If you're bored and up for a laugh...

Before I begin, let me just reiterate why I started this blog. My main blog is called Being the Urban Koda. I found though that occasionally I would post stuff that people from a similar background (I was raised as a Mormon) might find offensive. It's not that I dislike the Mormon Church, in fact I still affiliate with them, but there are some places where I disagree with them, generally with cultural type issues, and occasionally when they involve themselves in places they shouldn't, such as politics. There is what I believe to be a fallacy amongst the members of the Church that the leadership is chosen by God and should therefore never be questioned. Personally I have seen enough instances where it very well should have been questioned, but wasn't, yet still the fallacy persists.

So with that in mind, I started this blog as a place I could sound off my frustrations, without offending some of my Mormon readers. Unfortunately, since this blog appears on my profile above the other, many of those I didn't wish to offend have been seen here from time to time. While I have yet to make the decision to hide this blog on my profile, or keep it visible, I feel I need to add a disclaimer to my LDS readers that at times content in this blog may be offensive to you. My intention is not at all to offend, and so I hope you will see it that way.

This is however hopefully not an offensive post!

Several weeks ago, Frank Staheli wrote a piece called Amazing Grace: Why Do So Many Mormons Not Get It?. Frank is a Mormon, and one of a handful of men that I really admire in the membership of the LDS Church. He believes what he believes, but is not so blinded by the doctrine that he misses the point of it. He is a genuinely good and honest man, and I believe he gets it! But this posting isn't about shouting Frank's praises!

I made a couple of comments on the post, because I think he raised some valid points. What I got from it was that very often the concept of grace is brushed off by many of the members. It's not that it isn't taught, but the focus is more on being super obedient and sacrificing as a way to earn your spot in heaven, rather than working on being a good person and letting the atonement make up the difference. Personally even though I was raised by parent who served in all kinds of high positions, I was over 20 before the concept struck me, and even with that it's taken another decade to really sink in...

Anyway, I thought it was an excellent post. Some of the comments made about it were good. Some kind of missed the point, but then one got really interesting. If you go to the posting, it's about halfway through the comments. Some guy who preferred to remain anonymous starts a comment with the words... "The Mormonism of today is a Pseudo-Mormonism. I would rather call it Anti-Mormonism"

What basically happens is this... Through superfluous use of words he indicates that he believes that after the first 2 prophets things went wrong in the Church. Aside from them not living one thing, he insinuates other things but never actually mentions them. He beats around the bush for a while, after which I take the bait try and see what he's getting at. I personally think there were problems right from the start, so I was interested in what he had to say. I'll let you read it if you would like, but here was my take on the guy...

He proved the point of Franks posting 100%. I suspect he is actually a member of one of the groups which has splintered off from the LDS Church. While he never comes out in favor of polygamy, I suspect it may be one of those type of groups. Those groups typically practice something called the Law of Consecration. The idea behind that is that you give everything to the Church - property, money etc. and then you receive back a portion equal to your needs. I've heard it described as a righteous version of communism - righteous because "God" is in charge of it. This law is what he keeps bringing up.

You'll see a few other things. First and foremost is that you can't have an honest and open discussion with someone who has a dogmatic view of a religion. You'll also note that he isn't the best writer, I suspect either English is his second language or he is poorly educated - another sign he might be from one of the splinter groups. Ironically he makes a comment akin to saying illiterate people aren't intelligent... Oh?

It started to get kind of annoying towards the end... He was reading all kinds of things into what I was saying and all but stopped short of telling me I was headed straight to hell - although he may have insinuated it in a few places. He had a very myopic view of the world and religion - specifically that his brand of the only true religion is not meant for everyone, and that God requires strict and rigid obedience. You'll also notice that he completely avoided my questioning of the first 2 prophets, including references to their infidelity and racism. Just minor things you know!!

I finished it by saying that I was pretty sure we were on different paths. My hope is that he will write me off as a lost sheep / angel of Satan or something and give up.

Oh well! It was fun while it lasted :-)