posted
It was surprisingly quick read, for such a thick book.
Mostly because each page averaged 4-6 lines of sparse text.
I suppose this was meant to simulate the thought process of a confused teenager girl?
Anyway, this book portrays the following as doctrine of the LDS Church, taught in sacrament meetings, Sunday school, primary, Relief Society, etc:
1) Women will go to Hell if they are not married in life to a Mormon husband.
2) They'll go to the Telestial Kingdom "where all the scumbags are" to burn.
3) Even if a woman does get married to a Mormon husband and enters the Celestial Kingdom, she will be forced into Heavenly polygamous arrangements, and be "eternally having sex, eternally having babies".
4) The Brethren will look the other way if a Priesthood Holder is not obeying the Word of Wisdom and exercising Unrighteous Dominon, because males are considered innately clean an good if they hold the Priesthood.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
I'll be honest: This book almost equals The Godmakers as far as false, warped representations and claims about LDS doctrine.
If the author did do research, it was from anti-Mormon literature.
If you believe that the Bible is the only word of God, and that further scripture is blasphemous, I have no problem with you.
If you believe that Jesus was not the Son of God, just a man...I have no problem with you.
If you believe the Word of Wisdom is not divine, that Baptism of the Dead is wrong, that Joseph Smith had a hallucination...I have no problem with you.
I may disagree with you completely, but I'll have no problem with you not accepting the doctrine as true.
If you tell me that Mormons teach our members in Church that women are damned without marriage and that they'll be "eternally pregnant" in Heaven...then we have a problem. A big one.
The author of this book has either been sadly mislead, or is a bigot. Because she's portraying as doctrine things the Church simply does not teach.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's too bad, especially if this novel is really targeted at young adults another poster said. Like I said in that thread, I don't have a problem with reading a novel from the point of view of someone who has grown up in an unhappy or even abusive Mormon home; I know people who've been through it, and their stories should be told, too. (I should say I do NOT think this is the norm--I know a remarkable number of well-adjusted, happy LDS families and I feel that one of the strengths of the church is that it teaches how to attain this.) But if the author is really presenting this as what's being taught as the doctrine of the church (and not just the perception of an unreliable narrator), then I definitely have a big problem with that.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, this was in the YA/Teens section of my local B&N.
And yes, this is portrayed as the actual doctrines the protagonist is taught in church, from her teachers and leaders.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puffy -- I dislike misrepresentation, too, however, I do have to say that I was taught (being raised LDS) that my role as a female was to raise children and ensure that my father, brothers, and one-day husband were well-cared for so that they could perform their priestly duties. I.e., the most important things I could aspire to doing was learning how to cook, clean, iron shirts and tie ties while raising children.
I was also told emphatically and repeatedly that if I did NOT get married, I would never make it to the Celestial Kingdom, and that further, if I did NOT have children I would never make it to the highest part of the Celestial Kingdom.
If I felt so strongly about education, a 2-year degree in home economics would be acceptable.
Please Note: Women were teaching this pap to young girls -- and when I challenged them, and took it to the Bishop, I was told they were correct.
One of my Hatrack joys has been learning from other LDS persons (both current and past) that that is not church-doctrine, but unfortunately there are some misguided fools that persist in teaching it.
An unhappy reality it today's world is that when a church does not set and control the doctrine, many "heresies" arise . . . with the predictable consequence that they gain the eye and ear of the public. Some of those predictable consequences can be a good thing, and others not so good . . .
Just some food for thought.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was taught that if a righteous woman did not find a husband in life, she would find one in Heaven.
As far as entering the Celestial Kingdom, were you told you'd enter it as a part of a polygamous harem, eternally giving birth to children?
Because this is what the book claims is doctrine of the Church...not something just her family believes, or her local leaders believe, but the Church as a whole.
I can tell the difference between "a few misguided members believe this" and "here's the EVIL things those EVIL Mormons REALLY believe!".
This was definitely the latter.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read Ellen Hopkins "Burned" disclaimer on her home page.
She claims all the Mormon beliefs given in "Burned" are the factual, real beliefs of the LDS Church.
How does she know? She had a "direct descendant of Joseph Smith" as her source, who told her how a cornerstone of Mormon belief is the inferiority of women.
Uh-huh.
Well, there goes any hope I had that maybe she -wasn't- saying the Church itself believed this.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One might think, if one were going to write a book about a certain religion. That taking 20 minutes to go to that religion's website and read about their beliefs would not be an unreasonable action.
But apparently, it is.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
It's a storybook dramatization, and there is more than enough truth for fodder for this kind of story. All you detractors are putting up a good show, but it really seems like you are all doing it for each other, and it's not at all convincing to anybody who doesn't already drink the honey of the church. All of this denying just makes you all look passive, aggressive guilty about it.
You all are spouting worse propaganda than the book. This thread is like watching really bad cover-up artists, denying a story that some people in their church are really bad cover-up artists. With every absolute denial of any wrong doing on the part of church culture, it only makes the poster sound delusional or evasive, especially when Shan politely raised her hand in the post above, and said, "Uh, well, I was raise LDS and I can kind of see some of the character's point."
posted
Puffy -- telling a young girl that she'll be barred from ever meeting her Maker in the highest part of the Celestial Kingdom due to not bearing children is just as grotesque as someone being told they'll go to some sort of celestial harem and bear children into perpetuity.
Like it or not, there are many wacked out people in the world. Some of them are actually people claiming to be religious - - and some of them *gasp* are indeed LDS. Probably the off-shoots that the official church does not countenance, but nonetheless . . .
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the author is not merely saying that these beliefs are representative of some segments of the church. She makes a blanket statement that
quote:Still, my personal feeling is that any religion that considers women "inferior" deserves a hard look. The references to the Mormon religion are accurate.
A claim which is rather suspect if the only research she did was with ex-Mormons.
I have to say, the more I read of her official site, the clearer it is to me that the book is a reflection on her, and not any religion.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a conversation that relates to this this weekend.
What, exactly, is the official doctrine of the church? There are many options, in ascending order of stringency:
1. It is taught in a church setting more than once. 2. A church member represented it as truth. 3. A church leader said it in a casual setting. 4. A church leader said it in General Conference. 5. It is on the church website. 6. It is said by a member of the presidency or a member of the quorum of the twelve and preceded by "Thus saith the Lord." 7. It is presented to the body of the church and accepted as official doctrine. (This is the standard according to D&C 102.)
Puffy's list could fit the first two, and possibly the third as well. Unless that is the bar you set for what is church doctrine, it isn't true, and she's lying her head off. Whether it is deliberate or out of ignorance, it is shameful.
Personally, I like the last condition. It eliminates a lot of things that are probably true, but it also eliminates a great deal of the human factor and lots of nutty things as well. I believe slightly more than what has passed the final condition, but if I don't believe it, it generally doesn't trouble me as being something I need to reconcile within myself.
I give weight to everything that passes #5-7 and generally #4. Anything that appears only in the first three can and is dismissed out of hand.
--------
Shan, Young Women's is insane. I think 95% of my feminism came as a direct result of rebellion against my Young Women classes. I don't like the manual at all. I have heard that it is being rewritten, and I'm enormously grateful. I had to teach out of it in Dallas, and I generally just took the objective and ditched the rest. (Which was fine with the YW pres and the bishop. Yay!)
quote:Originally posted by Shan: Puffy -- telling a young girl that she'll be barred from ever meeting her Maker in the highest part of the Celestial Kingdom due to not bearing children is just as grotesque as someone being told they'll go to some sort of celestial harem and bear children into perpetuity.
What I said was: neither that nor the things Ms. Hopkins claims are the church's doctrine.
You said you were happy to learn later in life that the church did not actually teach this, that you were misinformed by members following false precepts.
Ms. Hopkins is claiming the church itself teaches these repellent things. Period. As a whole.
There's a big difference.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: And what about Shan's experiences?
I did not deny them, nor has anyone else yet.
It's a storybook dramatization, and there is more than enough truth for fodder for this kind of story. All you detractors are putting up a good show, but it really seems like you are all doing it for each other, and it's not at all convincing to anybody who doesn't already drink the honey of the church. All of this denying just makes you all look passive, aggressive guilty about it.
The things the author claims the whole teaches as doctrine are not true. If she said "some Mormons believe this, but not the Church itself", then I would have no problem. There is a diversity in the church membership, and I know false doctrine has wormed its way in.
You all are spouting worse propaganda than the book. This thread is like watching really bad cover-up artists, denying a story that some people in their church are really bad cover-up artists. With every absolute denial of any wrong doing on the part of church culture, it only makes the poster sound delusional or evasive, especially when Shan politely raised her hand in the post above, and said, "Uh, well, I was raise LDS and I can kind of see some of the character's point
There is no "absolute denial of any wrong doing on the part of church culture".
There is a desire for the actual beliefs of a church to be represented in a factual manner.
There are no claims that every LDS member is righteous and perfect.
There's upset feelings on my part about an author making a blanket condemnation of an entire religion based on a beliefs both Shan and I stated were not true doctrine.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what I am saying is that there are those folks who do teach nonsense like that under the guise of church doctrine, and it is not right in any sense. No matter if it is a work of fiction, or is happening IRL.
My apologies if I misinterpreted you, Puffy -- your response to my original post (IMO) had the tenor of my experience wasn't nearly so awful as this story you had read because I hadn't been told that I would bear children into perpetuity.
katharina -- I am so very glad the manual is being reworked. And even more glad that there are folks willing to say -- no way! But I'm giggling with you on the "birth of feminism" thing . . . *smile*
Edit to include a thought: On that list, kat, where do "teaching tools" fall, do you suppose -- not the home-grown ones, but the official ones?
posted
If I had meant "well, what you went through wasn't bad at all", I would have said that.
I'm blunt, literal-minded, and a bad writer.
And I never denied that there are wicked and/or misguided members who teach false things. My objection is to Ms. Hopkins portraying the whole Church as evil and stupid...not because of bad members, but because the core beliefs themselves are innately bad.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
A book about Catholicism stating that priestly child molestation is part of church doctrine.
A book about Jews stating that the religion calls for cheating gentiles out of money.
A book about Muslims stating that the religion calls for the stoning of homosexuals.
The latter two at least would be roundly (and rightly) condemned as evil and prejudiced. A book saying that subjugation of women is part of Mormon doctrine is equally evil and prejudiced, if the author means to imply that that's the truth rather than just a character's POV.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for the record, I'm not Mormon. I do know Mormon doctrine and I disagree with a lot of it. I know plenty of ex-Mormons who are very unhappy with the church. I know plenty of Mormons who are very happy with the church.
But most relevant to this thread, I've seen the harm that portraying fringe elements of a group as mainstream can to do people's perceptions of that group, and it makes me angry every time it happens, with every group it happens to.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:On that list, kat, where do "teaching tools" fall, do you suppose -- not the home-grown ones, but the official ones?
Just what you said - tools. It's written by committee, and there are multiple purposes for it. I believe they are written by people who are doing their best to portray doctrine correctly and are praying to have the Spirit and to be inspired to write them so they will be as true as possible, but I don't think it's scripture.
The prophet manuals are different, but those are excerpts from talks given by that president of the church. I'm thinking about the YW manuals and the Sunday school manuals. The pieces - scriptures, quotes - carry the weight of doctrine, but the text and stories in between are just teaching tools.
One of the Mormon blogs carried a story from one of the writers who was on the correlation committee that produced the manuals. I can't find the link right now, but I'll post that later today when I find it.
The jist of the story was that in the New Testament Sunday School manual, he was writing about Acts 20, when the young man listening to Paul falls asleep and falls out a window. As a joke, he suggested asking questions like "Have you ever accidentally caused a death through speaking in scarament meeting?" Amazingly, it almost made it into print before he realized that no one had taken it out. His point that everyone writing the manuals was doing their best, but they aren't scripture.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I work in a state agency, and I write curriculum for early childhood education -- and I am always amazed that so many folks take it as a literal "step-by-step" instruction manual. Even though I train the teaching and family support staff that modifications to the tools are okay and expected as the staff work directly with the children and families they serve, and know their needs best. And even though we know that preschool children are so widely divergent in their levels and abilities that teachers absolutely HAVE to modify and individualize for each child.
I guess it's just a heads' up that when people think of you as the authority, they treat what you produce the same, too. Something that the committees might want to ponder in their work.
posted
I hope they do. I am glad about the YW manual being rewritten - I threw it across the kitchen a few times in frustration last year.
A friend has been taking the temple prep class, and he's pointed out that there's a distinct lack of practical information in the temple prep class. Like how to buy garments, what you need to bring, what's okay to wear, what about jewelry? I speculated that the reason there is so little practical information in the course is precisely to keep those tips and details and "best practices" from carrying the weight of authority. It makes those practical details harder to find out, but keeping them out of the class avoids sanctifying customs.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Having, some time back, served on the Gospel Doctrine writing committee of the Church for nearly ten years, I would never, ever, take a Gospel Doctrine manual to be an official and binding declaration of Church doctrine. We tried to get things right, we prayed about our work, and what we did was reviewed in Salt Lake before publication, but it scarcely constituted scripture.
A story:
Once, the scriptural selection about which I was assigned to write a lesson included, among other things, Acts 20:7-12, in which the apostle Paul drones on for so long in the course of a sermon that a young man (ironically named Eutychus or "Fortunate") dozes off and falls from the rafters. Paul has to restore him to life. As a joke, I inserted a passage in my lesson manuscript that read somewhat along the following lines:
quote:QUOTE Have a class member read Acts 20:7-12. Have you ever killed anyone with a sacrament meeting speech? How did it make you feel? What steps can you take in the future to ensure that it does not happen again?
Members of the committee laughed, and the committee chairman sent my lesson on up, incorporating their suggested revisions but also still including my little joke, to Salt Lake City. Where it passed Correlation. (I can only assume that each member of the committee chuckled and then passed it on, expecting that somebody else would remove it.) When I received the galleys of the lesson back for final approval just before it went to press, the joke was still there. I faced one of the greatest moral crises of my life, but finally called Church headquarters and suggested that they probably didn't really want the lesson to go out to Church members entirely as it stood. So the joke was removed.
The point being that Gospel Doctrine manuals are not to be confused with authoritative divine revelations.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
