John and Zilpha Larsen

[_Meadowchik]

Out of the blue, I got a Facebook message from this guy apologizing for abruptly cutting off contact with me. He told me that he was asked to by the bishop because the bishop was afraid I would hurt his faith. His wife was also asked not to confide her problems in my wife by this same bishop. Very culty bishop behavior interfering in friendships like that.

A close family member, out of the blue, said he was unfollowing because I "hate [him] and [his] family."

I sometimes criticize the church when talking to other people, never to him, and never in my own posts.

I understood the unfollow, I mean, I had already stopped following him because seeing his posts just saddened me since the family reunion where he was markedly cool and distanced from me. But I hadn't said anything.

It felt like a jab. I saw no reason for it, except to pick a fight. I did not fight.

It really shocked me, too. He is extremely intelligent and also pretty laid back and VERY philosophical about the church. But I guess you can be all those things and yet still incredibly attached to the church identity.

[_cwald]

I personally like Robert J. Lifton's term "totalistic ideology" better than the term "cult."

I could probably sit down with my TBM wife and explain the properties of totalistic ideologies and she would probably agree that the church is one. Then we could have a productive discussion about whether that is good or bad. If I were to pull out the c-word she would probably get immediately defensive and the discussion would go nowhere.

Now when I am around others who have left the church, the c-word is totally in play. I know what the word means to them so I use it to convey the meaning they associate with it. It's not the same meaning my wife might associate with it.

This is really good. I will adopt a similar approach I think.

[_I have a question]

Moinmoin, I think you are being terribly dishonest if you are claiming that the LDS church does not teach it's membership, or at least it is believed by most faithful members, that callings issued from a Bishop or stake president, really are callings issued from god and should be accepted. This is just a common practice and belief system within the church.

If things have changed in the last 7 years since I was involved, great. But to claim that it was taught and opening acknowledged even 10 years ago that members can simply turn down callings and still be considered faithful and in good standing is ridiculous.

From Handook 2 (which moinmoin as a 2 x Bishop will know pretty much inside out)

A person must be called of God to serve in the Church (see Articles of Faith 1:5). Leaders seek the guidance of the Spirit in determining whom to call. They consider the worthiness that may be required for the calling. They also consider the member’s personal or family circumstances. Each calling should benefit the people who are served, the member, and the member’s family.

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2 ... h?lang=eng

[_Meadowchik]

in my opinion the Masonic-lite initiation practices are one of the most culty aspects. Very much like fraternity/sororities that do hazing to their initiates, it involves doing really, weird, bizarre, uncomfortable things. The effect is that, if sufficiently uncomfortable (the secret/sacred aspect assures that the first time will never be completely comfortable) and if sufficiently committed, a person will feel closer to the other participants who shared in this strange rite, feel strong conditioned responses associated with the temple as well. John and Zilpha talk about the Top Ten Changes to the temple ceremony on an episode. Since it contains details prohibited for this forum, I won't provide a link. But it is hard to hear about such things and conclude that there is not some unconscious manipulation in the initiation steps in the temple.