Meeting with stake president

[larsenb]

Well, everything’s a personal choice, outside of being compelled by force.

Again, the way I see it, is that the Lord spent 2,600 years preparing the ‘stick-of-Joseph’ to come forth, coupled with the Restoration. And when you read D&C 1, you can see that all of this effort was a big deal for Him. I personally can’t imagine that He would allow the whole effort to be derailed at Joseph Smith’s martyrdom. It doesn’t make sense that He would do so.

My logical conclusion then, is that He is allowing what is happening for His own purposes; and I’m not going to try to 2nd guess Him as to what those purposes are. I can speculate about it, but that is all.

Couple the above with the fact that the Church is preaching Christ and promulgating the Book of Mormon, and encouraging the members to exercise faith in Jesus Christ and to learn to do good continually, and yes, make and follow covenants in the temple; for most members, this is their focus; and I think they, generally speaking, benefit immensely by doing this.

I for one, am very loath to do anything to destroy or disrupt the faith and good works of these types of members, which I see as the majority . . . . and I include a son who is operating this way. I think it is not a very good course of action that may dislodge anyone from this type of conduct and faith in their lives.

Another down-side of focusing on the negative and effectively removing yourself from the Restoration, is that you may have a tendency to soak up every negative idea that pops up because it seems to feed into your overall assessment. A prime example of this kind of falsehood (my strong opinion), is the JT/WR assassination idea.

There are many, many people see what is going on, yet are trying to stay the course, according to their best lights.

I’m curious as to what you think your objective is in being so active in promoting your ideas in forums such as these. You’ve been a member here for less than 3 years, yet you’ve already posted 2,000 times more posts than I have, having been a forum member for 15 years. You are probably the most prolific poster here, now that Ymarsakar was exited stage-left.

Maybe, in some way, you are playing a role that is part of the Lord’s purpose. I don’t know.

And thinking that Joseph wouldn’t be a member of the present-day church is interesting speculation, but if he came up through the ranks, maybe at the age of 14, he would have prayed about what may have bothered him and gotten answers as to what to do, a la the Davidic Servant. Joseph Smith was a very, very tough act to follow for any of the succeeding Presidents of the Church.

If you study Christ's word in the BoM, you'll also see that a restoration was prophesied, but also a period of tribulation, and then the work fo the Father would "commence." So yeah, a lot of work went to bring forth light into this world, but the same Christ prophesied the Gentiles would reject the fullness fo the gospel.

IMO the church preaches their own flavor of Christianity and their own Jesus. Their Jesus must "sustain" (aka obey and covenant to follow) men. I don't follow that Jesus. I also believe the dead care little at all for the work done in the temple. The BoM clearly teaches that those who die without the law are saved in Christ.

You see things as focusing on the negative. I see the exact opposite. I first had to realize correct doctrine and compare that to false or limiting doctrines in the church. I don't see that as a step backward, only forward.

As to my objective... I really, really, like to share what God is teaching me. I like to share the light of Christ and His teachings. I also really, really, like exposing false beliefs if (and I mean this) if people are willing to listen. There are literal anti-Christian teachings in the LDS church.

BTW, I think you are exaggerating a bit on the 2000X more posts. Being vocal just means I enjoy talking about a variety of subjects, religion being one of many. And, for the record, Niemand posts way more than I do.

And what would you expect Joseph to do today? The church has changed nearly everything he taught. I'm not exaggerating.

OK, so you eschew baptisms for the dead or the efficacy of any of the other temple ordinances. You apparently abhor the very thought of polygamy, and believe JT and WR are likely to have murdered the Smiths. So I guess the path you’ve chosen makes sense . . . from that point of view.

My sense of “sustaining” is that it means I will support my leaders in their righteous discharge of their duties, not that I must “obey” and “covenant” to do so. If any of our leaders preach the latter, they’ve gone off the track, imo.

And regarding “those who die without the law are saved in Christ”, the actual passage in Moroni 8:22 says they are “alive in Christ”. But that only applies to those who are under no condemnation from a law. How many societies are you aware of that don’t have proscriptions against certain types of egregious behavior?

Also opposed to your idea of who is “saved in Christ”, from the Book of Mormon, are the passages in 2 Nephi 2:6-9, and specifically in verse 9: “ . . . he [Christ] shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved”. A bit conditional, is it not? This is echoed in Alma 5:48: “And behold, it is he [Christ] that cometh to take away the sins of the world, yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his name”.

And OK, again. You and Niemand. He’s moving up on you and joined a year later.

I just don’t believe that the Church has changed nearly everything Joseph Smith taught. A rather stark exaggeration, in my view. I mentioned what I thought JS would do, if he came on the scene with the same ability and experiences he already had. He would certainly try to wrench our leaders out of some of the procedural and ideational errors they have drifted into. I guess that will be the mission of the DS or someone equivalent.

[larsenb]

I actually called the COB a few years ago. A very unprepared young sister missionary answered the phone.

Have you had experiences where your letter reached one of the 15 and you got a response?

No, I haven't even tried to make contact past the SP with the stuff with my son. We had a new SP called the week after he came home and during stake conference the mission pres for the local mission spoke. He said the only reason missionaries come home early is their own fault.

Smack in the face to the three from our stake that former SP confirmed were MP problems, not missionary problems. Perpetuated the stereotype of sin or weakness being the only reason.

Our church today us as the church in the days of Jesus mortal ministry. The leadership is corrupt. We will continue to worship the true and living God. He will come and clean it up in his own time.

Can you imagine a missionary presenting that message? It is the true restored church of Christ, but leadership is off the rails.

How about:

Can you imagine a missionary presenting that message? It is the true restored church of Christ, but leadership is off the rails. Would you like to join us?

Or having a missionary let on that two of Joseph Smith's closest companions actually murdered him? I would certainly want to steer clear of such an organization.

[Thinker]

Why do I get the impression that some people think the Lord wants us to fix our problems by inventing vaccines and feeding the hungry but fixing problems in the church is totally off limits?

It seems somewhat of a prideful way of thinking that we can do no wrong and that our leaders are always in direct communication with God, no matter what…

It’s really sad to see the consequences of some who blindly follow the profits pridefully ignor-ant ways. Their pride prevents them from seeing or learning to improve, so they keep continuing towards and falling off cliffs and have no idea why they and/or others suffer as a result.

Indoctrination in a cult blinds one to ethics and what is actually healthy. Their standard of measurement is skewed… “The profit said marijuana is ok but green tea is bad… the profit says numbing our spiritual senses by prescription drugs is ok, but no wine! It’s ok to cover up child sexual abuse - but don’t you dare question church leaders!” … No wonder so many members are mentally ill!

[Thinker]

Thanks for that update. Please give her a big hug from us.

This is where most of the LDS dogmas lead: "He told her that he needed to go over the temple recommend questions..." They all converge into the Covenant Path™. I'm astounded at how this simple thing, which should be such a beautiful aspect of worship, has become so divisive. Men are truly exercising unrighteous dominion when they leverage their supposed authority to limit what they believe to be the path back to God upon the arm of flesh. Truly a curse has fallen upon this church.

I'm happy for her and her faith journey ahead.

It is divisive no doubt and has harmed countless relationships. Still, the silver lining is turning back towards God and becoming healthier little by little.

[Reluctant Watchman]

My sense of “sustaining” is that it means I will support my leaders in their righteous discharge of their duties, not that I must “obey” and “covenant” to do so. If any of our leaders preach the latter, they’ve gone off the track, imo.

The way that "sustain" has been abused in the church is awful. I can't tell you how many stake leaders have used this as leverage to get members to follow the brethren, even in stupid things, like wearing masks and getting vaccinated. Now, as far as the definition, you must not be aware of what the church teaches on this topic. It is as I noted, you obey and follow them, even making "oath-like" promises that are binding. Nelson got as close to saying covenant without actually saying the word.

Church lesson materials teach that to sustain means that you “stand behind them, pray for them, accept assignments and callings from them, obey their counsel, and refrain from criticizing them." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

Russell Nelson has taught that to sustain them “is a personal commitment that we will do our utmost to uphold their prophetic priorities. Our sustaining is an oath-like indication that we recognize their calling as a prophet to be legitimate and binding upon us.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

I challenge any member of the church to find this definition of sustain (or even the word sustain) in scripture. To my knowledge, it doesn't exist. This, coupled w/ the "cannot lead astray" dogma, is one of the greatest idols in the church, literally making lesser gods of men and breaking the first commandment. No true or humble servant would suggest you obey them or make an "oath-like indication" to follow them.

[Thinker]

... There is nothing that makes us "mormon' anymore, and therefore we have no real tribe. And far from being welcoming to all, it is only welcoming to those who are willing to ignore any sense of principle or rationality regarding tradiational Christian and Mormon doctrine.

Being Mormon now definitely is more worldly than it used to mean. The unifying factor now in Mormonism seems to be blind obedience no matter how unethical, unhealthy or illogical.

I’m not making any specific predictions but rather a guess in probability… Since the more ethical, healthy, logical people are leaving more every day, combined with the refusal to repent, the church is on a trajectory to become increasingly evil, dysfunctional and illogical.

Maybe it’s a good time to get our own boats in order.

[Thinker]

Generally, babies aren't aborted, fetuses are--so not the same…

Children (developing human beings) are aborted. Terms have impact. Many who try to justify killing children based on age discrimination try to use terms like, “parasite” or anything else that doesn’t sound like what it actually is - a LIVE CHILD - a developing human being.

[larsenb]

My sense of “sustaining” is that it means I will support my leaders in their righteous discharge of their duties, not that I must “obey” and “covenant” to do so. If any of our leaders preach the latter, they’ve gone off the track, imo.

The way that "sustain" has been abused in the church is awful. I can't tell you how many stake leaders have used this as leverage to get members to follow the brethren, even in stupid things, like wearing masks and getting vaccinated. Now, as far as the definition, you must not be aware of what the church teaches on this topic. It is as I noted, you obey and follow them, even making "oath-like" promises that are binding. Nelson got as close to saying covenant without actually saying the word.

Church lesson materials teach that to sustain means that you “stand behind them, pray for them, accept assignments and callings from them, obey their counsel, and refrain from criticizing them." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

Russell Nelson has taught that to sustain them “is a personal commitment that we will do our utmost to uphold their prophetic priorities. Our sustaining is an oath-like indication that we recognize their calling as a prophet to be legitimate and binding upon us.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

I challenge any member of the church to find this definition of sustain (or even the word sustain) in scripture. To my knowledge, it doesn't exist. This, coupled w/ the "cannot lead astray" dogma, is one of the greatest idols in the church, literally making lesser gods of men and breaking the first commandment. No true or humble servant would suggest you obey them or make an "oath-like indication" to follow them.

I can't disagree with your post. Your quotes indicate a gross misuse of the concept of sustaining.

[Thinker]

Generally, babies aren't aborted, fetuses are--so not the same. But yes, all things are done in the wisdom of God.

For the record, this has WTF written all over it.

So God doesn't allow these things to happen?
He doesn't allow all those poor children in Africa and all over to die from malnutrition?
He doesn't know, I guess?

“All things are done in the wisdom of God” is different from “God allows these things to happen.”

If you think God’s will is to kill children - & think that is wisdom, then you worship a different god.

God gave us free will to choose - but that doesn’t mean our evil choices are “wisdom of God.”
The evil side of people do evil.
The GOoD side of people do good.

[Thinker]

McDonalds business model: Every store the same. Employees can't fix the ice cream machine because it has to be serviced by a specific company in order to keep things the same in every store. There is actually a web site to see which thousand store's ice cream machines are down because every store has to be identical.

Maybe they will change the name to The Church of McNelson.

If they were on the right track, I could see unification as helpful but now it’s vain repetitions of leader worship and other dysfunction.

[Thinker]

Compelling by force is the old way of tyranny. The cia didn’t spend fifty years at 134 universities studying how to manipulate emotions via propaganda, false flags, infiltrating religious belief systems, co-opting entertainment, and creating cancel culture, critical race theology and lgbtq culture, for the fun of it. They control you with your emotions instead of a gun. They are not working on your behalf. They are working to control you until, as the former CIA director said, everything you believe is a lie.

And while they control and manipulate you they’ve also convinced you that you’re exercising some sort of personal agency. Mwah ha ha!!!

The final winding up scenes on earth are not the struggle between freedom and tyranny with agency being the prize. The final battle is about deception and the ability to recognize tyranny and fraud dressed up as agency and truth.

We’ll put! I was going to say you hit it out of the park… but maybe I should just say “touchdown!”

This is especially true: “The final battle is about deception and the ability to recognize tyranny and fraud dressed up as agency and truth.”

I can already see how the ability to SEE is so so important right now!

[Serragon]

... There is nothing that makes us "mormon' anymore, and therefore we have no real tribe. And far from being welcoming to all, it is only welcoming to those who are willing to ignore any sense of principle or rationality regarding tradiational Christian and Mormon doctrine.

Being Mormon now definitely is more worldly than it used to mean. The unifying factor now in Mormonism seems to be blind obedience no matter how unethical, unhealthy or illogical.

I’m not making any specific predictions but rather a guess in probability… Since the more ethical, healthy, logical people are leaving more every day, combined with the refusal to repent, the church is on a trajectory to become increasingly evil, dysfunctional and illogical.

Maybe it’s a good time to get our own boats in order.

Removing the term "mormon" was a blow to any sense of tribe.

Many tribes unify around a strong leader and obedience to them, but these rulers typically represent something that is historical or mythical in their culture. Reformers like Nelson can't use that because they are destroying the very cultural symbols that would give them validity.

Typically a reformer has to use strong propaganda to convince people of their divine purpose, and they have to identify an enemy . This enemy validates the righteous purpose of the leader as the one who can protect and deliver them, but acting against this enemy gives people a way to show allegiance to the tribe and to feel good about themselves and what they are doing. For reformers, this enemy is almost always a group within the tribe, usually those holding on to the old ways the reformer is trying to change. And the process of reforming is almost never without great turmoil. At first, the effort is always to convert the enemy through persuasion. But when they don't move, this almost always turns to force or exile from the tribe.

These patterns are historical and evident through all history. And I think we can identify the pattern in our church today if we look closely. But what Nelson is trying to build as the rallying points for this new tribe are not strong enough to actually build a tribe. There is no real purpose that causes people to act. There is no power in the preaching or propaganda to invigorate or inspire people. There are no cultural stories or history for this new tribe to give people examples and foundation to their lives.

Basically, we are gutting what was something strong replacing it with a bunch of nothing. The new beliefs cannot be justified, so the reliance is on infallability. But under any kind of scrutiny, that appears as swiss cheese. Unless we reverse course, all that will be left are the usurpers dancing on the corpse of previous faith, and those few who blindly follow because they are too afraid of the idea that their personal spiritual foundation might be sand.

[4Joshua8]

I'm pretty sure you knew what he meant, or should we thank gangs and mass murderers for sending people to God, too?

"Abortionists are doing the babies a favor! They're just expediting the little ones' journey back to Heaven!"

Generally, babies aren't aborted, fetuses are--so not the same. But yes, all things are done in the wisdom of God.

Killing one is as serious as killing the other.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I can't disagree with your post. Your quotes indicate a gross misuse of the concept of sustaining.

If that's the case, then look at what this has done to the entire culture of the church. It's an alpha or pinnacle theology. Not to mention a totalitarian and anti-Christian philosophy. It permeates and saturates EVERY single aspect of the LDS religious experience.

[cwass]

... There is nothing that makes us "mormon' anymore, and therefore we have no real tribe. And far from being welcoming to all, it is only welcoming to those who are willing to ignore any sense of principle or rationality regarding tradiational Christian and Mormon doctrine.

Being Mormon now definitely is more worldly than it used to mean. The unifying factor now in Mormonism seems to be blind obedience no matter how unethical, unhealthy or illogical.

I’m not making any specific predictions but rather a guess in probability… Since the more ethical, healthy, logical people are leaving more every day, combined with the refusal to repent, the church is on a trajectory to become increasingly evil, dysfunctional and illogical.

Maybe it’s a good time to get our own boats in order.

Removing the term "mormon" was a blow to any sense of tribe.

Many tribes unify around a strong leader and obedience to them, but these rulers typically represent something that is historical or mythical in their culture. Reformers like Nelson can't use that because they are destroying the very cultural symbols that would give them validity.

Typically a reformer has to use strong propaganda to convince people of their divine purpose, and they have to identify an enemy . This enemy validates the righteous purpose of the leader as the one who can protect and deliver them, but acting against this enemy gives people a way to show allegiance to the tribe and to feel good about themselves and what they are doing. For reformers, this enemy is almost always a group within the tribe, usually those holding on to the old ways the reformer is trying to change. And the process of reforming is almost never without great turmoil. At first, the effort is always to convert the enemy through persuasion. But when they don't move, this almost always turns to force or exile from the tribe.

These patterns are historical and evident through all history. And I think we can identify the pattern in our church today if we look closely. But what Nelson is trying to build as the rallying points for this new tribe are not strong enough to actually build a tribe. There is no real purpose that causes people to act. There is no power in the preaching or propaganda to invigorate or inspire people. There are no cultural stories or history for this new tribe to give people examples and foundation to their lives.

Basically, we are gutting what was something strong replacing it with a bunch of nothing. The new beliefs cannot be justified, so the reliance is on infallability. But under any kind of scrutiny, that appears as swiss cheese. Unless we reverse course, all that will be left are the usurpers dancing on the corpse of previous faith, and those few who blindly follow because they are too afraid of the idea that their personal spiritual foundation might be sand.

Since the very day that they told me that I had to wear a mask to attend church, I knew it was only a matter of time and that I would on the complete outside, hopefully meeting others at the waters of Mormon.

The question is, how do you keep the good parts of the culture while realizing that there are faults in the former culture that you never realized or never could bring yourself to acknowledge for wanting to stay in the group? It's terribly sad....RMN has pit former friends against each other. There is no going back because so many have already been exiled and those that have stayed are marginalized.

[Serragon]

I can't disagree with your post. Your quotes indicate a gross misuse of the concept of sustaining.

If that's the case, then look at what this has done to the entire culture of the church. It's an alpha or pinnacle theology. Not to mention a totalitarian and anti-Christian philosophy. It permeates and saturates EVERY single aspect of the LDS religious experience.

It is curious that if you stood up in quorum meeting and confessed that you were having doubts about Jesus Christ as Savior, you would elicit much sympathy and people trying to help you regain your testimony.

But if you stood up to confess that you had doubts about Russell Nelson as a prophet, seer, and revelator, you would elicit much more fear and revulsion rather than empathy.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

... There is nothing that makes us "mormon' anymore, and therefore we have no real tribe. And far from being welcoming to all, it is only welcoming to those who are willing to ignore any sense of principle or rationality regarding tradiational Christian and Mormon doctrine.

Being Mormon now definitely is more worldly than it used to mean. The unifying factor now in Mormonism seems to be blind obedience no matter how unethical, unhealthy or illogical.

I’m not making any specific predictions but rather a guess in probability… Since the more ethical, healthy, logical people are leaving more every day, combined with the refusal to repent, the church is on a trajectory to become increasingly evil, dysfunctional and illogical.

Maybe it’s a good time to get our own boats in order.

Removing the term "mormon" was a blow to any sense of tribe.

Many tribes unify around a strong leader and obedience to them, but these rulers typically represent something that is historical or mythical in their culture. Reformers like Nelson can't use that because they are destroying the very cultural symbols that would give them validity.

Typically a reformer has to use strong propaganda to convince people of their divine purpose, and they have to identify an enemy . This enemy validates the righteous purpose of the leader as the one who can protect and deliver them, but acting against this enemy gives people a way to show allegiance to the tribe and to feel good about themselves and what they are doing. For reformers, this enemy is almost always a group within the tribe, usually those holding on to the old ways the reformer is trying to change. And the process of reforming is almost never without great turmoil. At first, the effort is always to convert the enemy through persuasion. But when they don't move, this almost always turns to force or exile from the tribe.

These patterns are historical and evident through all history. And I think we can identify the pattern in our church today if we look closely. But what Nelson is trying to build as the rallying points for this new tribe are not strong enough to actually build a tribe. There is no real purpose that causes people to act. There is no power in the preaching or propaganda to invigorate or inspire people. There are no cultural stories or history for this new tribe to give people examples and foundation to their lives.

Basically, we are gutting what was something strong replacing it with a bunch of nothing. The new beliefs cannot be justified, so the reliance is on infallability. But under any kind of scrutiny, that appears as swiss cheese. Unless we reverse course, all that will be left are the usurpers dancing on the corpse of previous faith, and those few who blindly follow because they are too afraid of the idea that their personal spiritual foundation might be sand.

Fascinating! This sounds like cultural
Anthropology. Where did you get the research on reformers attacking a group within the tribe?

[Serragon]

Being Mormon now definitely is more worldly than it used to mean. The unifying factor now in Mormonism seems to be blind obedience no matter how unethical, unhealthy or illogical.

I’m not making any specific predictions but rather a guess in probability… Since the more ethical, healthy, logical people are leaving more every day, combined with the refusal to repent, the church is on a trajectory to become increasingly evil, dysfunctional and illogical.

Maybe it’s a good time to get our own boats in order.

Removing the term "mormon" was a blow to any sense of tribe.

Many tribes unify around a strong leader and obedience to them, but these rulers typically represent something that is historical or mythical in their culture. Reformers like Nelson can't use that because they are destroying the very cultural symbols that would give them validity.

Typically a reformer has to use strong propaganda to convince people of their divine purpose, and they have to identify an enemy . This enemy validates the righteous purpose of the leader as the one who can protect and deliver them, but acting against this enemy gives people a way to show allegiance to the tribe and to feel good about themselves and what they are doing. For reformers, this enemy is almost always a group within the tribe, usually those holding on to the old ways the reformer is trying to change. And the process of reforming is almost never without great turmoil. At first, the effort is always to convert the enemy through persuasion. But when they don't move, this almost always turns to force or exile from the tribe.

These patterns are historical and evident through all history. And I think we can identify the pattern in our church today if we look closely. But what Nelson is trying to build as the rallying points for this new tribe are not strong enough to actually build a tribe. There is no real purpose that causes people to act. There is no power in the preaching or propaganda to invigorate or inspire people. There are no cultural stories or history for this new tribe to give people examples and foundation to their lives.

Basically, we are gutting what was something strong replacing it with a bunch of nothing. The new beliefs cannot be justified, so the reliance is on infallability. But under any kind of scrutiny, that appears as swiss cheese. Unless we reverse course, all that will be left are the usurpers dancing on the corpse of previous faith, and those few who blindly follow because they are too afraid of the idea that their personal spiritual foundation might be sand.

Fascinating! This sounds like cultural
Anthropology. Where did you get the research on reformers attacking a group within the tribe?

Just observation.

One book that I think really lays out how this is done and was very influential with me is "The First Circle" By Solzhenitsyn, and I recommend everyone read it.

But a look into any of these reformation movements through history shows you that those hanging on to the values and principles of the old tribe eventually become the real enemy. They are tangible, and it is easy with a little propaganda to get others to see them and their complaints as the real problem to success of the new ideology.

[Bonhoeffer]

... There is nothing that makes us "mormon' anymore, and therefore we have no real tribe. And far from being welcoming to all, it is only welcoming to those who are willing to ignore any sense of principle or rationality regarding tradiational Christian and Mormon doctrine.

Being Mormon now definitely is more worldly than it used to mean. The unifying factor now in Mormonism seems to be blind obedience no matter how unethical, unhealthy or illogical.

I’m not making any specific predictions but rather a guess in probability… Since the more ethical, healthy, logical people are leaving more every day, combined with the refusal to repent, the church is on a trajectory to become increasingly evil, dysfunctional and illogical.

Maybe it’s a good time to get our own boats in order.

Removing the term "mormon" was a blow to any sense of tribe.

Many tribes unify around a strong leader and obedience to them, but these rulers typically represent something that is historical or mythical in their culture. Reformers like Nelson can't use that because they are destroying the very cultural symbols that would give them validity.

Typically a reformer has to use strong propaganda to convince people of their divine purpose, and they have to identify an enemy . This enemy validates the righteous purpose of the leader as the one who can protect and deliver them, but acting against this enemy gives people a way to show allegiance to the tribe and to feel good about themselves and what they are doing. For reformers, this enemy is almost always a group within the tribe, usually those holding on to the old ways the reformer is trying to change. And the process of reforming is almost never without great turmoil. At first, the effort is always to convert the enemy through persuasion. But when they don't move, this almost always turns to force or exile from the tribe.

These patterns are historical and evident through all history. And I think we can identify the pattern in our church today if we look closely. But what Nelson is trying to build as the rallying points for this new tribe are not strong enough to actually build a tribe. There is no real purpose that causes people to act. There is no power in the preaching or propaganda to invigorate or inspire people. There are no cultural stories or history for this new tribe to give people examples and foundation to their lives.

Basically, we are gutting what was something strong replacing it with a bunch of nothing. The new beliefs cannot be justified, so the reliance is on infallability. But under any kind of scrutiny, that appears as swiss cheese. Unless we reverse course, all that will be left are the usurpers dancing on the corpse of previous faith, and those few who blindly follow because they are too afraid of the idea that their personal spiritual foundation might be sand.

Could it be that Nelson is building a NWO just like he pledged to do when taking the skull & bones blood oath’s? It was Michelle Obama that said, “ Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation." Nelson must’ve been on the edge of his seat hearing that rallying cry! Wendy announced “it’s as if he’s been unleashed!”

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

Removing the term "mormon" was a blow to any sense of tribe.

Many tribes unify around a strong leader and obedience to them, but these rulers typically represent something that is historical or mythical in their culture. Reformers like Nelson can't use that because they are destroying the very cultural symbols that would give them validity.

Typically a reformer has to use strong propaganda to convince people of their divine purpose, and they have to identify an enemy . This enemy validates the righteous purpose of the leader as the one who can protect and deliver them, but acting against this enemy gives people a way to show allegiance to the tribe and to feel good about themselves and what they are doing. For reformers, this enemy is almost always a group within the tribe, usually those holding on to the old ways the reformer is trying to change. And the process of reforming is almost never without great turmoil. At first, the effort is always to convert the enemy through persuasion. But when they don't move, this almost always turns to force or exile from the tribe.

These patterns are historical and evident through all history. And I think we can identify the pattern in our church today if we look closely. But what Nelson is trying to build as the rallying points for this new tribe are not strong enough to actually build a tribe. There is no real purpose that causes people to act. There is no power in the preaching or propaganda to invigorate or inspire people. There are no cultural stories or history for this new tribe to give people examples and foundation to their lives.

Basically, we are gutting what was something strong replacing it with a bunch of nothing. The new beliefs cannot be justified, so the reliance is on infallability. But under any kind of scrutiny, that appears as swiss cheese. Unless we reverse course, all that will be left are the usurpers dancing on the corpse of previous faith, and those few who blindly follow because they are too afraid of the idea that their personal spiritual foundation might be sand.

Fascinating! This sounds like cultural
Anthropology. Where did you get the research on reformers attacking a group within the tribe?

Just observation.

One book that I think really lays out how this is done and was very influential with me is "The First Circle" By Solzhenitsyn, and I recommend everyone read it.

But a look into any of these reformation movements through history shows you that those hanging on to the values and principles of the old tribe eventually become the real enemy. They are tangible, and it is easy with a little propaganda to get others to see them and their complaints as the real problem to success of the new ideology.

I found this in cultural anthropology research literature that supports some of your points. So what you're saying is that Pres. Nelson has created a new normative behavior or majority in the church and the result is the creation and punishment of a minority non-conformist group---those who refuse to a adopt the new norm as the prevailing narrative. Am I saying that right, based on what's written below? So are you, based on what's written in the anthropology literature, a non-conformist--one who refuses to adopt the majority culture of the organization---or are you a normative conformist---one who changes your visible behavior to match the majority but who never internalizes the majority group opinions? Here's from the anthropology research literature:

Punishment of non-conformists
Non-conformists threaten to increase within-group variation by introducing deviant behaviours to the group and must receive costly punishment to maintain a homogenous social group. As a consequence of being punished, non-conformists will be less successful than other members of the group. Prestige-biased transmission would suggest that non-conformist behaviors would, therefore, not spread through the population. Papers on the topic suggest that this kind of punishment is prevalent across many different cultures/societies/organizations.

Normative conformity
Normative conformity is the act of changing one's visible behaviour, simply to appear to match the majority, and without actually internalizing the groups opinions. This differs from conformist transmission since normative conformity does not consider frequency of a behaviour as an indicator of worth. The Asch conformity experiments are a perfect example of how robust this effect is and its replication across many cultures shows that this behaviour is very common. Henrich suggests that normative conformity may have evolved to respond to the spread of punishing behaviour toward non-conformists. By appearing similar to the group, one can gain the advantages of in-group membership, while also avoiding punishment. A curious byproduct of normative conformity is that it can contribute to the conformity transmission of norms that the transmitter does not hold, because they were mistakenly attributed by the imitator.

Asch, S.E., 1951. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In: Guetzkow, H. (Ed.), Groups, Leadership and Men. Carnegie, Pittsburgh, pp. 177–190.

Furnham, A., 1984. Studies of cross-cultural conformity: a brief and critical review. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient 27 (1), 65–72.

Neto, F., 1995. Conformity and independence revisited. Social Behavior and Personality 23 (3), 217–222.
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Menozzi, P., Piazza, A., 1994. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Young and Bettinger, 1992Young, D., Bettinger, R.L., 1992. The numic spread: a computer simulation. American Antiquity 57 (1), 85–99.

Diamond, J.M., 1997. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton & Company, New York.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

Being Mormon now definitely is more worldly than it used to mean. The unifying factor now in Mormonism seems to be blind obedience no matter how unethical, unhealthy or illogical.

I’m not making any specific predictions but rather a guess in probability… Since the more ethical, healthy, logical people are leaving more every day, combined with the refusal to repent, the church is on a trajectory to become increasingly evil, dysfunctional and illogical.

Maybe it’s a good time to get our own boats in order.

Removing the term "mormon" was a blow to any sense of tribe.

Many tribes unify around a strong leader and obedience to them, but these rulers typically represent something that is historical or mythical in their culture. Reformers like Nelson can't use that because they are destroying the very cultural symbols that would give them validity.

Typically a reformer has to use strong propaganda to convince people of their divine purpose, and they have to identify an enemy . This enemy validates the righteous purpose of the leader as the one who can protect and deliver them, but acting against this enemy gives people a way to show allegiance to the tribe and to feel good about themselves and what they are doing. For reformers, this enemy is almost always a group within the tribe, usually those holding on to the old ways the reformer is trying to change. And the process of reforming is almost never without great turmoil. At first, the effort is always to convert the enemy through persuasion. But when they don't move, this almost always turns to force or exile from the tribe.

These patterns are historical and evident through all history. And I think we can identify the pattern in our church today if we look closely. But what Nelson is trying to build as the rallying points for this new tribe are not strong enough to actually build a tribe. There is no real purpose that causes people to act. There is no power in the preaching or propaganda to invigorate or inspire people. There are no cultural stories or history for this new tribe to give people examples and foundation to their lives.

Basically, we are gutting what was something strong replacing it with a bunch of nothing. The new beliefs cannot be justified, so the reliance is on infallability. But under any kind of scrutiny, that appears as swiss cheese. Unless we reverse course, all that will be left are the usurpers dancing on the corpse of previous faith, and those few who blindly follow because they are too afraid of the idea that their personal spiritual foundation might be sand.

Could it be that Nelson is building a NWO just like he pledged to do when taking the skull & bones blood oath’s? It was Michelle Obama that said, “ Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation." Nelson must’ve been on the edge of his seat hearing that rallying cry! Wendy announced “it’s as if he’s been unleashed!”

LOL (unleashed)

[Serragon]

Being Mormon now definitely is more worldly than it used to mean. The unifying factor now in Mormonism seems to be blind obedience no matter how unethical, unhealthy or illogical.

I’m not making any specific predictions but rather a guess in probability… Since the more ethical, healthy, logical people are leaving more every day, combined with the refusal to repent, the church is on a trajectory to become increasingly evil, dysfunctional and illogical.

Maybe it’s a good time to get our own boats in order.

Removing the term "mormon" was a blow to any sense of tribe.

Many tribes unify around a strong leader and obedience to them, but these rulers typically represent something that is historical or mythical in their culture. Reformers like Nelson can't use that because they are destroying the very cultural symbols that would give them validity.

Typically a reformer has to use strong propaganda to convince people of their divine purpose, and they have to identify an enemy . This enemy validates the righteous purpose of the leader as the one who can protect and deliver them, but acting against this enemy gives people a way to show allegiance to the tribe and to feel good about themselves and what they are doing. For reformers, this enemy is almost always a group within the tribe, usually those holding on to the old ways the reformer is trying to change. And the process of reforming is almost never without great turmoil. At first, the effort is always to convert the enemy through persuasion. But when they don't move, this almost always turns to force or exile from the tribe.

These patterns are historical and evident through all history. And I think we can identify the pattern in our church today if we look closely. But what Nelson is trying to build as the rallying points for this new tribe are not strong enough to actually build a tribe. There is no real purpose that causes people to act. There is no power in the preaching or propaganda to invigorate or inspire people. There are no cultural stories or history for this new tribe to give people examples and foundation to their lives.

Basically, we are gutting what was something strong replacing it with a bunch of nothing. The new beliefs cannot be justified, so the reliance is on infallability. But under any kind of scrutiny, that appears as swiss cheese. Unless we reverse course, all that will be left are the usurpers dancing on the corpse of previous faith, and those few who blindly follow because they are too afraid of the idea that their personal spiritual foundation might be sand.

Could it be that Nelson is building a NWO just like he pledged to do when taking the skull & bones blood oath’s? It was Michelle Obama that said, “ Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation." Nelson must’ve been on the edge of his seat hearing that rallying cry! Wendy announced “it’s as if he’s been unleashed!”

Unlike some, I don't think his S&B membership matters much except to identify that he has been an elitist for a long time.

As an elitist, he cares about what his peers think and believe and wants to be in line with them. I think he cares much more about this now with his new wife than he did previously, but I think it has always been there. As his peers have changes, so has he. Though he presents himself as a great leader to the LDS, he really is mostly just a follower.

[Serragon]

Fascinating! This sounds like cultural
Anthropology. Where did you get the research on reformers attacking a group within the tribe?

Just observation.

One book that I think really lays out how this is done and was very influential with me is "The First Circle" By Solzhenitsyn, and I recommend everyone read it.

But a look into any of these reformation movements through history shows you that those hanging on to the values and principles of the old tribe eventually become the real enemy. They are tangible, and it is easy with a little propaganda to get others to see them and their complaints as the real problem to success of the new ideology.

I found this in cultural anthropology research literature that supports some of your points. So what you're saying is that Pres. Nelson has created a new normative behavior or majority in the church and the result is the creation and punishment of a minority non-conformist group---those who refuse to a adopt the new norm as the prevailing narrative. Am I saying that right, based on what's written below? So are you, based on what's written in the anthropology literature, a non-conformist--one who refuses to adopt the majority culture of the organization---or are you a normative conformist---one who changes your visible behavior to match the majority but who never internalizes the majority group opinions? Here's from the anthropology research literature:

Punishment of non-conformists
Non-conformists threaten to increase within-group variation by introducing deviant behaviours to the group and must receive costly punishment to maintain a homogenous social group. As a consequence of being punished, non-conformists will be less successful than other members of the group. Prestige-biased transmission would suggest that non-conformist behaviors would, therefore, not spread through the population. Papers on the topic suggest that this kind of punishment is prevalent across many different cultures/societies/organizations.

Normative conformity
Normative conformity is the act of changing one's visible behaviour, simply to appear to match the majority, and without actually internalizing the groups opinions. This differs from conformist transmission since normative conformity does not consider frequency of a behaviour as an indicator of worth. The Asch conformity experiments are a perfect example of how robust this effect is and its replication across many cultures shows that this behaviour is very common. Henrich suggests that normative conformity may have evolved to respond to the spread of punishing behaviour toward non-conformists. By appearing similar to the group, one can gain the advantages of in-group membership, while also avoiding punishment. A curious byproduct of normative conformity is that it can contribute to the conformity transmission of norms that the transmitter does not hold, because they were mistakenly attributed by the imitator.

Asch, S.E., 1951. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In: Guetzkow, H. (Ed.), Groups, Leadership and Men. Carnegie, Pittsburgh, pp. 177–190.

Furnham, A., 1984. Studies of cross-cultural conformity: a brief and critical review. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient 27 (1), 65–72.

Neto, F., 1995. Conformity and independence revisited. Social Behavior and Personality 23 (3), 217–222.
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Menozzi, P., Piazza, A., 1994. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Young and Bettinger, 1992Young, D., Bettinger, R.L., 1992. The numic spread: a computer simulation. American Antiquity 57 (1), 85–99.

Diamond, J.M., 1997. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton & Company, New York.

I feel like I just got handed a bunch of homework.

I really don't know the answers to your questions, as I haven't studied how the academics have tried to analyze and categorize these things. I guess I don't really see the value in trying to fit my observations on human nature into buckets created by others.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

Just observation.

One book that I think really lays out how this is done and was very influential with me is "The First Circle" By Solzhenitsyn, and I recommend everyone read it.

But a look into any of these reformation movements through history shows you that those hanging on to the values and principles of the old tribe eventually become the real enemy. They are tangible, and it is easy with a little propaganda to get others to see them and their complaints as the real problem to success of the new ideology.

I found this in cultural anthropology research literature that supports some of your points. So what you're saying is that Pres. Nelson has created a new normative behavior or majority in the church and the result is the creation and punishment of a minority non-conformist group---those who refuse to a adopt the new norm as the prevailing narrative. Am I saying that right, based on what's written below? So are you, based on what's written in the anthropology literature, a non-conformist--one who refuses to adopt the majority culture of the organization---or are you a normative conformist---one who changes your visible behavior to match the majority but who never internalizes the majority group opinions? Here's from the anthropology research literature:

Punishment of non-conformists
Non-conformists threaten to increase within-group variation by introducing deviant behaviours to the group and must receive costly punishment to maintain a homogenous social group. As a consequence of being punished, non-conformists will be less successful than other members of the group. Prestige-biased transmission would suggest that non-conformist behaviors would, therefore, not spread through the population. Papers on the topic suggest that this kind of punishment is prevalent across many different cultures/societies/organizations.

Normative conformity
Normative conformity is the act of changing one's visible behaviour, simply to appear to match the majority, and without actually internalizing the groups opinions. This differs from conformist transmission since normative conformity does not consider frequency of a behaviour as an indicator of worth. The Asch conformity experiments are a perfect example of how robust this effect is and its replication across many cultures shows that this behaviour is very common. Henrich suggests that normative conformity may have evolved to respond to the spread of punishing behaviour toward non-conformists. By appearing similar to the group, one can gain the advantages of in-group membership, while also avoiding punishment. A curious byproduct of normative conformity is that it can contribute to the conformity transmission of norms that the transmitter does not hold, because they were mistakenly attributed by the imitator.

Asch, S.E., 1951. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In: Guetzkow, H. (Ed.), Groups, Leadership and Men. Carnegie, Pittsburgh, pp. 177–190.

Furnham, A., 1984. Studies of cross-cultural conformity: a brief and critical review. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient 27 (1), 65–72.

Neto, F., 1995. Conformity and independence revisited. Social Behavior and Personality 23 (3), 217–222.
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Menozzi, P., Piazza, A., 1994. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Young and Bettinger, 1992Young, D., Bettinger, R.L., 1992. The numic spread: a computer simulation. American Antiquity 57 (1), 85–99.

Diamond, J.M., 1997. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton & Company, New York.

I feel like I just got handed a bunch of homework.

I really don't know the answers to your questions, as I haven't studied how the academics have tried to analyze and categorize these things. I guess I don't really see the value in trying to fit my observations on human nature into buckets created by others.

PhD in this stuff. Lol!!!

[Fred]

Removing the term "mormon" was a blow to any sense of tribe.

Many tribes unify around a strong leader and obedience to them, but these rulers typically represent something that is historical or mythical in their culture. Reformers like Nelson can't use that because they are destroying the very cultural symbols that would give them validity.

Typically a reformer has to use strong propaganda to convince people of their divine purpose, and they have to identify an enemy . This enemy validates the righteous purpose of the leader as the one who can protect and deliver them, but acting against this enemy gives people a way to show allegiance to the tribe and to feel good about themselves and what they are doing. For reformers, this enemy is almost always a group within the tribe, usually those holding on to the old ways the reformer is trying to change. And the process of reforming is almost never without great turmoil. At first, the effort is always to convert the enemy through persuasion. But when they don't move, this almost always turns to force or exile from the tribe.

These patterns are historical and evident through all history. And I think we can identify the pattern in our church today if we look closely. But what Nelson is trying to build as the rallying points for this new tribe are not strong enough to actually build a tribe. There is no real purpose that causes people to act. There is no power in the preaching or propaganda to invigorate or inspire people. There are no cultural stories or history for this new tribe to give people examples and foundation to their lives.

Basically, we are gutting what was something strong replacing it with a bunch of nothing. The new beliefs cannot be justified, so the reliance is on infallability. But under any kind of scrutiny, that appears as swiss cheese. Unless we reverse course, all that will be left are the usurpers dancing on the corpse of previous faith, and those few who blindly follow because they are too afraid of the idea that their personal spiritual foundation might be sand.

Could it be that Nelson is building a NWO just like he pledged to do when taking the skull & bones blood oath’s? It was Michelle Obama that said, “ Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation." Nelson must’ve been on the edge of his seat hearing that rallying cry! Wendy announced “it’s as if he’s been unleashed!”

Unlike some, I don't think his S&B membership matters much except to identify that he has been an elitist satanist for a long time.

As an elitist, satanist he cares about what his peers think and believe and wants to be in line with them. I think he cares much more about this now with his new wife than he did previously, but I think it has always been there. As his peers have changes, so has he. Though he presents himself as a great leader to the LDS, he really is mostly just a follower follows satan.

I made a couple modifications.