I look forward to Tuesdays every week for ME and whenever MS is able to post a new interview. Btw, I love the 5 hour interviews John D. does, it gives a chance to get into greater detail and pass the time at work.

Thank you both again for all that you do. It’s good to know that you two can get along. Don’t really see what Nyal’s problem is with MS.

-Richard

My favorite line of the podcast was: “you strip away the truth claims of the LDS church and what do you have?” (Trevor): “Funeral Potatoes” too funny.

Both Mormon Expression and Mormon Stories have been a huge support for me as I dealt with my faith crisis and eventually my decision to leave the church. Thanks to John Larsen and John Dehlin for their time and efforts producing their podcasts. I think if I stay connected to the Mormon world in any way it will be through these podcasts.

Cheers!

And you should screen your callers better on your live shows.

I’m not a big fan of John Dehlin but I’ll give this one a shot (once the error is fixed) and hopefully will gain a new appreciation for the man.

The Mormon church is very big on members mingling. (Just read any complaint website about Utah Mormons and you will hear lots of people complaining about how LDS stick together like glue.)There are always events going on, not only for ward youth, but for adults as well. The church, since it’s inception, has always encouraged members to socialize with picnics, dinners, dances, etc.

Mormons dress like they do because your body is sacred. You wouldn’t want to show the most sacred parts of it to anyone but your spouse. The Mormon dress code is one of the best things about the church, in my opinion. I have been to several other churches where women show skin that makes me blush. Cleavage and midriffs showing as well as upper thighs. How can you concentrate on God when the woman in front of you is falling out of her clothing?

As for the music, it is tradition. There are Mormon wards that invite instruments and spiritual singing that wouldn’t be seen in every meeting. These are special occasions though because the meeting is less about the music than the talks. They are what really make up the meeting.

Someone mentioned the speaking in tongues and shouting thing too. That seems a bit too close to demonic possession for my taste. That could be what bothers non-pentecostal churches (Not just Mormons.)

I agree about the length of services though. I think limiting meetings to one or two talks and take out a song or so. Make them 1/2 hr each so that in 1.5hrs you are done. When I was a kid we often stayed only for Sacrament.(Oh, and we don’t drink coffee. Besides, after a three hour meeting, who would want to stick around for it. lol.)

The church’s handling of it was terrible however, and the Mormon belief that people are punished immediately for not living the Mormon way is very damaging to people who may already be feeling some degree of guilt.

It’s strange how many religious people believe God punishes people by hurting the ones they love. Mormonism uses the fear of this very effectively as a control mechanism. It’s a sick way of thinking.

Mormons seem to have a very low opinion of their God if they believe the agency fought for by Jesus is undermined constantly by the Father who punishes the innocent to attack the “guilty”.

I’m agnostic, but in my opinion any perfect father would not behave in this way.

It took a while to figure out why people tend to compliment my talks in general and only did so until after my last speaking assignment, which was the second one in a row to be “based” (ie: a re-read) of a Conference talk from the Ensign. What I did is just take the same topic and then write my own talk from scratch, giving a new perspective on the topic because if they want to know what the original speaker said, they can read the Ensign. I was even tempted last week to give someone the snarky comment, “You did a great job reading [the speaker]‘s words.” And I by no means am a good speaker.

The son did not kill himself either as it was an accident involved in mixing those medications. If anyone, the manufacturers of those drugs are the most responsible- especially with the recent studies of how a majority of the manufactured drugs these days are not only completely ineffective, they end up doing more damage.

I wish Dennis and Sue the best. I lost my brother and can only imagine the grief my parents have gone through.

You nailed it, Richard. It is completely, 100% one-sided. If you convert to the church from another background, they’ll want you to teach your children your new Mormon faith regardless of prior agreements with your spouse. If you marry LDS and then later leave the church, they’ll want you to keep your mouth shut about your new beliefs. It isn’t about honoring prior commitments nor is it about always teaching the children the beliefs of the parents; it’s about LDS beliefs taking priority over all.

My own feelings are that a person has the right to teach his or her children their current religious beliefs regardless of what they believed before or agreed to before. Or in other words, everyone should be prepared for the possibility of living in an interfaith marriage someday, even those who marry in the faith.

If I can understand 14-17 year-old boys typing with more abbreviations and slang than actual words, I think I can manage folks like Mr. Jozevz above.

I think this could be a whole episode on its own because testimonies become objectified, as if they were tangible, we need to protect them, they are fragile, they grow like a seed, we need to nourish them, we show them off (bear) to other people. It is meaningless, but it makes mormons feel like they actually have something, “I gained my testimony when” it is like you have a degree or something. So much ground to cover.

I listened to it at home and got red-eyed just like I thought I would. That was so poignant and painful to listen to.

And yet Dennis and Sue remain beautiful and hopeful people in spite of what they have been through. Thank you for sharing this story.

I totally agree that children should never be left alone with a bishop (or any church official for that matter). As this story makes so tragically clear, positions of authority within Mormonism are not necessarily given to people who should have them).

“Brethren”
“Burning in my bosom” / “heartfelt”
“tender mercies”
“has a sweet spirit”
“promptings / whisperings of the spirit” / “touched by the spirit”
“bear witness”
“mothers in Israel / Zion”
“eternal companion” “helpmate”
“thee, thy, thou”
“Sacred not secret”
“patriarch of the home”
“the keys of x”
“temporal”
“solemn assembly”

I’m new to the ME site but am learning so much. The circumcission topic was quite a surpise item that appeared and stirred up thoughts about my own brutal suffering experience, being born in Britain, when it was a common practice.

I’m so glad that it was not inflicted on my own 3 sons.

I look forward to listening to many more of your informative and challenging discussions over the next few weeks.

Thanks again!

“Yeah, why exactly is using Jacobean English somehow more reverent?”

I agree that this is one of the silliest notions held by the Church. As has been pointed out before, the only reason that the King James Tranlation used Jacobean English is that that was the language in current use at the time the translation was made.

Another misconception promulgated by Church authorities is that the use of “thee”, “thou”, “thy”, and the verb conjugations associated with their use are more formal or “honorific” than the “you” forms now exclusively used in normal, modern English. This is just the opposite of the truth. Anyone who has served foreign language missions where they had to learn European languages such as the Germanic or Romantic languages knows that the English “thee” and “thou” forms translate into the familiar forms that are exlusively used in less formal situations while addressing family members and other close associates. In King James’ time, for any commoners to use “thee” and “thou” when addressing those of the royal or noble classes would be taken as grossly insulting and disrespectful, and would very likely get them arrested and even imprisoned!

I know that in my own native language, Norwegian, and also in Danish (and also in Spanish, as those who have served Spanish-speaking missions will attest), it is invariably the familiar forms of the second-person pronouns that are used in addressing God in prayer — not the formal forms. I know little of Oriental languages, but I suppose they may differ by using the most honorific forms when addressing diety.

Mormon scholars and linguists who teach these languages at Church-owned schools surely must be aware of all this, but I suppose this comes under the category of “intellectual knowledge that can only confuse.”

I am still struggling with the social aspects of not believing in the church and ‘coming out’ to people. It’s been a hard road for me, that I have traveled alone most of the time. But I am finally happy. For the first time in as long as I can remember, I am ME. I am happy and real and ME. It’s both awesome and scary at the same time.

This podcast is great. Thank you.

One thing I did not hear mentioned in the podcast was the ritualized use of “brethren” instead of “brothers” or “brother”, sometimes even when speaking about an individual priesthood holder–apparently oblivious to the fact that “brethren” is only an alternate plural form of the word “brother” that can never be used correctly to refer to a single individual.

Keep moving the work forward in this the last dispensation of the fullness of times.

As a kid I heard this all the time and had no clue what anyone was saying. I heard “nohar moraxa dent may befall them” and I had no idea what the word “befall” meant.

Some of these phrases start to resemble the Latin used by Catholics. No one really cares about the meaning behind them as they become ritualised and perfunctory.

Another great podcast. I could have listened for another couple of hours.

ozpoof@gmail.com

Funny how there is total silence after she says that. The poor woman did sound pretty tired.

OH! And you all forgot to mention the canned 8 and under testimony.. “I like to bear (or bury) my testimony… I know this church is true… I know Thomas S Monson is a true prohpet…” and then it usually varies from there, something about being thankful for parents, which isn’t a testimony, and so on.

“As I shall demonstrate, sacred language emerges from a continuous process whereby secular words are transformed into sacred ones, and in time, sacred words are returned, if you will, to the domain of the common people. The relationship between sacred and secular language is not unique to Lakota, and perhaps it is a universal feature of languages.”

– Sacred Language, The Nature of Supernatural Discourse in Lakota by William K. Powers

I originally downloaded it from dooce.com. Here it is:

http://caferock.org/blog/fm100.mp3

I did listen to the podcast a second time and you definitely softened on your position.

I did get defensive about Glenn calling public prayers a performance because I’ve never viewed my own public prayers as a “performance”. But you can notice that during the discussion I actually begin to accept the view that most public prayers do come across more like a sermon to the audience rather than something directed just to God.

So yes, I was a bit defensive in the beginning, but I do agree with you and the others that most Mormon public prayers do end up being more of a performance rather than a just a prayer.

“Know that you are of much worth to us.”

I think that means either “I love you” or “we could trade you for a good horse.”

I was saddened however that you did not include my favorite expression. Aside from the Rolling Stones’ song, I have never heard this phrase uttered by a non-LDS person; “Salt of the earth,” used when describing someone else, though only when describing a fellow Mormon of course.

Thank for the great podcast!

I’m wondering if I might take part?

I’ve been in the LDS church for 30 years, being baptised at age 18.

For 20 years I lived in the UK, and, for five of those years ran one of the first LDS apologetic web pages in the UK, “Ask The Elder.com” I answered questions about doctrine and history.

I’m back in the United States, living in Whittier California, and am back to writing and studying about the doctrines of the Church.

May I be of some help?

And yes there are some Mormonisms that you didn’t get to. I know time was limited.

Here are my additions:

“We’d like to welcome you……..” rather than “welcome to.”

Saying “reverent” to mean ‘quiet’ rather than the larger idea of reverence for things sacred.

“By way of announcement”— I think someone may have hit this is in the podcast.

“Is there anything we can do for you?” as said by Home Teachers.

The term “moral” being used exclusively in relation to sexuality rather than the normal broader use of moral or morality. ie. Morally clean = no sex

“ponder and pray”

I found Glenn’s cadence exercise with the Sacrament prayer fascinating. I recognized it almost immediately and I haven’t attended more than 2-3 times a year for the past 4 years. That stuff is so burned into my brain it will never leave.

Funny podcast. Thanks.

Personally I would like to have that “To resign or not resign that is the question!” issue explored further and deeper in the future.

I actually asked about the middle initial thing in Sunday School earlier this year, which was followed by a few moments of stunned silence from the teacher, you would have thought I’d brought up polyandry or something.

I tried to find out if someone had put it on youtube so that you all could of heard, but was unable to find it. Darn. I mean, o heck.

“God is not a paper-pushing God!”

“There is something else: We are drifting from the use of reverential words in our prayers. Familiar terms such as you and yours are replacing thee and thine in prayer. Teach the children and gently inform new members that we use reverential terms when addressing our Heavenly Father in prayer.” (“Reverence Invites Revelation,” Ensign, November 1991)

Yeah, why exactly is using Jacobean English somehow more reverent?

Oh, and one more thing from that article. He totally frowns down upon Mormon Expression and other ventures of this type:

“Recently the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles issued a statement alerting members of the Church to the dangers of participating in circles which concentrate on doctrine and ordinances and measure them by the intellect alone. If doctrines and behavior are measured by the intellect alone, the essential spiritual ingredient is missing, and we will be misled.”

Oh, and the over-use of words like truly:

I am so truly grateful; we were so truly blessed. So. Truly.

Is it just Mormons that use “yea” in talks? As in “yea, even until I understood what the Lord was telling me…”

Or the 2 second testimony given by every four year old in the chapel (preface with heavy breathing into the mike for three minutes:

IwannaBearMyTestimony – sniff – IknowThisChurchizzTrue – sniff – IknowThatJosephSmithWazzaProphetaGod – sniff, wipe nose with hand, clean off on church trousers/dress – IlovemyMummyanDaddy[insert siblings as required] – heavy breathing – InnaNammahJeezussChriseAYYYmen.

A related topic you should tackle are Mormon names. I can put you in touch with a linguistics professor at the U who has done research on that topic if you want. In the meantime, I was googling a KUER broadcast on this topic I remember hearing way back when; I couldn’t find it, but did stumble on this:
http://wesclark.com/ubn/herald.html

I say these things…yeah, even so…Amen.

From my own experience, I’ve said that mainly because “In the name of Jesus Christ” by itself is a sentence fragment, and I don’t like using sentence fragments in formal speech.

You crack me up. Just because you are a genuinely sincere person you balk at the fact that Mormon public prayers are a performance? Are you kidding me? The average Mormon, I guarantee, is thinking more about how their prayer sounds to the audience than they are about how it glorifies their god. And the pinnacle of all prayer performances in the church are general conference prayers. Why do you think these guys pontificate with the most flowery language for like 5 minutes in these prayers if they are not a performance?

If the GA’s didn’t use the initials, we wouldn’t know if we were listening to L. Tom Perry or Tom Perry on these podcasts. I prefer the latter, btw.

Just a whole nother batch of Moisms:

“We are so (eternally, forever) grateful …”

“We ask thee to bless us that we may travel safely (home, to church, to the beach, …)”, then drive 90mph to get there.

“We have been spiritually fed by the talks we have heard today”. (When we weren’t dozing off or preparing our Sunday School lessons)

“We are grateful for the sacrifice of OUR ELDER BROTHER”

I like the idea of bringing on new people, but it didn’t work out as well as planned this week.

I gotta say the mandatory initial in the name always gets me too. I hate that no matter who they are, once they become a GA they suddenly HAVE TO use an initial with their name. My mission pres became GA and suddenly added a T as his middle initial. Or began using it at least, he probably had the middle name before but never used it. But if he didn’t have one I’m sure he would have added one, just to fit in.

Loved the Harry Potter stuff at the end! I wonder how the play went. Did you make a good sorting hat John? Remember: You have to sing an introduction song about all four houses before getting started with the sorting.

A lot of them were in posts on NOM, LdS Apologetic and ExMo boards by some guy named “John Larsen”. I guess he’s a closeted Mormon Studies Scholar of some kind!

Hey maybe y’all could get him on the podcast!

Great podcast.

As I have said before, those who deal honestly and charitably with their fellow beings without any expectation or hope of reward or punishment in the hereafter are far more deserving of any such reward than the most devoutly religious person who does so in order to be so rewarded or out of fear of eternal punishment for failure to act kindly and fairly towards others.

If there is such a thing as God and a hereafter, I would not be surprised to find that honest atheists and agnostics who dealt honestly and compassionately with others, despite their lack of belief in a divine being, were much more highly regarded by God than the vast majority of Prophets and other religious leaders.

My leaving the church was directly related to my coming out as a lesbian. My family’s reaction was–”but, we’re all going to the celestial kingdom. That’s all we’re working for. . .and you won’t be there.” I just said “we don’t know that”. But, what else could I say? That’s totally heavy. I taught “eternal progression” and “perseverance” on my mission, so I know what they think. How do I just say “well, I don’t/can’t believe that anymore”?

Anyway, keep up the good work on this podcast. I’m hooked.

“Sin is any culpable and conscious action or negligent inaction that unnecessarily endangers or harms someone other than oneself. Harming oneself (provided that one succeeds in harming only oneself) is not sinful; it is merely stupid.”

This is the only definition of sin that makes even the slightest bit of sense to me.

Congratulations to all of you for another excellent podcast!

“The worst part (for me) was that they tried to argue that since we started our marriage as LDS and were married in the temple where we covenanted to raise our children in the church, that I was obligated to continue to do so even when I no longer believe. I thought: Well, if we were married as agnostics or atheist (or even Jewish or Muslim) and she converted to Mormonism, would they have the same attitude about her raising our children outside the church? Without the privilege of informing her children of her new found faith nor hoping to teach them the “truths” she has discovered? Would they counsel her to support her husband in raising them as good Jewish, Muslim or atheist kids? It was just so obviously one-sided from my view.”

It’s sad that GAs and TBMs have so much difficulty in seeing the inherent hypocrisy and unfairness of that. If it is wrong for those of other religions to ostracize, disown, persecute or condemn friends or family members who convert to Mormonism, how can it be right for Mormons to be similarly intolerant or condemnatory towards other Mormons, who honestly come to the conclusion that they have been misled or duped, for refusing to pretend that they still believe? They excuse that, I suppose, by claiming that Since Mormonism is the one and only true religion, it is the only one that can justifiably treat ex-members in that way. Of course, many other religions adamantly claim the same thing for themselves. At least Mormons do not claim that those who leave the “true” faith deserve to be executed as claimed by many Muslims and as demanded by a strictly literal reading of the Old Testament.

After the printing of first edition, David O. Mackay said that it was so full of errors that it should not be re-published and it was “unfortunate” that the book had been so widely distributed. The controversial publication of the book led to a new rule that General Authorities should not publish without approval by the first presidency.

MacKay was later approached by McConkie when in ill-health (six years later) and asked if he could re-publish the book if he made corrections. MacKay agreed only under the supervision of Spencer W. Kimball and the understanding that it would not be considered official church doctrine.

The book has undergone tens of revisions since then because of conflicts with official church doctrine.

“THURSDAY, January 7, 1960
10:15 to 12:45 p.m. Re: The book, Mormon Doctrine”

“The First Presidency met with Elders Mark E. Petersen and Marion G. Romney. They submitted their report upon their examination of the book ‘Mormon Doctrine’ by Elder Bruce McConkie.”

[...]

“Elder Petersen stated that the extent of the corrections which he had marked in his copy of the book (1067) affected most of the 776 pages of the book. He also said that he thought the brethren should be under the rule that no book should be published without a specific approval of the First Presidency.”

[...]

“It was agreed that the necessary corrections are so numerous that to republish a corrected edition of the book would be such an extensive repudiation of the original as to destroy the credit of the author; that the republication of the book should be forbidden and that the book should be repudiated in such a way as to save the career of the author as one of the General Authorities of the Church. It was also agreed that this decision should be announced to the Council of the Twelve before I talk to the author.”

Do you have some references (preferably live Internet links) so those of us who are into such things can dig deeper?