by Kenneson 46 Replies latest jw friends
Yes, the Mormons have their ex-sites too. One difference I note is that the LDS Church doesn't tell its members to avoid "apostate" sites, as does the W.T. One church spokesperson stated: "Beyond urging members to use wisdom and judgment in their use of the Internet or any other medium of communication, we have made no comment on specific Web sites."
See "Sites provide community for former and wavering Mormons" at
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/2003-06-30-Mormons_X.htm
Are you certain? I had heard that the LDS church "encourages" its members to only read information approved of by the church. It discourages reading anti-LDS stuff.
Regarding visiting apostate sites, the morman church really doesn't care, at least this has been my experience with my morman friends, they call it having free agency to do what they will. I've mentioned before, when a morman is excommunicated or disfellowshiped, it is a mormans responsibility to show kindness towards that person, and not shun them. They're suppose to help fellowship that person back if the person wants to return.
See question #6 on this site:
Are you certain? I had heard that the LDS church "encourages" its members to only read information approved of by the church. It discourages reading anti-LDS stuff.
You're probably right, but I think there is a BIG difference between encourage/discourage and what it seems the JWs do (at least from what I've read on JWD).
Drwtsn..
See question #6 on this site:It looks like those questions are for mormans who want to go through their temples. Those questions wouldn't be applicable for general membership, from what I understand. "Temple" mormans live up to a higher standard.
So basically Mormons are not nearly as strict as JWs in that regard, huh? JWs are brainwashed to fear anything worldly, antiJW, etc.
"Beyond urging members to use wisdom and judgment in their use of the Internet or any other medium of communication, we have made no comment on specific Web sites."
Neither has the WT Society. Think about it. Have they ennumerated any specific sites with addresses and all? This comment above sounds like the type of obfuscation that could come from the JWs. Sure, nothing specific -- yet everyone knows what they mean.
I saw a Mormon propoganda film in which a group of young "elders" on their two-year missionary assignment found out that one of them was reading "anti-Mormon" books. They called it, I quote, "worse than pornography." Amazingly, that is the exact same ludicrous illustration the WT uses to discourage members from reading ex-dub stuff. Don't just take the Mormon's word for it. They're a cult just one notch below the dubs in my opinion.
Bradley
first, I think we have to be careful not to lump them all into one group because of one or two things we've heard, and that goes for Mormons and JWs and everyone for that matter. Things can go wrong from time to time, but when looking at any particular religion, you have to go by what their official 'rules' are on any given subject. And then you have to take into account things that commonly occur. For instance, we know that 'technically' a JW is free to report sexual abuse to the authorities, but we know that 90% of the cases we've seen, this isn't what happened. These are unwritten rules that contradict the official public rules. So, we're able to form an opinion that JWs are NOT allowed to report abuse to the authorities, because we know of so many cases where they have been DF'd for soing so. It's safe to assume that there is an unwritten rule that contradicts their 'public' rule.
In the case of the Mormon Church and their view of anti-Mormon literature. Obviously any God fearing Mormon is going to view anti-Mormon literature as 'worse than pornography'. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. They believe they have the true Church of Christ, they're not going to take kindly to information that is against their Church. Same with the JWs. I don't think it's wrong for the JWs to hate anti-JW material either, it's obvious that they would, just like we don't like anti-anti-JW material, haha.
The difference in the two religions, is that the Mormon Church encourages you to always keep a watch on their Prophets. As a matter of fact, President Hinckley (SP?) said a while back (loosely quoted):
"Don't believe what we as Prophets tell you until you verify each and every piece of information with your God. Anything we say should NOT be repeated until you've come to believe these things yourself through prayer to our Heavenly Father"
- Mormons claim that their Prophets have a direct link to God, that they can speak with God. They don't claim to just KNOW that they're God's Church because they made some calculations that ultimately failed, they actually have a reason for existing, right or wrong I respect that.
The official rule of anti-Mormon literature by the LDS Church is "There is no rule". They do have what they call free agency. You are allowed to read what you wish. Do they like it? DUH! Obviously not, they 'hope' you don't read it, but there is no rule against it. Will they disfellowship you for it? NO. And even if they did (which they do not), their Disfellowshipping is equivalent to the JW 'marking'. They can still associate with DF'd members, and amazingly enough, they can still enter the Temple (even if they do associate with DF'd members), which is available ONLY to those in very good standing in the Church.
The question #6 on that web page (6. Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?) is for a Temple Recommend, not for entry into the religion, or a basis for their standing in their religion. Reading anti-Mormon literature would not stop you from being recommended for entry to the Temple. However, I imagine that regular association with an anti-Mormon group might do it, or sympathy for these groups. That just makes sense, why would one want to go to the Temple if they didn't believe in their religion? Note that reading anti-Mormon literature and "affiliating" with anti-Mormons, is two completely different things.
They're not punished in any way for reading any of this material. I've known several hundred Mormons for 15+ years, and I constantly ask every one I talk to about these things because I'm amazed with their freedom. I'm amazed that their DF'd aren't shunned.
As a matter of fact, we had some Missionaries over around Christmas, and they were telling us how they went to the Methodist Church for a special Christmas celebration. They had to get special permission to stay out late (Missionaries have to be in by 9PM), and they gave their reasons for asking permission. "We're going to the Methodist Church for a Christmas Celebration".
Show me a JW that wouldn't be DF'd for going to the Methodist Church for a Christmas Celebration, and I'll agree that the LDS is a cult. I think the word 'Cult' gets thrown around way too easily sometimes. The Mormon Church shows no signs of a traditional cult. there is no shunning, no death for leaving it, nothing of the sort. They are not a cult, whether they have God or not, they are definitely not a cult. They're a bit strict, comparing them to other religions, but that doesn't make it fair to tag them with 'cult'. Rev ---------- LambsRoar.org
Hi,
Ex-Mormons have many similar issues with the LDS Church as ex-JWs have with the Watchtower Society. There is not at mucb problem with shunning, and the Mormon religion is going more and more mainstream ... but, they have a ways to go. The following site may prove helpful:
http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/w-agora.php3?site=exmobb&bn=exmobb_recovery
Jim W.
