A spokesperson for the church said it does not vet the therapists its bishops recommend and pay for, saying “it is up to church members” to “make their own decisions.”
Don’t try to gaslight me, I was deacons/teachers quorum president, priests first assistant, an eagle scout, more baptisms for the dead than I could shake a stick at, ordained aaronic/melchezdik priesthood, all the men in my family RMs, and most on the bishopric at some point or another.
That’s some serious cognitive dissonance if you believe believe “Mormon” ever was or is an epithet. Do you think Monson was controlled by the devil to launch and sustain the “I’m a Mormon” the campaign? No? Then do you think he wasn’t guided by the Lord to start the campaign, even though it was doomed to fail? How about Hinckley saying Mormon should mean “more good” all the way back in the '90s, putting Nelson back in his place, was the prophet being deceived by Satan then? Was Hinckley not being guided by the Lord?
Something’s not adding up, and to get past it requires a ton of mental gymnastics, like the kind you’re applying.
It’s pretty common for marginalized groups to attempt to reclaim derogatory epithets that target them. For example, American revolutionaries took over the term “Yankee”, which was derogatory, and LGBT folks have reclaimed the term “queer”. Unfortunately, such attempts are not always successful, and it’s obvious that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ attempt to reclaim “Mormon” is an example.
Regardless, the history of the derogatory epithet “Mormon” is well-known. It is founded in attempts to dehumanize and marginalize Latter-day Saints, and its use can be traced back to acts of genocide in the 1830s.
I understand that leaving the Church is an emotional experience and leaves most people very bitter, but do try to moderate your hatred.
I reject your claim that Mormon was ever or is an epithet, and I reject that this is an explanation church leadership has ever attempted to use before RMN (and I’ve never heard his presidency trying to pass it off as such). Please present authoritative evidence of your claims (and not just rhetoric from apologists like FAIR, which do not have actual church endorsement).
I understand that leaving the Church is an emotional experience and leaves most people very bitter, but do try to moderate your hatred.
What you’ve mistaken for anger is conviction. Conviction that the church should be held to the same standard of honesty that it holds the membership to.
Not too long ago people were being excommunicated for challenging leadership to be honest and open about its history, or even asking questions about it. I think those challenges were partly responsible for the church finally fessing up to some of its problematic past (e.g., see the gospel topic essays, a huge step for them to publicly publish this).
So perhaps that’s where you’ve judged me incorrectly too: most members aren’t used to leadership being openly challenged. In the past that’s been labeled as apostasy, even if our history has recorded that common consent should allow for a certain level of dissent; this has been mostly forgotten.
Don’t try to gaslight me, I was deacons/teachers quorum president, priests first assistant, an eagle scout, more baptisms for the dead than I could shake a stick at, ordained aaronic/melchezdik priesthood, all the men in my family RMs, and most on the bishopric at some point or another.
That’s some serious cognitive dissonance if you believe believe “Mormon” ever was or is an epithet. Do you think Monson was controlled by the devil to launch and sustain the “I’m a Mormon” the campaign? No? Then do you think he wasn’t guided by the Lord to start the campaign, even though it was doomed to fail? How about Hinckley saying Mormon should mean “more good” all the way back in the '90s, putting Nelson back in his place, was the prophet being deceived by Satan then? Was Hinckley not being guided by the Lord?
Something’s not adding up, and to get past it requires a ton of mental gymnastics, like the kind you’re applying.
It’s pretty common for marginalized groups to attempt to reclaim derogatory epithets that target them. For example, American revolutionaries took over the term “Yankee”, which was derogatory, and LGBT folks have reclaimed the term “queer”. Unfortunately, such attempts are not always successful, and it’s obvious that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ attempt to reclaim “Mormon” is an example.
Regardless, the history of the derogatory epithet “Mormon” is well-known. It is founded in attempts to dehumanize and marginalize Latter-day Saints, and its use can be traced back to acts of genocide in the 1830s.
I understand that leaving the Church is an emotional experience and leaves most people very bitter, but do try to moderate your hatred.
*Shows up to thread about church abuse, defends his church on arcane and semantic grounds.
Not really trying to defend anything, other than educating people about the proper name of the Church.
I reject your claim that Mormon was ever or is an epithet, and I reject that this is an explanation church leadership has ever attempted to use before RMN (and I’ve never heard his presidency trying to pass it off as such). Please present authoritative evidence of your claims (and not just rhetoric from apologists like FAIR, which do not have actual church endorsement).
Who ever said I left the church?
It happened at least as far back as 1982. It certainly was used derogatorily during the genocide in Missouri in 1938.
Your tone and combativeness feels very r/exmormon. In other words, you come across as a bitter disaffected former member.
What you’ve mistaken for anger is conviction. Conviction that the church should be held to the same standard of honesty that it holds the membership to.
Not too long ago people were being excommunicated for challenging leadership to be honest and open about its history, or even asking questions about it. I think those challenges were partly responsible for the church finally fessing up to some of its problematic past (e.g., see the gospel topic essays, a huge step for them to publicly publish this).
So perhaps that’s where you’ve judged me incorrectly too: most members aren’t used to leadership being openly challenged. In the past that’s been labeled as apostasy, even if our history has recorded that common consent should allow for a certain level of dissent; this has been mostly forgotten.