of the death, burial, and Resurrection of the Redeemer. Partaking of the sacrament renews baptismal covenants and also renews our memory of the Savior’s broken flesh and of the blood He shed for us. Ordinances of the temple symbolize our reconciliation with the Lord and seal families together forever” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1996, 47; or Ensign, Nov. 1996, 35). Please explain what that symbolic reconciliation looks like and please stop misinterpreting Jesus' stance on marriage.

Symbols Teach Us Truth If We Are Spiritually Sensitive

Explain that when the Savior lived on earth, His disciples asked Him why He taught with parables. Parables are stories that teach important truths, often using symbolic language. Let's just say they're very short morally didactic stories. The "important truths" bit isn't really part of the definition and "symbolic language" is meaninglessly redundant. Have the class members read Matthew 13:10–12 to learn what the Savior said.

• What do you think the Savior meant when He said this? I think he was saying "suck my dick!" to everyone who didn't understand the morals of his stories.

Explain that the Lord reveals truth to those who are spiritually ready to understand it. So if you find that you're not learning anything in the temple, remember it's your fault. Those who receive truth with faith and obedience continue to receive more truth. But no one ever talks about their new found understanding of deep truths. Members who try are typically viewed as fringy and weird. Top Church leaders avoid addressing such half-cocked temple revelations among the general membership and they never share their own amazing insights. In the end we simply assume that everyone who attends the temple regularly is learning amazing stuff through the spirit even though we ourselves are not. Those who are not spiritually prepared and who fail to receive truth or receive it with a doubtful heart will gradually lose the truth they have. Put in other words, those who see through the bullshit end up distancing themselves from the charade and sticking with reality.

Stories with symbols present truth in such a way that those who are spiritually prepared understand the meaning of the symbols. Once again, symbols do not teach, they are taught. Those who are not prepared do not understand the meaning. Preparation for the use of symbols takes the form of education on what the symbol is and how it should be used. We don't see symbols and accurately interpret them without some background training in what to look for.

Either no one should be dressed like this or everyone should be tied up. I'm not sure.

Some people in the Savior’s time understood the messages of His parables, but many did not. Because they were at times intentionally unclear. The same is true today. Very true. People today still don't understand Jesus' parables. Take Mormons for example. They think the parable of the talents has to do with playing a musical instrument or playing a sport exceptionally well. Those are the wrong talents, brothers and sisters. There are many levels of spiritual understanding among righteous members of the Church. I'd go so far as to say that no two members believe the same things. Everyone has their own church and their own gospel and there's nothing correlation can do about it.

Have the class members read 2 Nephi 28:30 and Doctrine and Covenants 42:49–50.

• What do these scriptures teach about how we learn truth from God? The first one teaches us that God's a stingy bastard when it comes to giving us knowledge leaking it only a tiny trickle at a time to his star students, and the second reminds us that a sucker is born every day and that we shouldn't be too gullible. It reminds me of how Joseph was given revelations about Kolob and how way too many people believed him and continue to believe in that bogus astronomy.

Explain that it is possible for all of us to develop spiritually to a level where we can understand the meaning of symbols used in the gospel, in the scriptures, and especially in the temple. This feels like you're just trying to bait your students into going to the temple. You sell the idea that there's a lot of learning to be done in the temple and imply that that learning cannot happen elsewhere. I don't think that's true, but more importantly I think you need to clarify what you mean when you talk of knowledge. How are you distinguishing "spiritual" knowledge from just plain old knowledge? What makes them different and is one better than the other somehow? Can you explain your take on epistemology for us?

The Most Sacred Symbolic Teachings Are Received in the Temple

Explain that the most sacred symbolic teachings on earth are received in the temple. Wow, that's quite a high standard your setting! In a symbolic way, the teachings and rituals of the temple take us on an upward journey toward eternal life, ending with a symbolic entrance into the presence of God. Yes, kids, you start out in the Creation Room and then, if you're in a live session (which you most likely won't be) you'll move to other rooms, eventually ending up walking through a white curtain into the Celestial Room. It's very symbolic in an over the top sort of way. The characters depicted, the physical setting, the clothing worn, the signs given, and all the events covered in the temple are symbolic. You'll be quasi-participants in a religious play. There's a lot of make believing. When they are understood, they will help each person recognize truth and grow spiritually. The "physical setting" are rooms with murals of planets and oceans and animals and stuff, the clothing is goofy as shit (God has horrible taste), the signs are pulled from Freemasonry, and the events are banal. Unless you're slow, you'll figure everything out almost instantly, then you'll get bored out of your brain in all future sessions. But, who knows why, you'll always say that you had an amazing trip to the temple.

“All things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual” (Moses 6:63). Like electric eels? How about silicon computer chips?

Some of the symbols are straightforward, and the meaning is readily apparent. Like what? The temple itself is a symbol:

“If you have seen one of the temples at night, fully lighted, you know what an impressive sight that can be. It is very clearly a phallic symbol showing wealth and power. The house of the Lord, bathed in light, standing out in the darkness, becomes symbolic of the power and the inspiration of the gospel of Jesus Christ standing as a beacon in a world that sinks ever further into spiritual darkness” (Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple, 10). The world is sinking "ever further into spiritual darkness"? REALLY? We have more people than ever fighting against slavery, against racism, sexism, and various other forms of inequality. We have developed the science to save countless lives thanks to surgeries and effective medications. We have very large nations working to protect their citizens and working together to keep war at bay. The scriptures and our modern prophets offer none of these improvements. Please take your fear mongering and shove it up your ass.

The temple clothing is also symbolic. It's symbolic of human idiocy, a lot like the emperor's new clothes. When we enter the temple, we change from street clothes into white temple clothing, which is a symbol of purity. White = good, dark = bad. Yes, we do like to think in black and white terms. President James E. Faust said:

“Fundamental to temple worship is the principle that ‘God is no respecter of persons.’ [Acts 10:34.] But we still thought it was a good idea to ban blacks from the priesthood and the temple anyway. We also think it's a good idea to keep women in the home. And let's be honest, we're pretty sure God want's us to make life difficult for homosexuals. Within the hallowed walls of the temples, there is no preference of position, wealth, status, race, or education. Correct. Race has been on that list since 1978 and maybe someday the Church will at sex, gender and sexuality to the list as well. All dress in white. Men get powerful baker's hats and women get TO VEIL THEIR FACES! All receive the same instruction. Mostly. Women get some modified instruction that subjects them to their husbands. All make the same covenants and promises. All men make the same covenants and all women make the same covenants, but men and women do not make the exact same covenants. All receive the same transcendent, eternal blessings if they live worthy to claim them. Kind of. Men get to become kings and priests and women queens and priestesses. Historically kings ruled over their queens and we have no idea what a priestess even does according to Mormon doctrine. All are equal before their Creator” But not so equal in the temple. (in Conference Report, Apr. 1997, 23; or Ensign, May 1997, 20).

Explain that members who receive temple ordinances and make covenants with God wear special garments (underclothing) throughout the rest of their lives. They look like t-shirts and long boxer briefs. Now. A hundred years ago they were more like white long johns. You'll be asked to put them on underneath a white poncho thing called a "shield" and then you'll sit in a chair while someone you've probably never met will recite some secret prayers and pretend to touch various parts of your body. Read this. Read the following statement:

“The garment represents sacred covenants. They're supposed to be like the lamb skins God made for Adam and Eve after finding them wearing fig leaves. I bet those were some pretty sweet threads! It fosters modesty and becomes a shield and protection to the wearer. It also fosters the kind of sexual repression that gets you excited about bare shoulders. The "protection" mentioned here is not guaranteed. You'll still want to have dirty sex. You'll still want to punch your sister-in-law's face in. You'll still be vulnerable to gunshots and knife wounds. Basically garments just keep you a little warmer and make shopping a little more difficult. … The garment, covering the body, is a visual and tactile reminder of [covenants made in the temple]. They're also a great reminder that God, who made you in his image, doesn't like you to be naked almost ever. For many Church members the garment has formed a barrier of protection when the wearer has been faced with temptation. Some members have reported seeing devils and even the Great Satan himself shrivel and turn to smoke after trying to touch the sacred garment. Among other things it symbolizes our deep respect for the laws of God—among them the moral standard” When you see yourself in your garments you'll understand why no one wants to have sex with you. (Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple, 20, 23).

Ask the assigned class member to summarize how one of the Brethren described the purpose of the temple garment (see Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple, 20–21, 23). I gave my summary above.

Explain that almost every aspect of the temple ceremony is symbolic. Didn't we already say that? Whatever. I'd like to know what in human society is not symbolic. This means that each person should prepare to be as spiritually sensitive as possible to the symbolic nature of the temple endowment. Why? "Spiritual sensitivity" doesn't help you interpret signs and symbols. Before giving our kids keys to the car we send them to driving classes so they can learn how to read and follow traffic, but when it comes to the temple we just say "pay attention to 'signs'" and essentially never engage with them again on the topic.

• What could keep a person from being spiritually sensitive in the temple? A disbelief in spirits. Rock and roll music about fast cars. Sleeping through the session. Reading shit blogs about doubting doubts.

Class members might mention such things as the following:

1. A person may not be worthy. The girl who listens to her little brother masturbating on the other side of the wall will bring that one up. A person who has failed to sincerely repent and has not prepared humbly and prayerfully for the temple will find that the symbols will be lifeless and their meanings will be hidden. This is an amazingly effective distraction commonly known as blaming the victim. You weren't impressed with the temple? That's because you're a dirty sinner!
   
2. A person may lack faith. The temple lacks a clean fit in Christian theology and doesn't feel like the Mormonism you've practiced your whole life, so it will take A LOT OF FAITH to accept it as legitimate worship. A person who does not have faith in Jesus Christ and the temple ceremony may not receive the inspiration from the Holy Ghost necessary for understanding the temple endowment. And having lots of faith is no guarantee you'll be inspired either. The temple's a bit of a crap shoot.
   
3. A person may focus so much on the outward motions of the ceremonies that he or she may miss the powerful teachings represented by the symbols. The only way to avoid this is to go through the motions frequently. The only way to do that is to attend the temple regularly. You can only attend the temple if you truly believe everything and give the Church your money. They never said it would be cheap they only said it would be worth it a some point after you're dead.
   

• How can we prepare to be spiritually sensitive in the temple? Repent and exercise non-stop faith! Oh, and watch the endowment on YouTube.

Conclusion

Point out that those going to the temple for the first time can expect to learn many new things and feel the power of the Lord’s Spirit. At least half the people I talk to (family and friends) say their first time made them wonder if they'd just joined a cult. Encourage class members to prepare themselves spiritually for their temple experience. Remind them that all of what is presented cannot be understood in a single visit. Keep coming back to repeat this thing you don't understand! One day you'll feel like you basically get it, but you won't be too bothered either way because you will have done it so much it feels almost second nature. They should return to the temple as often as possible so they can continue to learn and to renew their spiritual feelings. Come! Do! Like it! You're incomplete if you don't. Your spirit will starve. You won't get blessings. Your family will pay the price. Come! Do! Testify!

Temple prep - "Worthy to Enter"

The following text is taken from the pamphlet "Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple" (2002) and annotated by me.

Once you have some feeling for the value of temple blessings and for the sacredness of the ordinances performed in the temple, you would be hesitant to question the high standards set by the Lord for entrance into the holy temple. All the Church offers is feelings about so-called blessings and sacredness. It would really be fantastic if someone would lay it all out for us to work through. But the Church isn't doing that right now. Instead we get semi-threatening language about how we "would be hesitant to question" this whole temple thing.

You must possess a current recommend to be admitted to the temple. We know. This recommend must be signed by the bishop of your ward and the president of your stake. OK. Sounds serious... In the mission field, of course, the branch president and the mission president have responsibility for issuing temple recommends. Of course. Only those who are worthy should go to the temple. But a lot of unworthy assholes who shouldn't do too! :( Why can't the bishop and stake president sniff them out? The bishop has the responsibility of making inquiries into our personal worthiness. This interview is of great importance to you as a member of the Church, for it is an occasion to explore with an ordained servant of the Lord the pattern of your life. Ordained but untrained. Let's tell it like it is: this is an obligatory disclosure of your life to that one neighbor dude. If anything is amiss in your life, the bishop will be able to help you resolve it. Well he'll try anyway. Let's not forget that he likely has no training in counseling. Through this procedure, as you counsel with the common judge in Israel, you can declare or can be helped to establish your worthiness to enter the temple with the Lord’s approval. Bishop's approval. The Lord doesn't sign your recommend.

President N. Eldon Tanner, who served as First Counselor in the First Presidency, spoke to the general priesthood meeting about interviews. His counsel has meaning both for the Church leaders who conduct the interview and for the members who are to be interviewed. Consider carefully this counsel:

You bishops and stake presidents might approach an interview for a temple recommend something like this:

“You have come to me for a recommend to enter the temple. I have the responsibility of representing the Lord in interviewing you. What a humble approach. :S At the conclusion of the interview there is provision for me to sign your recommend; but mine is not the only important signature on your recommend. Before the recommend is valid, you must sign it yourself. Sounds tricky! :S

“When you sign your recommend, you make a commitment to the Lord that you are worthy of the privileges granted to those who hold such a recommend. When did Jesus ask us to sign a piece of paper? There are several standard questions that I will ask. … You are to respond honestly to each one.” Because you can tell? …

Now, after you have put those required questions to the applicant, you may wish to add something like this: “One who goes into the house of the Lord must be free from any unclean, unholy, impure, or unnatural practice.” Wait! What are the questions? Is this a pop quiz or can we see the questions? …

Our interviews must be conducted in love, in modesty. Try by conducting them as a friend instead of pretending you're standing in for Jesus. Ofttimes things can be corrected if you ask: “Would there be a reason you may feel uncomfortable or perhaps even dishonest to the Lord if you were to sign your own temple recommend? Dig up the guilt, brother! DIG!! You might want to start using an E-meter.

“Would you like a little time to get some very personal things in order before you sign it? Remember, the Lord knows all things and will not be mocked. YES! Scare them! Terrify them! God will smite them if they're lying! We are trying to help you. Never lie to try to obtain a call, a recommend, or a blessing from the Lord.” Excellent! Passively accuse them of lying! Very good approach.

If you approach the matter as outlined above, the member has the responsibility to interview himself. Because there's not way providing members with the questions and asking them to prayerfully consider their answers on their own would get them to answer honestly. The bishop or stake president has the right to the power of discernment. He will know whether or not there is something amiss that ought to be settled before a recommend is issued. Except when they don't (which is almost always). (“The Blessing of Church Interviews,” Ensign [November 1978]: 42–43.)

The interview for a temple recommend is conducted privately between the bishop and the Church member concerned. (Or the stake president.) Here the member is asked searching questions about his or her personal conduct, worthiness, and loyalty to the Church and its officers. Searching that members could do on their own. The bishop can butt out. The person must certify that he or she is morally clean and is keeping the Word of Wisdom, paying a full tithing, living in harmony with the teachings of the Church, and not maintaining any affiliation or sympathy with apostate groups. Whoa! You basically gave us the questions! Thank you! Can we talk a bit about these topics? Does "morally clean" include faking it until we make it? Does proof that we keep the word of wisdom involve checking how much meat we eat or a test to see if we can "walk and not faint"? Is a full tithe based on gross, net or expendable income? Does these mean we have to actively oppose gay rights? Do we have to avoid our cousins and siblings who have left the Church and always attend Sunstone and Dialog conferences? The bishop is instructed that confidentiality in handling these matters with each interviewee is of the utmost importance. And we just kind of trust them.

Acceptable answers to the bishop’s questions will ordinarily establish the worthiness of an individual to receive a temple recommend. But they don't always have the power of discernment. If an applicant is not keeping the commandments or there is something unsettled about his or her life that needs putting in order, it will be necessary for that individual to demonstrate true repentance before a temple recommend is issued. Typically that demonstration takes the form of public shaming in the form of not being able to take the sacrament on Sundays or privately in the form of paying up on tithing.

After the bishop has conducted such an interview, a member of the stake presidency likewise interviews each of us before we go to the temple. Because bishops don't do a very good job. They really should get some E-meters. If we are going for the first time, ordinarily the stake president personally conducts the interview. Because... why? Is this supposed to be comforting or is it just an arbitrary rule you thought you'd share?

Surely, when you appear to be interviewed for a temple recommend you would accept the judgment of him who is designated as the judge in Israel, who is responsible to represent the Lord in determining whether or not it is proper for you to enter this sacred place. Sure, I guess. Unless he's a total idiot or complete dick. Have you ever heard of the leadership roulette?

Tom Perry criticized

LDS apostle LTP (L. Tom Perry) has recently lost a few potential LGB friends earlier this month when in a talk about "traditional" marriage and family he spoke out against the non-traditional.

"We [the leaders of the LDS Church] want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established," says he.

In case you didn't get that, let me say it another way, unless you're family is headed by just one person with a penis followed up by just one other person with a vagina, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. Thus sayeth an apostle of God. But everyone already knows that the LDS Church has been trying to keep gay marriage from legalization. My impression is that LTP simply pulled the wrong straw when everyone was getting assigned topics for General Conference this year because typically Perry doesn't have much of a reputation for saying offensive things. Most of what we remember him for falls into the category of "Same Old Same Old," probably because he cowedly bends to authority rather than daring to go out on a limb and say something unique enough to shock anyone.

Whatever the case may be, L. Tom, you've heaped shame upon thine own head this Conference season. Fortunately for you, your lesson to learn is an easy one:

In conclusion, let's learn to love one another better. Let's stand by each other's side in strengthening home life wherever and whenever love is the foundation that home.

Gay Mormon Husbands on TV

The Daily Beast had a good article the other day questioning the ethics of a new reality TV show featuring gay men married to straight women. Read it up. The brief summary of homosexuality in Mormonism is worth it.

Traditional marriage

It's nice to see the LDS Church recognized that the tradition of marriage is an ever-changing one:

For much of Western history, family “interest”—economic, political, and social considerations—dominated the choice of spouse. Parents had the power to arrange marriages or forestall unions of which they disapproved. By the late 1700s, romance and personal choice began to rival these traditional motives and practices. By Joseph Smith’s time, many couples insisted on marrying for love, as he and Emma did when they eloped against her parents’ wishes. (See here.)

It's a small admission, but it's a hell of a lot better than their usual homophobic bullshit about "traditional marriage" going back to Adam and Eve. Here the Church admits that women have long been considered property of a man (like in D&C 132:62) and an important trade commodity (think of the tradition of asking for a father's permission and his agreement to "give away the bride"). Kudos.

Let's do what we can to avoid reinstating that tradition where it has fallen out of use.

Dallin Oaks criticized

Dallin Oaks is your typical authority-touting type. He was a Utah Supreme Court justice which for his fans means he's smart and level headed, but for the rest of us means he's used to being "right" and having the final say on everything. I suppose I wouldn't be too bothered by that if he didn't say such horrible things all the time. I cannot have faith in such a man.

HE'S ALL ABOUT CENSORSHIP:

“Some things that are true are not edifying or appropriate to communicate. Readers of history and biography should ponder that moral reality as part of their effort to understand the significance of what they read.”

HE USES SATAN TO SCARE PEOPLE FROM FACTS:

“Satan can even use truth to promote his purposes. Facts, severed from their context, can convey an erroneous impression.”

HE WANTS US TO BE BLIND FOLLOWERS OF THE BLIND:

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan - it is God's Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost on e his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God."

HE HAS NO REGARD FOR OTHER CULTURES. Seriously, who thinks Africa has one unifying culture? It's bad enough we think Mormonism has only one culture, but Africa, the continent? Holy shit.

HE'S A TOTAL HOMOPHOBE. Some of the most horrible things he's had to say recently have to do with homosexuality and the gay rights movement.

AND HE'S A HYPOCRITE. The man runs around yapping about how marriage is between one man and one woman and yet he's got two spiritual wives.

What ever happened to honesty and unconditional love?

Russ Nelson criticized

Honestly Russell Nelson irks the shit out of me. I know that will come as no surprise, but let me just say (again) that I lost all faith in the man when he took the time to make a really shitty jab at the Big Bang in General Conference a couple of years ago.

The saddest part of watching Russell on that fateful day was hearing the thousands of people in the congregation snickering along with the joke. God save us!

Russ, get a fucking education.

Unquestioned belief

 
The second part of "overestimations of the group" has to do with "unquestioned belief in [its] morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions". I don't think there's any question about Mormons believing that the LDS scriptures and the LDS Church represent the highest possible human morality which means they don't have to question it. Instead they have to live up to the examples set in scripture and by the Church.

That is exactly why Mormons don't worry too much when their scriptural heroes are coercers who needlessly kill, it's why they don't feel too bad about excluding family from weddings, it explains how many members justify racism and sexism, it's how we justify homophobia, and so many other hurtful beliefs, practices, and events.

But how can we see that hurt when the Church is always right? Who are we to trust if not the Church?

Russell's call to arms

Last month our dearly beloved apostle of the THE LORD JESUS CHRIST gave an impassioned commencement speech at Brigham Young University. It was pretty awesome and really hard to improve upon, but that doesn't mean there weren't complaints or that it wasn't improved upon.

Humble yourself before the Lord's anointed and learn at his feet, brothers and sisters.

Persecution

I used to wonder what the world had against Mormons and the LDS Church. Ever since Joseph Smith's first vision in 1820 persecution has hounded the Restoration. Why? Why would anyone turn a 14 year old into a pariah for having a vision? Why would anyone attack peaceful, industrious settlers? Why would a governor drive a religious group from the state? Why all the rumors about Mormon boys being born with horns? Why the accusation that Mormons aren't Christian? Why all the disinformation in the media? Why would anyone mistreat a young missionary?

Because Satan.

Remember how Satan bound young Joseph's tongue to keep him from praying? That's the kind of asshole we're dealing with. He hates the work of God. He hates the truth. He controls the hearts of man. He appeals to the minds of everyone who wants the easy way and not the straight and narrow. Satan sucks! It's his evil influence (and God's curse against Adam and Eve) (and human nature, which was designed by God) that makes people persecute the One True Church and the saints.

The problem is that we have no reason to believe persecution is even the slightest indication of God's truth under attack. We don't point to the persecution of pre-contact indigenous Americans as evidence of closeness to God. We don't look at the American institution of slavery as evidence that Blacks had the truth. We don't study the ways of the persecuted Aborigines of Australia either. We don't look at those living in slave labor-like conditions today and draw the conclusion that Satan is trying to suppress their saintly souls. We don't look at the opposition faced by other churches and faith traditions to determine their truthfulness. The very idea of using persecution as a measuring stick of truthfulness is absurd - UNLESS IT'S APPLIED TO MORMONISM.

Let me repeat that last point: in the Mormon brain, persecution is only a valid signifier of truth if applied to Mormonism (and sometimes Christianity at large).

Now please don't misunderstand me. Violence, oppression, litigation, misinformation, slander, etc. exist and can all factor in to the unjustifiably adverse treatment of other people. Willfully hurting other people because they don't accept all of your faith claims is immoral, but disagreeing with and challenging someone's faith claims is an everyday part of life and a huge part of the learning process.

Being asked to shoulder the burden of proof is not persecution. Having that proof examined is not persecution. Having that proof rejected on the basis of logic is not persecution. Having someone pointing out that your claims are highly suspicious is not persecution. Having someone speak openly about the lack of proof behind your claims is not persecution.

But it does give you a shit feeling when someone doesn't except your claims at face value. And it feels like shit when someone rejects what you consider solid proof. It especially feels awful when you've based who you are and all of your life plans on those claims. It's easy to feel attacked when everything you think about yourself and the world is based on something so many others find questionable, if not ridiculous.

I wouldn't doubt that having two teenagers show up at your door telling you your brain and life are all wrong might feel equally shitty. Some might even feel a bit persecuted. Especially if you're, say, homosexual or something.

Tough love

Learn to be white in a just a few years! It's easy!

As if the LDS Church's quest for spiritual and cultural domination over the earth weren't enough to make to make me doubt, finding out about the Indian Placement Program and electroshock conversion therapy use on homosexuals at BYU certainly brought to mind some fresh thoughts about what Christ-like love ought to look like. The justifications for keeping First Nations children physically distant from their families in order to culturally distance them from their traditions point nowhere near the love and acceptance one might expect from Jesus. Likewise the use of physical and psychological torture to reform homosexuals points nowhere near Christ-like behavior. These are two programs (the IPP admittedly much bigger than McBride's experiments) that have to cause members to scramble for answers. How can these sorts of things be inspired? How offensive is it that Mormons expect First Nations people to turn off their identity? Why do Mormons think homosexuals can do it? How can they be justified in the name of a loving god? How is it that the LDS Church and BYU have not apologized for these damaging programs?

Turning off the gay was supposed to be as easy as hitting the lights!

UPDATE: A Mormon Stories episode on the Indian Placement Program has just been added (4/4/14). Listen to it here.

THAT'S GAY!

The Church institutionally excludes people simply because they're attracted to people of the same sex. That's messed up. These days we know that homosexuality is not a choice. We also know that homosexuals are not a cohesive, organized block with an agenda to corrupt and morally destroy our children. The Church's homophobia is misguided and wrong, but what's worse is the Church's political involvement in curbing the civil rights of homosexuals. These facts should make us all seriously doubt.

When did Jesus condemn homosexuals? When did Jesus try to influence local politics to stop people from making their own life choices?

Fortunately many Mormons who are close to homosexual individuals show a little more humanity and understanding.

Mormons are changing, will the Church keep up with them?