Jordan is a young man I can somewhat relate to. A religious seeker very much like myself. His explorations have received a considerable amount of attention on Youtube. I think he's made a hasty decision recently, and this is my case as to why he should reconsider.
Part 1
Part 2
Notes I used to make these two videos:
Jordan, I'm Gary.
I'm a Mormon who frankly admits that Joseph Smith taught some things that don't stand up to scrutiny. I don't think that it is necessary to agree with absolutely everything a religious teacher ever had to say in order to find value in his teachings.
First of all, let me say that this all or nothing, the church is true or it is not, either everything is 100% true or it is 100% worthless, is not reasonable. The missionaries and the members may have been of such a mindset, but I'm telling you right now, throw that nonsense away. Mormonism, like every other philosophy, is a collection of ideas. Ideas should be taken one at a time, considered each on it's own individual merits.
I think you're being hasty in throwing throwing away a tremendous source of truth, and the resources that really helped me as a 19-year-old, when I converted. At that time, psychologically, I was a mess, completely unprepared by the California public school system to succeed in college, and function as a self-sufficient, productive adult in society. Through the church and it's unique programs, especially in my case the missionary program, I found helpful people who enabled me with the tools to take the pieces and put together the foundation for a great adult life.
The Bible says that if a prophet proclaims a false prophesy, you should not be afraid of him. Evangelical Fundies may WISH it said that if he issues a false prophesy, he never was a prophet in the first place, and that none of his previous pronouncements have any validity, but that simply is not what it says.
Sometimes the material we have from Joseph was on par with what we would expect from someone of his educational level and frontier surroundings, sometimes downright silly, other times we have things that were extremely profound. And Therein lies the proof. A man who exhibits knowledge and wisdom far beyond what he (and all those he associates with) are normally and naturally capable of is obviously getting this advanced information from an external source.
He taught that death was not the final opportunity to accept Christ, that there will be preaching in the afterlife while we await the day of resurrection, and the opportunity to accept, answering the hopeless dilemma of how a just God could deny heaven to people for not accepting a Savior that they never had the opportunity to learn about. The entirety of Christendom, and not just Evangelicals who think that their faction of Christianity are the only real Christians, but all the sects who accept Jesus of Nazareth as the promised messiah, seems to be in unison in the belief that death is the final opportunity to accept Jesus. Yet this one young frontiersman steps forward and challenges them all, in this unfair standard, that unjustly condemns so many souls, and is not supported anywhere in the Bible.
Then there's the Book of Mormon, intelligent educated people to this day find it's teachings deeply meaningful. In the day, it was dismissed as a stolen manuscript of an incomplete novel written by a deceased preacher. The real manuscript has been discovered, and only superficial similarities, a few still cling to this, trying to put forth a speculation that there was a second Spaulding manuscript, though the critics have mostly moved to another book, View of the Hebrews, but I've read it, again found only superficial similarities, and major differences. It's about a completely different tribe of Israel coming across the ocean for an entirely different set of reasons. A plausible naturalistic explanation to the origin of the Book of Mormon has simply not been given, though many have tried. The fact remains that producing this book was beyond the capabilities of Joseph and his associates, unless they had otherworldly help. It leads people to Christ, and that answers the question of whether negative supernatural forces could have been behind it.
Some people, who don't actually know any Mormons, or at least don't know any very well, may think that Ed Decker's cartoon, that get's so many views here on YT, and the rest of the defamatory material being passed around by those with an agenda against the church, represents what real Mormons believe, and therefore Mormons must, one and all, be psychotic, completely detached from reality, in order to believe such obviously absurd things. But c'mon Jordan, you've actually gotten to know us, you know that the church is full of thoughtful and reasonable people.
It sounds like one of our missionaries has done you a great disservice by discussing his personal speculation about multiple gods in existence. As if we don't have enough problems with our detractors taking the Lorenzo Snow couplet, "As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become", drawing their own absurd inferences, and proclaiming that their own absurd inferences are what Mormons believe. Forget this nonsense about space gods having endless celestial sex in order to populate new planets. It's all a load of speculative, unauthoritative crap. Real Mormon doctrine teaches that this earth, after it has been made perfect, will be the location of the Celestial Kingdom.
[pt. 2]
In your explanation of your reasons for renouncing Mormonism, you cite and challenge Joseph Smith's description of the nature of God as being unbiblical, advocating the traditional trinitarian position. The third and final point I will make, supporting the strength and value of Joseph Smith as Christian theologian, who introduced bold new ideas that deserve much more thoughtful consideration than they have received (outside his own church), is for the clarified information about God that he gave us, information that is not in conflict with what we already have from the Bible.
Jesus cannot be his own father, the idea that trinitarians are trying to convey when they proclaim that, "Jesus is God", is false. In Matthew 4, Jesus is tempted by the devil. Tempted into what? Rebellion against himself? Jesus rejected glory for himself, directing all glory to the Father. He constantly emphasized his subordinate role to the Father. How could he be subordinate to himself? In the Great Intercessory Prayer of John 17, Jesus prays that all his disciples, and later in the prayer all the world, may be one, as he and his father are one.
Earlier in the Book of John, Jesus proclaimed, "Before Abraham was, I am". In Exodus 3, The God that Moses interacted with proclaimed, "I am that I am".
So let's look at this God of the Old Testament.
In the poetry of Psalms, God is once described as having wings and feathers. Prominent anti-Mormon author and traveling speaker Walter Martin was fond of using this verse, in isolation, to ridicule us, saying that our God is a chicken. But let's go back from this literary portion of the Old Testament, back to the historical accounts of Book of Exodus, to Moses and his God, in chapter 33. Can you seriously tell me that there is some alternative explanation, other than that this chapter detailing a literal encounter with a God, who is a corporeal being?
This God traveled in front of the Isrealites, and and periodically came to visit their portable tabernacle, covered in a cloud of smoke by day, and in fire by night. We find this description over and over. Does this sound like the formless spirit-god of sectarian Christianity, whose being occupies the entire universe?
Now if you believe that God the Father was the being that Moses and the Israelites interacted with as their God, then there's your proof that the Old testament God has a physical body. But here's where things get a little more complicated.
Ironically, one of the favorite proof texts used by trinitarian advocates of strict monotheism is actually their own undoing.
[Isaiah 43:10-11] A God that was "formed" (created), a time before this God was "formed" (created), the Savior.
Did Moses see the Father? Not according to John 1:18 and 6:46.
To further demonstrate that Jesus was the firstborn of all God's created beings I refer you to Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14.
Now let's look at a few other proof texts used against the Mormons.
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth". Now that sounds pretty clear. Since this idea is Biblical, it must be found all over the Bible, supported by the preponderance of scripture, right?
The closest thing is Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent". Why do men lie, and need to repent? Because we are corporeal beings?
Evangelicals have a great propensity for taking a single passage, and building an entire theology around it. Just look at all these tales of unoccupied cars, and other fanciful notions about "the rapture".
Wrapping this up, you express that you have grown weary from organized religion. Fair enough. I myself have gone back and forth as to whether to consider myself a loyal supporter of the LDS Church, or an independent, unaffiliated Christian who finds value in the teachings of Joseph Smith. At the present I find that there is benefit in active membership. The crucial thing is accepting Jesus of Nazareth as the foretold messiah, your personal savior. Anyone who thinks Mormons teach that we can work our way to heaven on our own merits is mistaken. We believe that we have all come short, that obtaining a pardon for our sins through the attoning sacrifice of Christ as our only hope. The difference between us and other Christians in the fine details of what puts grace into effect.
Many Mormons don't understand why it is claimed that that we are not Christians. They'll say "We teach Christ, of course we are Christians". Since they are not aware of the notion we supposedly have a "different Jesus", they can't offer a persuasive argument against it. The idea that Mormons have a different Jesus is ridiculous. If I were to look at you and declare, "Behold Jordan, a formless spirit and not a corporeal being", would you look behind you? All that is proven by all the irreconcilable differences is that once side, or the other, has some very mistaken notions about Jesus, it does not prove that one (or the other) is trusting in some different, fictional, imaginary Jesus hat has no power to save, because he doesn't exist. That is why we Mormons challenge the teachings and authority of other churches, but we do not question the Christianity of the people in those churches.
Eternal salvation is dependent on trusting in Christ. Accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet is not as absolutely crucial, but I think that those who reject him are throwing away a lot of blessings that have enlightened my mind and have enriched my life and my relationship with God. If Joseph Smith was indeed acting on behalf of Jesus Christ, then there is some danger that rejecting his works are a rejection of the works of Christ, constituting a rejection of Christ, at least in part.
If you can't bring yourself to believe that Joseph Smith was a proven true prophet, then why not at least keep an open mind? You expressed an intention to seek formal cancellation of your baptism and church membership. I have to ask what would this accomplish? I was christened in a Presbyterian Church as a small child, and I have no problem with that. At the very least, I figure I've got both bases covered. Keep in mind that LDS leaders consider renunciation an act of wrongdoing, and if you ever do reconsider, they will expect a lot more in penance than simply being told that you want back in.
I find there to be unnecessary authoritarian rhetoric in the church, but as long as I'm free to leave at any time, then I'm not going to get worked up about it. If that's more than you can abide, then you can still study Joseph Smith's teachings, and accept those things that make sense into your own belief system, without accepting everything, calling him a prophet, or without being an active participant in church meetings.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
A call for theist solidarity
There was a time when people of faith could afford to engage in bickering among ourselves.
Back in the 1980’s, the only significant opposition my church faced was from Evangelicals. In the comparative religions section of their bookstores, the number of books and pamphlets challenging Mormonism typically was greater than those against all other religions, combined, including Islam. Walter Martin, Ed Decker, Dick Baer, Jim McKeever, James R. Spencer, and others toured the country, lecturing in churches on our supposed errors. Decker’s film, The God Makers, received extensive play in these churches, though you’ve probably never heard of The God Makers II. By the time it came out, many had become concerned over some of the claims Decker and his associate Bill Schnoebelen were making, and began distancing themselves.
As a brash young return missionary with a 80286 based DOS computer, with a whopping 40 MB hard drive and a 2400 baud modem, I took to the fidonet-linked dial up BBS’s with vigor, eager to take on any and all who would accept my challenge.
With several decades of life experience, you’ll find my online persona to be significantly more tactful these days, though I retain much of that earlier passion for online intellectual sparring. I no longer seek to engage those from rival factions of Christianity, however, since a more pressing cause has emerged.
It was once said that organizing atheists is like herding cats, but the advent of the internet has proven that old adage false. The Secular Left, though there is much they don't see eye-to-eye on, have united to change western society, and they have made their influence felt.
If you doubt the impact they are having, just look at how the general public now reacts to the buzz phrase "The Religious Right". Many, who are not among the ranks of those adamantly opposed to religion, have been persuaded that a movement to maintain or regain the historic Christian influence in American society is actually some kind of a subversive plot, covertly seeking to replace our form of government with a despotic theocracy. People who would like to take this country back to the United States of the 1950’s, minus the cold war and Jim Crow laws, are suspiciously viewed as scheming to take us back to the inquisition.
We can spend our time nitpicking each other's theology. We can argue that the next guy’s approach to evangelism is offending the majority of his target audience, and hurting the cause. We can trade accusations that unless you change your beliefs, or change your ways, God is not going to let you into heaven. Though the fact is, that matter is up to God. My opinion of your salvation, and yours of mine, have no bearing on who will actually be saved, and a point can be made that placing yourself into the judgment seat of Christ is the sin of idolatry.
Meanwhile, anti-religions sentiments are growing. The Secular Left makes no distinction between Mormons, Evangelicals, Catholics, or any other community of believers who do not keep their faith, and their faith influenced values, confined within the walls of the home and the church building. They say that by expressing our values in the public square, we are violating their right to be peacefully left alone, that if we cannot compartmentalize our beliefs and enter the doors of the statehouse with a strictly secular mindset, we are unfit to hold office. Thus we find ourselves faced with a very real and expanding threat to our rights as citizens.
We can engage in endless debate about what might happen in the eternities, or we stand together in social and political activism on matters where we agree, and which affect the here and now. We can be divided (and conquered), or we can unite out voices so that the message get's out as loudly as we can get it out, we don't want to subvert democracy, we want to participate in it.
Today we find ourselves in a society bitterly divided between two conflicting values systems, fighting over which will emerge as the American system of values. Ironically, we who are trying to maintain the way things have been historically are commonly perceived as the aggressors.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
One of the great things about the United States is that not all parts of it are the same.
If only we could all just agree to let the Baptists have Bible Belt, let Utah be Mormon, and let New England be secular, we could have a cease fire in the culture wars…if only we could all just accept, and indeed celebrate, the fact that American communities have varying levels of religious influence, and we are all free to choose someplace that suits us better if we are not comfortable where we currently live.
The Secular Left will never agree.
They consider predominant religious influence in a community to be tantamount to theocracy, and as long as it exists anywhere within the jurisdiction of what they consider to be their secular nation, they will fight.
When they can’t muster the numbers to prevail, they turn to the judiciary. Thus we find ourselves in the position where we must reach across state lines, and oppose liberal trends in other parts of the country, in order to avoid federal action that will be binding where we live.
We don’t even need to get into Soviet or Red Chinese models.
Recently there were massive protests in London against the Pope. Religious literature being handed out in that country is being scrutinized, and arrests are being made if they can infer anything derogatory in the contents. In France, the government has officially declared itself to be secular. Laws are presently being enacted against the wearing of religious garb. Legal hurdles have long stood in the way of French Mormons seeking to have a temple of their own.
In the United States, standing on public property, declaring your message to all who pass by, has historically been the most fundamental example of the expression of free speech. Today, American police regard any activity that causes another person to call in a complaint as creating an unlawful disturbance. Youtube is filled with footage of street preachers being confronted. Those who try to argue about their rights very often find themselves being taken away to jail.
Judges are ordering Nativity scenes, plaques containing the Ten Commandments, and crosses intended simply as memorials, be removed from public property, under the guise that unless there is room for everyone's point of view, than no one's point of view shall be expressed. An absurd premise, given that examples where government only allows some people to be heard are endless:
-It is common for city council meetings run their allotted time, and adjourn, before everyone who wanted to speak has had a chance.
-If one group learns that those they oppose on a controversial issue has been granted a permit to use the State Capitol grounds for a rally, their application to counter-demonstrate will always be denied, on the basis that clashes might break out.
-Fringe candidates with no reasonable chance of winning an election are usually not granted a place in political debates.
The environment in which we live is becoming increasingly hostile to all people who are open and public about their theistic belief. I say it’s time to put off our arguments about who believes in the wrong God, until the more immediate crisis has been resolved.
Back in the 1980’s, the only significant opposition my church faced was from Evangelicals. In the comparative religions section of their bookstores, the number of books and pamphlets challenging Mormonism typically was greater than those against all other religions, combined, including Islam. Walter Martin, Ed Decker, Dick Baer, Jim McKeever, James R. Spencer, and others toured the country, lecturing in churches on our supposed errors. Decker’s film, The God Makers, received extensive play in these churches, though you’ve probably never heard of The God Makers II. By the time it came out, many had become concerned over some of the claims Decker and his associate Bill Schnoebelen were making, and began distancing themselves.
As a brash young return missionary with a 80286 based DOS computer, with a whopping 40 MB hard drive and a 2400 baud modem, I took to the fidonet-linked dial up BBS’s with vigor, eager to take on any and all who would accept my challenge.
With several decades of life experience, you’ll find my online persona to be significantly more tactful these days, though I retain much of that earlier passion for online intellectual sparring. I no longer seek to engage those from rival factions of Christianity, however, since a more pressing cause has emerged.
It was once said that organizing atheists is like herding cats, but the advent of the internet has proven that old adage false. The Secular Left, though there is much they don't see eye-to-eye on, have united to change western society, and they have made their influence felt.
If you doubt the impact they are having, just look at how the general public now reacts to the buzz phrase "The Religious Right". Many, who are not among the ranks of those adamantly opposed to religion, have been persuaded that a movement to maintain or regain the historic Christian influence in American society is actually some kind of a subversive plot, covertly seeking to replace our form of government with a despotic theocracy. People who would like to take this country back to the United States of the 1950’s, minus the cold war and Jim Crow laws, are suspiciously viewed as scheming to take us back to the inquisition.
We can spend our time nitpicking each other's theology. We can argue that the next guy’s approach to evangelism is offending the majority of his target audience, and hurting the cause. We can trade accusations that unless you change your beliefs, or change your ways, God is not going to let you into heaven. Though the fact is, that matter is up to God. My opinion of your salvation, and yours of mine, have no bearing on who will actually be saved, and a point can be made that placing yourself into the judgment seat of Christ is the sin of idolatry.
Meanwhile, anti-religions sentiments are growing. The Secular Left makes no distinction between Mormons, Evangelicals, Catholics, or any other community of believers who do not keep their faith, and their faith influenced values, confined within the walls of the home and the church building. They say that by expressing our values in the public square, we are violating their right to be peacefully left alone, that if we cannot compartmentalize our beliefs and enter the doors of the statehouse with a strictly secular mindset, we are unfit to hold office. Thus we find ourselves faced with a very real and expanding threat to our rights as citizens.
We can engage in endless debate about what might happen in the eternities, or we stand together in social and political activism on matters where we agree, and which affect the here and now. We can be divided (and conquered), or we can unite out voices so that the message get's out as loudly as we can get it out, we don't want to subvert democracy, we want to participate in it.
Today we find ourselves in a society bitterly divided between two conflicting values systems, fighting over which will emerge as the American system of values. Ironically, we who are trying to maintain the way things have been historically are commonly perceived as the aggressors.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
One of the great things about the United States is that not all parts of it are the same.
If only we could all just agree to let the Baptists have Bible Belt, let Utah be Mormon, and let New England be secular, we could have a cease fire in the culture wars…if only we could all just accept, and indeed celebrate, the fact that American communities have varying levels of religious influence, and we are all free to choose someplace that suits us better if we are not comfortable where we currently live.
The Secular Left will never agree.
They consider predominant religious influence in a community to be tantamount to theocracy, and as long as it exists anywhere within the jurisdiction of what they consider to be their secular nation, they will fight.
When they can’t muster the numbers to prevail, they turn to the judiciary. Thus we find ourselves in the position where we must reach across state lines, and oppose liberal trends in other parts of the country, in order to avoid federal action that will be binding where we live.
We don’t even need to get into Soviet or Red Chinese models.
Recently there were massive protests in London against the Pope. Religious literature being handed out in that country is being scrutinized, and arrests are being made if they can infer anything derogatory in the contents. In France, the government has officially declared itself to be secular. Laws are presently being enacted against the wearing of religious garb. Legal hurdles have long stood in the way of French Mormons seeking to have a temple of their own.
In the United States, standing on public property, declaring your message to all who pass by, has historically been the most fundamental example of the expression of free speech. Today, American police regard any activity that causes another person to call in a complaint as creating an unlawful disturbance. Youtube is filled with footage of street preachers being confronted. Those who try to argue about their rights very often find themselves being taken away to jail.
Judges are ordering Nativity scenes, plaques containing the Ten Commandments, and crosses intended simply as memorials, be removed from public property, under the guise that unless there is room for everyone's point of view, than no one's point of view shall be expressed. An absurd premise, given that examples where government only allows some people to be heard are endless:
-It is common for city council meetings run their allotted time, and adjourn, before everyone who wanted to speak has had a chance.
-If one group learns that those they oppose on a controversial issue has been granted a permit to use the State Capitol grounds for a rally, their application to counter-demonstrate will always be denied, on the basis that clashes might break out.
-Fringe candidates with no reasonable chance of winning an election are usually not granted a place in political debates.
The environment in which we live is becoming increasingly hostile to all people who are open and public about their theistic belief. I say it’s time to put off our arguments about who believes in the wrong God, until the more immediate crisis has been resolved.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Sunstone 2010, My somewhat Rambling Wrap-Up
It's been many years since I attended a Sunstone Symposium. Having such a goldmine of information within such close driving distance, only to let the opportunity pass by, year after year, is almost as bad as living within 20-60 minutes travel time of eight world class ski resorts, for seventeen years, and only trying to learn to ski once...oops...I must confess to being guilty on that account as well. This Winter I'll have to do something to rectify the latter overlooked opportunities, (yeah, yeah, I say that every year, but this time I mean it).
"The Stoners"
I recall reading a column by Robert Kirby, some time back, where he referred to those involved with Sunstone as "The Stoners". Excellent analogy. In high school, there is no group subjected to more suspicion and scrutiny as those dubbed "The Stoners". However, once you get to know these kids, you soon realize just how laid back and innocuous they actually are. When there are problems around the campus, you're much more likely to find the culprits spending their time after school with such wholesome seeming activities as football and wrestling.
Sunstone attracts a crowd that is predominantly liberal, in both the theological, as well as the political, senses of that word. A wide spectrum of perspectives on Mormonism are represented, from those totally devoted, who haven't missed a sacrament meeting or a tithing check in 20 years, and whose beliefs are 100% in line with the official teachings of the church, to those who consider the church a destructive fraud, and every stage of belief or doubt in between.
Sunstone also attracts the the attention, and sometimes the ire, of church headquarters. (link) (link) BYU faculty, proceed with extreme caution. Once in a Salt Lake restaurant, I overheard some guy ask his friend, "Sunstone, isn't that some kind of apostasy group?" Sadly, he is hardly the only person in this valley holding such a perception.
Rather than considering Sunstone as a thorn in their side, like the folks at 47 East South Temple do, two smaller churches in the Joseph Smith Restoration Movement used this year's symposium as an opportunity for outreach. The Community of Christ was the subject of quite a few presentations, and sponsored a hospitality suite. One of the Hedrekite splits (the one that accepts the revelations of both Fetting and Draves) also sent one of their apostles for a session that was an overt effort at proselytization.
As someone with a strong interest in the study of Mormon breakaway groups, this symposium was a rich source for details. I had the good fortune of meeting Steven Shields, author of the definitive work on this matter, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, and asked his opinion of the online war of words between Christopher Warren and Gilbert Clark, alias Davied Israel (link). I was curious as to whether I was correct in assuming that Clark was behind an anonymous attack site against Warren, (link), and whether any of the accusations had any merit. Shields pointed out how Warren lost his wife to Clark's rag-tag group, located in Canebeds, Az, (near Colorado City), and said that that investigators in Sweden had looked into Chris Warren, but found no cause for action. Like is generally the case when there is a dispute, the truth is to be found somewhere in between.
One thing that was been puzzling me for a while is why, except for a fledgling following of the Community of Christ (the last time I attended a Sunday service at their SLC chapel, I was one of only ten people in attendance), non-Brighamite Mormon schisms have no presence in Utah. While it is true that most people who are unhappy in the LDS Church eventually come to renounce Joseph Smith and Mormonism entirely, enough dissatisfied Mormons are turning to Mormon Fundamentalism that polygamous groups in Utah, if not thriving, are at least getting enough new blood to keep them very much alive.
The consensus of opinions I received was that people cling to what is familiar, and they find groups that recently separated less foreign than those which have had 166 years to develop their own unique culture.
Matthew Phillip Gill, who left the LDS church, released "The Book of Jereneck", and started his own church (link) was the subject of an interesting presentation. One rather angry seeming man in the audience, who in another session's Q&A asked rhetorically, "What good has polygamy ever done anyone?", got up in this one and made a lame joke poking fun at Gill and his book. For some reason, it did get some laughter. Why this guy would be bothered about somebody in England circulating a book, posting youtube videos, and holding religious meetings, I don't quite get.
By far the session I got the most out of contained three papers on the progress and current state of The House of Aaron (link) and the followers of Ross Wesley Lebarron and Fred Collier.
Over the years, I've attended a few of the Saturday morning services The House of Aaron holds in Taylorsville, and I have some contact information to visit their main base of operation, a communal living arrangement known as Eskdale, Ut., out in the west desert, with dairy farming as their main source of income. One of these days I've got to go out there and see it for myself. One of these days...
Normally isolated religious communities, holding all material possessions in common, attract some substantial suspicion and criticism. With The House of Aaron, however, you won't really find any of it with a google search. No blogs or "support forums" put up by disgruntled ex-members, or any of that. The Utah Attorney General's Office's "Primer on Polygamy" once accused this group of being secretive and polygamous, but they deny holding polygamous beliefs and I've seen no evidence that they are lying. The current version of the primer (link) no longer has any mention of them.
The House of Aaron today has embraced Messianic Judaism and denies having any connection to Mormonism, though telltale signs from the past can be found. Like their revelatory book starting with chapter 139. The LDS Doctrine and Covenants ends at chapter 138.
I've met both Lebarron (while he was still alive) and Collier. Those discussions focused on their ideas, leaving me to wonder if either of them had (or ever had) any followers. The presentations at the symposium were primarily written to address this and other practical, rather than ideological, matters.
Glenn Beck was the focus of some derisive material from Steven Colbert, recorded from the Comedy Central channel, and played during the lunch break. I caught some of it, but didn't find it all that funny. That's not to say that I'm all that fond of Beck. In actuality, I'm just as put off by him as these liberals. The difference is that I am put off by him for an entirely different set of reasons.
After seeing the lunchtime laughter at Bro. Beck's expense, I was expecting Saturday's panel discussion about him to be a hatchet job. To my surprise, two of the four panelists were articulate conservatives, speaking favorably for the man. When one stated his view that Beck contributes positively to American civic discourse, there were a considerable number of groans heard from the audience. One of the presenters who was critical of Beck started to describe the demographics of the Tea Party Movement, "Over 55, driven more by ideology then reality, this reminds us a lot of...". At this point the speaker paused, and I couldn't help myself. "Sunstone!"
Having personally rejected the all-or-nothing, either the Church is true or it is not, approach, the Sunstone crowd is about the only group that I really fit into in terms of my religious philosophy, (though more often than not on a Sunday morning these days you will find me in attendance at my neighborhood ward house). Rather disconcerting, considering that when it comes to political and social activism, many of "the stoners" would seek to obstruct everything I stand for, just as I would do likewise.
A few people remembered me.
A long term member of the board of the Sunstone Foundation, J. Frederick "Toby" Pingree was my bishop in a Northern California singles ward, waaaaaay back in the late 1980's. He's been about the only priesthood leader, in all my time in the church, who has ever thought that I could be trusted with a calling involving leadership. He is, without a doubt, the most unique return mission president I've ever met.
Anne Wilde still recognizes me, from my days of searching, in vain, for a place for myself in Mormon Fundamentalism. Having been married to the late Ogden Kraut, there is no one who is more knowledgeable about the organized groups and independents, than Anne.
Steve Mayfield was busily engaged as the official photographer of the event. "Hi Steve", "Hi Gary", was about all I could get in, as he buzzed by. When I first came to Utah, I met Steve when he was working for Van Hale in Hale's printing and book selling business, as well as being actively involved in Hale's "Mormon Miscellaneous" efforts. That seems to have been temporary for him, as he was new to the area as well, and was looking for a position in law enforcement. Today I frequently see him in the background on the news, collecting evidence for SLCPD's crime lab. He's always there outside General Conference, with a camera around his neck, as well. Probably on his own time, rather than the city's.
Gathering intelligence is what Steve lives for, to the point where his passion for collecting information once brought some attention that he did not want. Jerald and Sandra Tanner published a booklet, and sold it for many years, accusing Steve of infiltrating anti-Mormon organizations using an assumed name. "Unmasking a Mormon Spy", was the title. He's a wealth of fascinating information, and I'd love to be one of the people he actively shares it with. However, my association with the Sharp Family, which I explained when I started this blog (link), put an abrupt end to any possibility of such a friendship.
Interesting people, interesting topics. My decision to attend this year was time very well spent.
"The Stoners"
I recall reading a column by Robert Kirby, some time back, where he referred to those involved with Sunstone as "The Stoners". Excellent analogy. In high school, there is no group subjected to more suspicion and scrutiny as those dubbed "The Stoners". However, once you get to know these kids, you soon realize just how laid back and innocuous they actually are. When there are problems around the campus, you're much more likely to find the culprits spending their time after school with such wholesome seeming activities as football and wrestling.
Sunstone attracts a crowd that is predominantly liberal, in both the theological, as well as the political, senses of that word. A wide spectrum of perspectives on Mormonism are represented, from those totally devoted, who haven't missed a sacrament meeting or a tithing check in 20 years, and whose beliefs are 100% in line with the official teachings of the church, to those who consider the church a destructive fraud, and every stage of belief or doubt in between.
Sunstone also attracts the the attention, and sometimes the ire, of church headquarters. (link) (link) BYU faculty, proceed with extreme caution. Once in a Salt Lake restaurant, I overheard some guy ask his friend, "Sunstone, isn't that some kind of apostasy group?" Sadly, he is hardly the only person in this valley holding such a perception.
Rather than considering Sunstone as a thorn in their side, like the folks at 47 East South Temple do, two smaller churches in the Joseph Smith Restoration Movement used this year's symposium as an opportunity for outreach. The Community of Christ was the subject of quite a few presentations, and sponsored a hospitality suite. One of the Hedrekite splits (the one that accepts the revelations of both Fetting and Draves) also sent one of their apostles for a session that was an overt effort at proselytization.
As someone with a strong interest in the study of Mormon breakaway groups, this symposium was a rich source for details. I had the good fortune of meeting Steven Shields, author of the definitive work on this matter, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, and asked his opinion of the online war of words between Christopher Warren and Gilbert Clark, alias Davied Israel (link). I was curious as to whether I was correct in assuming that Clark was behind an anonymous attack site against Warren, (link), and whether any of the accusations had any merit. Shields pointed out how Warren lost his wife to Clark's rag-tag group, located in Canebeds, Az, (near Colorado City), and said that that investigators in Sweden had looked into Chris Warren, but found no cause for action. Like is generally the case when there is a dispute, the truth is to be found somewhere in between.
One thing that was been puzzling me for a while is why, except for a fledgling following of the Community of Christ (the last time I attended a Sunday service at their SLC chapel, I was one of only ten people in attendance), non-Brighamite Mormon schisms have no presence in Utah. While it is true that most people who are unhappy in the LDS Church eventually come to renounce Joseph Smith and Mormonism entirely, enough dissatisfied Mormons are turning to Mormon Fundamentalism that polygamous groups in Utah, if not thriving, are at least getting enough new blood to keep them very much alive.
The consensus of opinions I received was that people cling to what is familiar, and they find groups that recently separated less foreign than those which have had 166 years to develop their own unique culture.
Matthew Phillip Gill, who left the LDS church, released "The Book of Jereneck", and started his own church (link) was the subject of an interesting presentation. One rather angry seeming man in the audience, who in another session's Q&A asked rhetorically, "What good has polygamy ever done anyone?", got up in this one and made a lame joke poking fun at Gill and his book. For some reason, it did get some laughter. Why this guy would be bothered about somebody in England circulating a book, posting youtube videos, and holding religious meetings, I don't quite get.
By far the session I got the most out of contained three papers on the progress and current state of The House of Aaron (link) and the followers of Ross Wesley Lebarron and Fred Collier.
Over the years, I've attended a few of the Saturday morning services The House of Aaron holds in Taylorsville, and I have some contact information to visit their main base of operation, a communal living arrangement known as Eskdale, Ut., out in the west desert, with dairy farming as their main source of income. One of these days I've got to go out there and see it for myself. One of these days...
Normally isolated religious communities, holding all material possessions in common, attract some substantial suspicion and criticism. With The House of Aaron, however, you won't really find any of it with a google search. No blogs or "support forums" put up by disgruntled ex-members, or any of that. The Utah Attorney General's Office's "Primer on Polygamy" once accused this group of being secretive and polygamous, but they deny holding polygamous beliefs and I've seen no evidence that they are lying. The current version of the primer (link) no longer has any mention of them.
The House of Aaron today has embraced Messianic Judaism and denies having any connection to Mormonism, though telltale signs from the past can be found. Like their revelatory book starting with chapter 139. The LDS Doctrine and Covenants ends at chapter 138.
I've met both Lebarron (while he was still alive) and Collier. Those discussions focused on their ideas, leaving me to wonder if either of them had (or ever had) any followers. The presentations at the symposium were primarily written to address this and other practical, rather than ideological, matters.
Glenn Beck was the focus of some derisive material from Steven Colbert, recorded from the Comedy Central channel, and played during the lunch break. I caught some of it, but didn't find it all that funny. That's not to say that I'm all that fond of Beck. In actuality, I'm just as put off by him as these liberals. The difference is that I am put off by him for an entirely different set of reasons.
After seeing the lunchtime laughter at Bro. Beck's expense, I was expecting Saturday's panel discussion about him to be a hatchet job. To my surprise, two of the four panelists were articulate conservatives, speaking favorably for the man. When one stated his view that Beck contributes positively to American civic discourse, there were a considerable number of groans heard from the audience. One of the presenters who was critical of Beck started to describe the demographics of the Tea Party Movement, "Over 55, driven more by ideology then reality, this reminds us a lot of...". At this point the speaker paused, and I couldn't help myself. "Sunstone!"
Having personally rejected the all-or-nothing, either the Church is true or it is not, approach, the Sunstone crowd is about the only group that I really fit into in terms of my religious philosophy, (though more often than not on a Sunday morning these days you will find me in attendance at my neighborhood ward house). Rather disconcerting, considering that when it comes to political and social activism, many of "the stoners" would seek to obstruct everything I stand for, just as I would do likewise.
A few people remembered me.
A long term member of the board of the Sunstone Foundation, J. Frederick "Toby" Pingree was my bishop in a Northern California singles ward, waaaaaay back in the late 1980's. He's been about the only priesthood leader, in all my time in the church, who has ever thought that I could be trusted with a calling involving leadership. He is, without a doubt, the most unique return mission president I've ever met.
Anne Wilde still recognizes me, from my days of searching, in vain, for a place for myself in Mormon Fundamentalism. Having been married to the late Ogden Kraut, there is no one who is more knowledgeable about the organized groups and independents, than Anne.
Steve Mayfield was busily engaged as the official photographer of the event. "Hi Steve", "Hi Gary", was about all I could get in, as he buzzed by. When I first came to Utah, I met Steve when he was working for Van Hale in Hale's printing and book selling business, as well as being actively involved in Hale's "Mormon Miscellaneous" efforts. That seems to have been temporary for him, as he was new to the area as well, and was looking for a position in law enforcement. Today I frequently see him in the background on the news, collecting evidence for SLCPD's crime lab. He's always there outside General Conference, with a camera around his neck, as well. Probably on his own time, rather than the city's.
Gathering intelligence is what Steve lives for, to the point where his passion for collecting information once brought some attention that he did not want. Jerald and Sandra Tanner published a booklet, and sold it for many years, accusing Steve of infiltrating anti-Mormon organizations using an assumed name. "Unmasking a Mormon Spy", was the title. He's a wealth of fascinating information, and I'd love to be one of the people he actively shares it with. However, my association with the Sharp Family, which I explained when I started this blog (link), put an abrupt end to any possibility of such a friendship.
Interesting people, interesting topics. My decision to attend this year was time very well spent.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Too close for my comfort
I took these pictures a few years ago in Kearns. DCFS is what Utah has named the agency that most states refer to as Child Protective Services.
I have witnessed both of these entities involved in actions I find troubling, to say the least, seeing them in such close quarters raises some questions.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Cults and Mind Control, no such things
I grew up in the 70's, when the papers were filled with sensationalized stories about "the Moonies" using protein deprivation, sleep deprivation, and love bombing, to turn college kids into glazen eyed zombies, selling flowers in the streets 18 hours a day.
Then I actually got to know a few of them.
I sat down for discussions over meals, (first myth out the window - protein deprivation), and found out for myself how their minds work. I found them to not only be very devoted to their organization and willing to make great personal sacrifices in building it up, but also to be thoughtful, intelligent, and fully in control of their own free will.
I came to see brainwashing for the fairytale that it is, right then and there.
To me, it is utterly absurd to think that a human being can be reduced to an unthinking automaton by psychological manipulation, but as I observed in a previous entry, what people want to believe commonly dictates what they do believe. Many display a strong desire to believe lurid tales, (usually about places they have never been, and people they have never met), so they unquestioningly hang on every word told by someone who "escaped the cult".
Ironically, this same thought process in people involved in purported "cults" is viewed as evidence that their ability to think for themselves has been compromised.
Someone who has never been involved will read a book containing the horror stories of a disgruntled ex-member, along with their explanations of what the organization teaches (selected facts, carefully chosen so as to create a negative impression). They will then go to their friend or family member with the damning evidence. When that person rationalizes it all away, they become convinced that their loved one is under some evil cult leader's spell.
In reality, just as people are inclined to accept with little questioning that which fits their pre-conceived notions, it is also a normal human response that any person, when presented with information which stands in apparent contradiction to what they hold to be true, will look for reasons to dismiss it. "You have been programmed if you can't you see the obvious truth", is essentially the same as saying, "If you look at same facts as I do, yet don't draw the same conclusion, you must be cognitively impaired”, an incredibly arrogant position to take.
Indeed, all this cult hysteria does not foster reasonable thinking, and that is exactly what the people who throw that term around want. They have no desire for you to come away with a clear and accurate understanding of what the group in question is all about, they just want to foment fear.
Sadly, the public typically does fall for it. They will (foolishly) look at a group differently after hearing someone brand it as a cult.
It's a safe bet that many who read this are saying to themselves, "but there are cults". Yes, I'm sure that there are religions you do not like, but take a minute to ask yourself what they all have in common?
I personally think the world would be better off had L. Ron Hubbard, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, and Bob Larson never come to any position of public prominence. But I'm not about to lump very different individuals together, or try to frighten you into staying away with loaded words chosen to manipulate you into an emotional response.
To an Evangelical, a cult is "a group that claims to be Christian, but does not adhere to the essential doctrines of the Christian faith". (Because they did not claim to be Christian, Heaven's Gate and The Order of the Solar Temple, who committed mass suicide in 1997 and 1994 respectively, would not qualify). A secular person will gave you a completely different definition. The fact is that there is no firmly established meaning, it's a meaningless pejorative term that scares people. Any person who knows this, yet continues to proclaim that there are such a thing as cults (and cult brainwashing), is either unreasonable or dishonest.
Addendum
I just discovered this. Can anyone honestly say that this guy shows any indication of not being able to think for himself?
Then I actually got to know a few of them.
I sat down for discussions over meals, (first myth out the window - protein deprivation), and found out for myself how their minds work. I found them to not only be very devoted to their organization and willing to make great personal sacrifices in building it up, but also to be thoughtful, intelligent, and fully in control of their own free will.
I came to see brainwashing for the fairytale that it is, right then and there.
To me, it is utterly absurd to think that a human being can be reduced to an unthinking automaton by psychological manipulation, but as I observed in a previous entry, what people want to believe commonly dictates what they do believe. Many display a strong desire to believe lurid tales, (usually about places they have never been, and people they have never met), so they unquestioningly hang on every word told by someone who "escaped the cult".
Ironically, this same thought process in people involved in purported "cults" is viewed as evidence that their ability to think for themselves has been compromised.
Someone who has never been involved will read a book containing the horror stories of a disgruntled ex-member, along with their explanations of what the organization teaches (selected facts, carefully chosen so as to create a negative impression). They will then go to their friend or family member with the damning evidence. When that person rationalizes it all away, they become convinced that their loved one is under some evil cult leader's spell.
In reality, just as people are inclined to accept with little questioning that which fits their pre-conceived notions, it is also a normal human response that any person, when presented with information which stands in apparent contradiction to what they hold to be true, will look for reasons to dismiss it. "You have been programmed if you can't you see the obvious truth", is essentially the same as saying, "If you look at same facts as I do, yet don't draw the same conclusion, you must be cognitively impaired”, an incredibly arrogant position to take.
Indeed, all this cult hysteria does not foster reasonable thinking, and that is exactly what the people who throw that term around want. They have no desire for you to come away with a clear and accurate understanding of what the group in question is all about, they just want to foment fear.
Sadly, the public typically does fall for it. They will (foolishly) look at a group differently after hearing someone brand it as a cult.
It's a safe bet that many who read this are saying to themselves, "but there are cults". Yes, I'm sure that there are religions you do not like, but take a minute to ask yourself what they all have in common?
I personally think the world would be better off had L. Ron Hubbard, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, and Bob Larson never come to any position of public prominence. But I'm not about to lump very different individuals together, or try to frighten you into staying away with loaded words chosen to manipulate you into an emotional response.
To an Evangelical, a cult is "a group that claims to be Christian, but does not adhere to the essential doctrines of the Christian faith". (Because they did not claim to be Christian, Heaven's Gate and The Order of the Solar Temple, who committed mass suicide in 1997 and 1994 respectively, would not qualify). A secular person will gave you a completely different definition. The fact is that there is no firmly established meaning, it's a meaningless pejorative term that scares people. Any person who knows this, yet continues to proclaim that there are such a thing as cults (and cult brainwashing), is either unreasonable or dishonest.
Addendum
I just discovered this. Can anyone honestly say that this guy shows any indication of not being able to think for himself?
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Raising the bar
Some claim that the LDS Church is hemorrhaging members. In large part, I think that the notion of devoted adult members leaving in droves is the wishful thinking of those with ill feelings toward the church. For most of us, periods of inactivity come and go, disturbing facts are discovered and trouble us until we can find a reason to dismiss them, but once committed intellectually to the Mormon world view, people generally stay. Nevertheless, this commitment (also known as conversion) is not automatic. We do have a problem, at least in one sense.
I was surprised by the recent study which put the LDS retention rate at 70%. My own observation is that half of the people I have known who were raised in Mormon households no longer consider themselves Mormons as adults.
The church really does need to make time for them.
When it comes to their Missionary Program, I honestly don't think that the Mormon hierarchy knows what they have.
The vast majority of people who come in contact with LDS Missionaries have no idea who Joseph Smith was before, and have no idea who Joseph Smith was afterward. Contacting strangers door-to-door, and in public places, are simply not an effective way of spreading a message. On the contrary, what these practices are effective in doing is creating a public impression that your church is pushy and confrontational, closing a lot of minds that could have been reached through television and other less intrusive and intimidating means.
This said, I'm not arguing that Mormon Missionaries should stop proselytizing and go build houses for the poor. The Missionary Program takes young people and focuses them exclusively on religion, every waking minute, for a year-and-a-half to two years. I'm not knocking the good work done my Habitat for Humanity, the Missionary Program just has a different purpose. It exists to foster conversion, and while the ratio of man hours spent vs. baptisms achieved is not what would be considered productive by anyone in the business world, it is very effective at converting one group of people: the missionaries themselves.
I have no doubt that many I have known, who are wholeheartedly dedicated to the church, would either be lukewarm members, or would have dropped out of the church, were it not for their missionary experience. My life would have turned out much different had I spent that portion of it in the Army, or some other place, and not for the better.
No doubt the General Authorities realize that there is a lot of immature behavior going on in the mission field. Had one of them paid an unexpected visit to the Missionary Training Center dorms during the evening, especially the night we had a big war, throwing M&M's at each other like they were buckshot, we would have all been in a lot of trouble. By "raising the bar", they must have felt that they were doing something to curb the horseplay and rule violations, and to eliminate the slackers who would drag their companions down. But can you really expect anything different from young adults not long out of high school, especially at the beginning of their term of service?
I'm a big fan of Richard Dutcher's movies (if you've never seen "States of Grace", you've GOTTA go buy it, I don't recommend "Falling", though). His first, "God's Army", is the story of a young man called to serve in Los Angeles, who arrives uncertain as to why he decided to go and whether he would stay. The movie details his initial struggles, which lead him to gain strength through adversity, and catch the vision, laying the foundation for a successful mission and a successful life. It is a masterful depiction of what a mission can do for a youth from a troubled family, going through difficulties as he enters adulthood.
I was a mess when I was handed my high school diploma, completely unprepared by the California public education system to productively function as an adult in society. I registered for classes at the local community college, but accomplished very little. At 19, I joined the LDS Church. Two psychologists were assigned as my home teachers, (they were no doubt given all the "problem members" of the ward). As the first anniversary of my baptism approached, they suggested I consider submitting papers to serve. It is said within the church that a mission will be the best two years of your life. While this was hardly the easiest and most enjoyable time of my life, it was certainly the most productive in terms of personal growth. Of all those I served with, I was probably the one that needed this life changing experience the most. But that was before they "raised the bar".
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Tom Green's side of the story
Tom Green can no longer speak up for himself. The Utah Board of Pardons and Parole, an unelected and accountable body of former prosecutors, who's decisions cannot be appealed, has warned him that in order to remain a free man, he'd better keep his mouth shut. Five years in prison has a way of beating all the fight out of a man, who once stood before television cameras, pleading with America for the civil rights he and his family were being denied.
While he was in prison, his wives were circulating the following document. Because a google search cannot find anywhere else that this is posted, I am sharing it here.
No one has asked me to do this. I am putting this up on my own because it is a story that needs to be told.
Welfare Fraud?
Message to Mr. Tom Green by "A-Taxpayer-in-Alpine" Friday, July 13 [year unspecified]
Be a big boy. Take responsibility for yourself and your family, and quit crying foul. You got yourself into this mess. Maybe you are right and the persecutor has ulterior motives. What difference does it make to me?
As a taxpayer, I personally do not want my tax dollars to go to having to take care of all these children you continue to have. HOW MANY OF YOUR CHILDREN DO I HAVE TO SUPPORT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS?
You are entitled to your faith, and your beliefs on having children and however many wives - but should MY TAX DOLLARS be having to support your religious beliefs or the consequences of them? I THINK NOT.
Yes, taking you to trial cost a bundle. But hopefully, when faced with these bills, you will realize that YOU NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELVES AND YOUR CHILDREN,,,AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR BELIEFS --- JUST LIKE THE REST OF US.
A Taxpayer in Alpine, Utah
Mr. Taxpayer in Alpine, Utah,
I agree with you that a man should support his own family. I was doing exactly that. We were living comfortingly and enjoying life and our family, We lived in a mobile home park in Sandy. But the neighbors and the managers thought they ought to "rescue" my wife, LeeAnn. When I advised them to stay out of our family, they filed a notice of eviction. We fought it in courts for several years. I had to do my own legal work, which cut into our family business. the courts ignored the prejudicial nature of our eviction and forced us to move our homes.
Since our homes were older than 8 years (they were actually 20 years old, but nice) there was no place on the Wasatch front (where we worked) to put them. So we were forced to go 200 miles out into the West Desert.
While putting our main house out there the Juab County Fire Marshall, driving drunk, passed out, swerved into the home and demolished it. His insurance company didn't want to fix he home so that we could put the halves together.
Six months later, while wrangling with the insurance company, a violent windstorm came and demolished both halves of the home (you cannot insure a home 'til it's set up).
I had to take more time away from our business to get my family a place to live. I began to renovate the 50 year old homestead cabin that was on our property, includig rebuilding the roof.
By that time, our family was scattered around with relatives, and some of the wives applied for welface (we were not about to let our children starve while I worked to get them a place to live). Ultimately we moved into the the old cabin while we developed our raw land by installing water and sewer ($20,000 total). Because of old wiring, the old cabin burned to the ground one night. We lost all our possessions and a three year old son.
State welfare representatives came to us the next day and and offered aid to those of us who were not receiving any. They said since I had no marriage license with my wives (they only let you hav one) I would be considered an "absentee parent" and would have to pay it all back once we were on our feet again. They assured me I would be able to make payments. I agreed to that.
Two years later we terminated assistance, as we were adequately housed and had our business operating again. I went to the state, via my attorney, to settle. Rather than negotiating a reduced amount to pay, I volunteered to repay every penny we had received (now retired Assistant Attorney General, Ray Gammon of Provo/Orem, will verify this. Call him1 He said in his entire career collecting money for the state he never had such a cooperative client as myself!) I told Mr. Gammon that we were very grateful for the assistance of the people of this state, and we were (are) happy to pay it back. I didn't try to negotiate an amount to be repaid, I told Mr. Gammon to determine it. He did and I signed a stipulation judgment to pay it all back.
I asked Mr. Gammon how much the payments would be. He said I would be contacted by the Richfield Office of Recovery services to determine my ability to repay and and they would set me up on the payments. Four months later, rather than being set up on payments, I was prosecuted.
I went down to Richfeld accompanied by a friend (who can attest to this) and asked why they had never set me up on payments, as promised. They said, "Oh, David Leavitt got special permission from the Attorney General's office to take over your case."
And, of course, David Leavitt had more to gain by painting me as a welfare mooch than to allow me to make payments. I was never set up on payments like the state promised me. I got prosecuted instead. I'm still waiting to make my payments to the state.
Mr. Taxpayer in Alpine, I never had any intention to live off your tax dollars.
I'm very sorry we ever did.
I'm very sorry that we were ever in needy circumstances.
I'm very sorry that we were forced out f our comfortable homes in Sandy into the desert.
I'm very sorry that we were forced to live in a dangerous home that took the life of my very beautiful baby boy.
I'm very sorry that the state did not let us keep our promise to make payments.
I'm very sorry that a politician, who told us that we could get a lot of publicity if he prosecuted us, thought that this would help anyone, including society.
I'm very sorry that he was successful i getting the public (like yourself) to believe that we were trying to take advantage of you.
Society set up the safety net to help people who have setbacks like ours to get back on their feet. We took advantage of the aid that was offered (and needed) and were, and are, fully willing to pay it back.
Mr. Taxpayer in Alpine (and any of the rest of you), if you will calculate ow much the $54,435 we owe the state us your share ($0.06), I'll bring it right to your home and pay you back directly.
Please email me at clangreen@juno.com and let me know the amount and your address and I WILL pay you back.
And I DO thank you for your kind assistance (no sarcasm here - I'm serious).
Sincerely, Tom Green
While he was in prison, his wives were circulating the following document. Because a google search cannot find anywhere else that this is posted, I am sharing it here.
No one has asked me to do this. I am putting this up on my own because it is a story that needs to be told.
Message to Mr. Tom Green by "A-Taxpayer-in-Alpine" Friday, July 13 [year unspecified]
Be a big boy. Take responsibility for yourself and your family, and quit crying foul. You got yourself into this mess. Maybe you are right and the persecutor has ulterior motives. What difference does it make to me?
As a taxpayer, I personally do not want my tax dollars to go to having to take care of all these children you continue to have. HOW MANY OF YOUR CHILDREN DO I HAVE TO SUPPORT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS?
You are entitled to your faith, and your beliefs on having children and however many wives - but should MY TAX DOLLARS be having to support your religious beliefs or the consequences of them? I THINK NOT.
Yes, taking you to trial cost a bundle. But hopefully, when faced with these bills, you will realize that YOU NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELVES AND YOUR CHILDREN,,,AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR BELIEFS --- JUST LIKE THE REST OF US.
A Taxpayer in Alpine, Utah
Mr. Taxpayer in Alpine, Utah,
I agree with you that a man should support his own family. I was doing exactly that. We were living comfortingly and enjoying life and our family, We lived in a mobile home park in Sandy. But the neighbors and the managers thought they ought to "rescue" my wife, LeeAnn. When I advised them to stay out of our family, they filed a notice of eviction. We fought it in courts for several years. I had to do my own legal work, which cut into our family business. the courts ignored the prejudicial nature of our eviction and forced us to move our homes.
Since our homes were older than 8 years (they were actually 20 years old, but nice) there was no place on the Wasatch front (where we worked) to put them. So we were forced to go 200 miles out into the West Desert.
While putting our main house out there the Juab County Fire Marshall, driving drunk, passed out, swerved into the home and demolished it. His insurance company didn't want to fix he home so that we could put the halves together.
Six months later, while wrangling with the insurance company, a violent windstorm came and demolished both halves of the home (you cannot insure a home 'til it's set up).
I had to take more time away from our business to get my family a place to live. I began to renovate the 50 year old homestead cabin that was on our property, includig rebuilding the roof.
By that time, our family was scattered around with relatives, and some of the wives applied for welface (we were not about to let our children starve while I worked to get them a place to live). Ultimately we moved into the the old cabin while we developed our raw land by installing water and sewer ($20,000 total). Because of old wiring, the old cabin burned to the ground one night. We lost all our possessions and a three year old son.
State welfare representatives came to us the next day and and offered aid to those of us who were not receiving any. They said since I had no marriage license with my wives (they only let you hav one) I would be considered an "absentee parent" and would have to pay it all back once we were on our feet again. They assured me I would be able to make payments. I agreed to that.
Two years later we terminated assistance, as we were adequately housed and had our business operating again. I went to the state, via my attorney, to settle. Rather than negotiating a reduced amount to pay, I volunteered to repay every penny we had received (now retired Assistant Attorney General, Ray Gammon of Provo/Orem, will verify this. Call him1 He said in his entire career collecting money for the state he never had such a cooperative client as myself!) I told Mr. Gammon that we were very grateful for the assistance of the people of this state, and we were (are) happy to pay it back. I didn't try to negotiate an amount to be repaid, I told Mr. Gammon to determine it. He did and I signed a stipulation judgment to pay it all back.
I asked Mr. Gammon how much the payments would be. He said I would be contacted by the Richfield Office of Recovery services to determine my ability to repay and and they would set me up on the payments. Four months later, rather than being set up on payments, I was prosecuted.
I went down to Richfeld accompanied by a friend (who can attest to this) and asked why they had never set me up on payments, as promised. They said, "Oh, David Leavitt got special permission from the Attorney General's office to take over your case."
And, of course, David Leavitt had more to gain by painting me as a welfare mooch than to allow me to make payments. I was never set up on payments like the state promised me. I got prosecuted instead. I'm still waiting to make my payments to the state.
Mr. Taxpayer in Alpine, I never had any intention to live off your tax dollars.
I'm very sorry we ever did.
I'm very sorry that we were ever in needy circumstances.
I'm very sorry that we were forced out f our comfortable homes in Sandy into the desert.
I'm very sorry that we were forced to live in a dangerous home that took the life of my very beautiful baby boy.
I'm very sorry that the state did not let us keep our promise to make payments.
I'm very sorry that a politician, who told us that we could get a lot of publicity if he prosecuted us, thought that this would help anyone, including society.
I'm very sorry that he was successful i getting the public (like yourself) to believe that we were trying to take advantage of you.
Society set up the safety net to help people who have setbacks like ours to get back on their feet. We took advantage of the aid that was offered (and needed) and were, and are, fully willing to pay it back.
Mr. Taxpayer in Alpine (and any of the rest of you), if you will calculate ow much the $54,435 we owe the state us your share ($0.06), I'll bring it right to your home and pay you back directly.
Please email me at clangreen@juno.com and let me know the amount and your address and I WILL pay you back.
And I DO thank you for your kind assistance (no sarcasm here - I'm serious).
Sincerely, Tom Green
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)