Mission Standards Academy

04/12/2019

04/06/2019

A few more General Conferences and you'll be able to drink a beer with your same s*x spouse while watching in the Meeting Hall. But please, put your cigarette out before coming in!

05/30/2017

Joey Bishop in A Guide for the Married Man. Democrat strategy. Progressive playbook. Obama and Biden learned from this movie.

04/24/2017

Stake Conference this Sunday, and as is usual, there was at least one talk about finding the lost sheep. I know this not for having gone, but for a kind member who took that particular talk to heart coming over to visit my wife and I.

She brought her young son, who I had baptized four years ago back when I was still a member.

She chatted on all matter of things, it was a nice visit, she really is a good person, one of the best Mormon world has to offer, and so utterly without a high calling or important status. For that one needs a wealth that allows for a tithing that matters or being so many generations Mormon that your ancestors greeted Brigham as he entered the valley.

Preferably both. (Yes, I'm aware of the minor exceptions, are you aware of basic math and percentages?)

Eventually she got around to the part where she had heard that talk today and thought of me. It was kind of her, it really was. But here is what I said, all the same, as I had decided last month that I was through holding out any hope - even by my silence - in me coming back.

"I am familiar with those talks, and finding lost sheep is a great thing for the church to be about. But in the dozens of articles I've read on it, and the dozens of talks I've heard about it, while in the church, and out of it, I've noticed one bizarre thing. It's a thing that is obvious once you hear it, but never seems to occur to any Mormon."

"It's where", I continued, "They always emphasize that if the lost sheep comes back, it should be allowed to apologize and be forgave and welcomed. Or if a member goes out and finds such a sheep, that lost sheep should be assured that if it comes back, it will be forgave and welcomed."

The kind sister was nodding at this, as who in the LDS faith would not be nodding affirmatively? Not like they all haven't heard that talk a dozen times a year all their lives.

"The problem", I said, "Is that it never takes into consideration that the lost sheep may not have been at fault. And may not even be lost, but only drove out by an unaccountable leadership exercising unrighteous dominion. Joseph Smith warned of that, so I fail to see how that can be overlooked now."

"So," I went on, "When kind hearted members come and assure the sheep that they can be forgave, the sheep is well aware that there is nothing for it to be forgave of, and that instead, the shepherd who kicked and drove it out should be getting out there and apologizing to the various sheep it pushed out of the fold."

I was assured that men are fallible, but attending church again was all that was important. And it's true, men - even in leadership - are fallible. I had more to say on that subject, but did not, as she was kind to come and try.

But to you reading this, there is more to say. I know you not, so if it bothers you to hear such truths, stop reading now.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not led by Christ. As evidence I submit this:

In a church so large, statistically speaking it can be known by all thinking men that at least one member was drove out unjustly - heck, President Uchtdorf has acknowledged, without naming names, that the church leadership has made mistakes. So keep that in mind, that at least one has been drove out unjustly, and let's be honest - quite a bit more than one.

Also realize that everyone who has attended church for at least a year has heard at least once some member who had been excommunicated give their testimony about how they came back to the fold, penitent, and were accepted back. Touching stories, too.

Now - this is the point, so attend carefully here - name ONE single Bishop, Stake President, etc. who has shared such a story.

Out of the 15 million claimed members, name one. Go back as many years or decades as you need to. Just one.

I'll end the suspense. There are none.

At no point has a testimony been gave about the leader who was excommunicated for exercising unrighteous dominion but who then reformed, repented and came back.

Is this because Joseph Smith was a false prophet who warned of leaders exercising unrighteous dominion when none never would or could?

Or is this because the top leadership has set it up so that no leader at any level will EVER receive such a punishment?

I'll leave that as an exercise for the student.

But maybe leaders don't need to be excommunicated for exercising unrighteous dominion, maybe excommunications are reserved for important things like...criticizing leaders publicly who exercised unrighteous dominion!

And looking at the Handbook, that seems likely, as there is no rule against "exercising unrighteous dominion against a member" listed, but the very first rule is for a member to never publicly criticize a leader!

I remember when I left the church. One of the high up shepherds - a member of the Stake Presidency - told me, "The train is continuing on as usual, you just jumped off."

This was supposed to let me know that me leaving in protest had had no effect on the church whatsoever, that no changes would be made for my leaving, and so I may as well have stayed, as I'd be the only person hurt by having left.

Wow. How Christ-like.

Not.

What that meant was that a man, supposedly called of God, saw a sheep so hurt, so abused, so damaged, so distressed by the machinations of a bad shepherd that he had felt there was no choice but to leave the fold.

And rather than try and understand and comfort it - let alone correct the sinning shepherd who had kicked at it over and over - he figured that telling the sheep, "We're all doing great in the fold, as usual, only you are lost and alone now for daring to leave to avoid the kicks!"

And even if he did not believe I had been kicked, a village idiot could have seen that I had felt that I had been, so his words were not the words of those trying to bring sheep back into the fold at any cost - but the words of a man letting the sheep know, "you have nothing out there, and until you admit it was you wrong, not the shepherd, you'll stay out...right where we put you."

Know then when you hear such talks, that they are in all cases a farce. A farce in which while they piously pretend they are desperately wishing for the lost sheep to return, they are only really wishing sheep so desperate and alone and forlorn that they will confess to anything to secure back the approval of the leadership that wronged them.

Oh, yes, no doubt, they do want those who have done real wrong to confess and come back. The adulterers, the thieves, the fornicators and such. Those can come back, and comparatively easily, as all they need to do is confess to real sins.

But God help the man or woman they drive out due to their own lying and ungodly crap. Such are - at the leadership's decision - to remain outside the blessings of the church for time and eternity unless that person specifically comes back, finds their abuser, apologizes for that which they did not do, and ask for forgiveness from he who harmed them, and only then do they "get" to come back.

This situation - which demonstrably exists and goes entirely uncorrected by those divinely inspired in Salt Lake City - is a damning indictment of the church that makes things like $120,000 "modest stipends" and alcohol fueled downtown malls pale in comparison.

Did you miss the point?

If a member is drove out of the church wrongly, by a Bishop exercising the unrighteous dominion that Prophet Joseph Smith warned of, then that person will be barred forever, until that person finds their abusers, offers up a lying confession, and begs well enough and convincingly enough to get the forgiveness of those who harmed him.

That the top leadership lets this be the case and that the membership does not rise up and insist upon change is why Jesus Christ cannot be regarded as the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Not without blaspheming against the character and integrity of our Savior.

Our Savior who spared the adulteress woman of a stoning and told her to "go and sin no more".

Not, as the LDS leadership does - which would be, on at least some occasions, to stone a woman who had NOT committed adultery, then tell her that she was utterly damned until she crawled back and with stone broken teeth whimpered out an apology to the stone throwing Bishop for having dared to complain about him throwing stones.

When you read this as a member, and sympathize for having known of such situations, and then do nothing - yeah, you're one of the reasons for those empty seats.

And that's why I'll never go back. No church like that, however many good points it may have, however many good people it can have, can be worth allegiance when it conducts itself in such a fashion as that.

Pictured: Mormon Bishops stoning a woman who annoyed them. If she confesses to an adultery she did not commit, they will kindly take her back into the fold.

03/18/2017

As long as I had not joined another church, it was apparently okay that I was "inactive" in the LDS church. Even though the "inactive" status was not by my choice but ordered by an ungodly and testimony-less Bishop exercising unrighteous dominion.

But no sooner did I announce that after a long enough period for someone to have conceived a child and brought it to term - and then some - that I'd finally decided on a new church home, well, then someone had to write to tell me off.

For my apostasy. See, while I was not going anywhere else "for real", there was apparently still hope for my soul - as in I could come back, perhaps on some distant date when the Bishop was no longer Bishop, and thus not barring the meetinghouse door to me.

But now that I was announcing for another church, this was a clear cut case of Satan having turned me against the One True Church, with Outer Darkness now awaiting me, where I could spend all eternity with the fallen angels.

Since having joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over five years ago - a decision that made a large and generally great change in my life - I've refrained from swearing, as it was advised against.

But in this case, and to that person who wrote me, let me make an exception.

Bu****it.

As in complete and utter bu****it.

I know of stronger words to describe how bu****it that tell-off letter to me was, but I know of no weaker ones that would in any way do it justice.

Jesus once asked, "What man having 100 sheep, if one is lost will not leave the ninety and nine and go after the one?"

Had I lived back then, I could have answered Jesus. I could have said, "I know what man, Jesus. That would be Bishop Jacob Monsivais of Springfield Ward 2, Springfield Illinois Stake. Also his superiors, the Stake Presidency, who did nothing when they saw the sheep being kicked out of the fold."

But then, why should that "shepherd" have been looking for me? It was not as if I had "strayed", no, it was that I had been driven out by that alleged "shepherd". And when I still attended, just not as a member of the church, I was driven out the more by being barred from that meetinghouse.

My sin? You may find the details elsewhere on this page, but the Bishop had exercised unrighteous dominion against me, and when I complained of it to some friends in the Elder's Quorum, that was trumped up as "public criticism of leadership", an ex-communicable offense.

What did Jesus say to the adulteress woman? "Go, and sin no more." What did the Bishop say when I complained of his unrighteous dominion? "Give me your temple recommend, that we might hold a disciplinary hearing to determine whether you can stay or not."

What did Jesus ask the adulteress? "Where are your accusers? Gone? Then neither do I accuse ye." What did the Bishop have his counselor ask me when - while no longer a member - I still came to church each week, still kept all the covenants, still even visited my home teaching families? "Don't you think it would be better if you weren't attending here? We do."

Ahh, but if the Bishop was testimony-less and the Stake Leadership more concerned with status quo than fairness, decency or mercy, I could at least count on the congregation, yes?

No.

Oh, don't get me wrong, plenty of members remained friendly. Some even still aided in the Liahona Mission, a non-profit helping recovering addicts and alcoholics. But more forgot me. Heck, I had two home teaching families suddenly never have time for me, even though my visits previously had been exclusively helping them!

Another - well, never mind. The point is, when you are not active in the church, even if that wasn't your choice, 99% of Mormons have nothing to do with you. I'm hardly the only one who could bear my testimony about that.

I soldiered on, of course. I still - even as late as this month - had the missionaries over for dinner, and to provide a lesson for the sober living home guests. A sober living home named "The Liahona Home" and the only Mormon themed outreach program in the entire Central Illinois area! I still - even as late as this month - operated one of the largest online, well, wait, you know what? I'm not boring anyone with the laundry list.

Truth is, when this sheep was drove out kicking and screaming, the other sheep, with rare exception, didn't give a crap, and the few who did were not in a church in which they were allowed to do anything about it. Guess top leadership is too busy trying to make ends meet on their six figure "modest stipends" to make sure local leadership is being Christ-like.

Thus my choices were to suffer alone for the rest of my life, without any fellowship with Christian brothers and sisters, or to crawl back and lick the boot of the man who had kicked me. Or - and this is the option I obviously chose - find a better pasture with a kinder shepherd.

But it's not like I didn't wait long enough for the previous shepherd to find me. And no, this is not one of those stupid things where, "Oh, even if you were wrong, you should have just apologized so you could enjoy the blessings of church!"

That's great advice. And if it's what the least of these your brethren - me - was to do, then maybe one of the "divinely called" leaders should have took that advice. You know, and "just apologized for exercising unrighteous dominion, so the one who he drove away could come back and enjoy the blessings of the church"!

And yet remarkably, some think this is over my pride! lol, my pride? My pride? I've no pride. I'm unironically just another recovered alcoholic striving three times as hard to have 1/3rd as much as those who don't suffer this condition can have. I've no pride.

This was a pride issue, though - pride of an unaccountable leadership. A pride that would make Joseph Smith shake his head sadly at how thoroughly his D&C 121:39 has been ignored.

It's hard to believe, but the bottom line is that in Mormon world, there is NEVER any possibility of the local leadership being wrong and in need of correction. It is ALWAYS the abused member/former member who must have violence done to their heart and soul. A church so constituted abandons the claim of being "Christ's Church". No matter what name they call themselves.

Nor is it enough for President Dieter F. Uchtdorf to have admitted that Church leaders have made mistakes. He named none. Ever. And none are in any fear of facing any of the "Disciplinary Hearings" so essential for the "growth" of the membership.

So to any else who figure that helping me with similar advice will be of aid - it won't. Give it to your leadership - just not publicly, or you'll be out, too. And ask yourself sometime why the first rule in the Handbook is "don't complain publicly about the leadership". As opposed to "don't exercise unrighteous dominion", which doesn't even make the list.

Or don't ask. Just enjoy that you're still in. But next time you all lift some poor alley cat up out of the gutter by the scruff of his neck, and get it used to being in doors, and then let it be kicked out into the cold...
..don't be surprised when it then dares - after seasons in the cold and rain - to find another shelter.

You - any of you - have any idea how hard it was not to relapse and drink when that was done to me? No. No, you don't. Because I have not even begun to express how hard it was, how sad I was, how alone it made me feel, how forsaken, how desolate I was. I wouldn't treat a dog, nor a rabid raccoon they way I was treated.

I wouldn't treat Bishop Jacob Monsivais the way he treated me. I wouldn't even do that thing where I'd help him, but make sure he knew how great it was of me to. What darkness lies in people's souls that they can do otherwise?

So any of you may think as you will of me for daring to attend a church who's doors are open, people welcoming, and leadership aware of their own sinning nature. A leadership that is paid - but not six figures like those in Salt Lake City who speak of "stipends" receive. "Stipends" said as if they and the Missionaries eating Top Ramen in a crappy apartment are as one.

You think as you will, thinking is free.

But don't waste my time telling me of it. Not without bracing yourself for an earful first. And no, it's not for me not having had a testimony, or having lost it. It's for having a testimony, doing all the right things, and being railroaded by a man who can't home teach, who can't have mercy, who can't perform his calling, let alone magnify it, and can only do what little good he is credited for in that he gets to dole out whatever tithes Salt Lake City dribbles back to him.

A baboon tossing out checks to every other person who knocked on the meetinghouse door could do as good a job - better, as the baboon would not then put on white clothes and pretend to be as pure inside, when it was really the white of the whited sepulchers Christ spoke of.

Pictured: Me, with no place to go. That any could be upset that I found a place to dry off in and be warm, says so much more about them than I.

03/01/2017

Having just seen this come up again, I want to make clear to everyone - if you're for a closed border, than you're advocating for a policy that if it had been consistently implemented throughout history would have had the baby Jesus turned back at the Egyptian border to be murdered.

Yeah, I mean that. Because that is a patently obvious and truthful statement. Sometimes people need to break the law. Sometimes they have no choice but to flee, even if it is "illegal" for them to do so.

Mary and Joseph found themselves in that position when King Herod decreed - legally - that all boy children under two be brought to him to be put to death.

Mary and Joseph disobeyed that law. I think we all know what part of "illegal" they didn't understand, the part where to obey the law meant to violate their conscience and consign their baby - Jesus the Christ - to death.

They fled to Egypt. Fortunately there was no wall to stop them. No guard dogs, armed guards, drones, tanks or all the other sick things we have on our southern border.

Modern families often encounter similarly dangerous situations to that which Mary and Joseph suffered. Drug wars, actual wars, terrorism, gangs, weather disasters, they make life untenable and they need to flee or watch their families die.

Or maybe it's "just" a case of economic hardship and so they come for work so that their kids can have a chance. Like Mary and Joseph wanted their kid to have a chance.

When you tell such to "stay and fix your country", then you're telling Mary and Joseph to "stay and reform King Herod". Both make as little sense. Those who say it can't even reform their own comparatively freer nation, let alone those dictatorial war torn hell holes.

Christ was about mercy, not about those who's grandparents got here sooner telling the later arrivals to buzz off. Christ was about open doors. Christ was about helping the Samaritan on the side of the road, even though Samaritans were the hated enemies of the Jewish disciples he preached this to.

Christ was about feeding the poor, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, taking in the stranger. The Bible even says in Hebrews, "Do not forget to entertain strangers, for some have hosted angels unaware."

Well, those who are screaming loudest about keeping out those who wish to work and worship here are forgetting to entertain such. And probably overlooking a few angels in the bargain.

And passing by on the other side of the road, worried that it might be a ra**st or a terrorist, neglecting their neighbor.

Muslims, Mexicans, Syrians, all refugees, all distressed - these are the "tired, the poor, the huddled masses, yearning to breathe free". They are the "wretched refuse of teeming shores".

If we are no longer to take them in, we should remove the Statue of Liberty, so we're not in the position of the guy who invites his neighbors to dinner then shoots them as they come up his walk.

If we are no longer to take them in, then while we build the wall around our nation, let us mark the wall we first built around our hearts, that close our ears to the cries of those less fortunate, those who failed to choose their parents and their nation as wisely as we did.

And let us cease describing Republicans as the "religious" party or the "Christian" party. I am well aware that the Democratic Party is neither religious or Christian, but this border issue has well shown that the Republicans are not either. Individual ones, maybe. The Party as a whole - no more so than the Democratic Party.

If that distresses Republicans or Conservatives, I am sorry, as I do have some such who are my friends. But enough is enough. When a policy advocated is clearly one that would have the Baby Jesus murdered, then it's time to seriously re-evaluate that policy.

When a policy advocated would have had the government of Mexico turn back the Mormon Pioneers to face lynchings and executions back east, it is time to seriously re-evaluate that policy.

When a policy advocated would - and did - have the government of the United States turn back the refugee Jews and send them back to be gassed by the N***s, it is time to seriously re-evaluate that policy.

When a policy advocated would have had the entirety of the founding and settling of the Americas still born, it is time to seriously re-evaluate that policy.

When a policy advocated is weighted against the minorities of skin color or faith, and remains damningly silent on those of fair skin or familiar faith, it is time to seriously re-evaluate that policy.

I hope each of you who find yourself advocating multi-billion dollar walls do re-evaluate your that policy. And obviously if you do not, I'll still be your friend. But I will NOT remain silent on this issue for fear of offending someone.

Hurt feelings are better than dead families. We're a nation of immigrants. We need to re-evaluate this wall that we will one day find out keeps us in as easily as others out.

Pictured: Refugees ILLEGALLY fleeing the LAWFUL jurisdiction of King Herod. Conservatives don't mind them coming to Egypt, they JUST want them to do so legally! So if Joseph could just go back with his family and fill out some papers with King Herod, that'd be just swell.

01/06/2017

Observe the picture. A group of young people clearly violating the Word of Wisdom. Now notice that the young man on the right is not holding a drink.

As his parents, you have him read 1 Thessalonians 5:22, to learn of the Apostle Paul's admonishment about even the appearance of evil. You also have him read the words of President James E. Faust, Second counselor in the First Presidency back in 1995 who said, "My strong advice is, if there is any question about your personal conduct, don’t do it. It is the responsibility of prophets to teach the word of God—not to spell out every jot and tittle of human behavior. Our moral agency requires us to know good from evil and choose the good. If we are trying to avoid not only evil, but the very appearance of evil, we will act for ourselves and not be acted upon.” (Ensign November, '95)

Afterwards, he shakes his head in disagreement and says, "I go to all gatherings to share my funny stories that the other young people like, and have a long history of doing so. My going to this gathering was not endorsing the drinking, drugging and fornication that took place there for all to see, but only so as to share those funny anecdotes that I'm so well known for. For me to have not gone would have made it seem like I was discriminating against this particular gathering, it would have been making some kind of statement, when in reality, all I'm about is making sure that as many people have exposure to my anecdotes as possible."

As his parent, do you...

A. Accept that he knows more than the Apostle Paul and the Apostle James E. Faust.

B. Explain to him what a sophistry is.

I'll hope you all picked B.

Regrettably the Mormon Tabernacle Choir chose A. Except for the brave woman who resigned rather than ignore the counsel of Paul and James E. Faust.

What is sophistry, for those - like in the MTC or a PR office - who seem to not know?

A sophistry is a clever sounding argument that is nevertheless false. The distinction it has over other arguments is that it has a deliberate surface plausibility, but a plausibility that cannot bear close scrutiny.

It is a type of argument usually made by those who wish to do something that they know or suspect to be wrong, and who do not wish to be in trouble for it.

In the case of the youth, every parent "gets this". But in the case of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, some do not. This is not for it being any different, but simply for no one wishing to have to think less than wonderfully about the MTC.

Understandable. Just as it would be understandable if the parents of the youth wished to accept his explanation so as to not have to think poorly of him. But would that be responsible of those parents?

Is it responsible of us with the MTC?

Let us examine this argument, this defense, of "We've always attended inaugurations." What is that but the claim that "I've always attended gatherings"?

You see, the wise parent would explain to this son that even if he has attended all previous gatherings, that perhaps it was wrong for him to have attended previous ones, too. That judgment should have been used in attending any and all gatherings, and clear parameters set out so that there could be no confusion in him - or those who observe him.

Maybe one judgment might be, "Don't tell funny stories where drunken under-aged girls are being date r***d." In this scenario, he could still tell his funny anecdotes at gatherings where that doesn't happen - like at the Chess Club or the local Methodist potluck - but not so much at a Fraternity holding it's annual "Chug till we Puke Party-o-rama".

It might be objected, wouldn't that require the young man to "judge"? Isn't that a bad thing?

Really? Really?

It was Elder Dallin H. Oaks who in an Ensign article in August of 1999 explained the two types of judgments. One kind, the "final judgment" in which we attempt to declare where another is to be going after death we are not to make.

The second kind, where we use our eyes to see right and wrong and choose the right, we are to make. With situations, with people, with anything that involves our moral choices. We choose the right, not the easy or the fun.

We make distinctions between whether the guy showing up to date our daughter is in seminary - or out on bail. These judgments we are not only allowed to make, but we MUST make.

What does it mean that the youth went to prior gatherings then? Nothing. It excuses not any present attendance at a party. Maybe the past gatherings were acceptable times to go and share humorous stories, maybe they were not, but it can in no way excuse going to the latest drunken debauchery.

Likewise with the MTC. Perhaps the past inaugurations they went to were appropriate - though I should suspect that perhaps they were not, or at least not all of them. The very impartiality of which they attended all they were invited to is itself suspect. You see, "impartiality" is not a virtue, when it's being used as a synonym for "indiscriminate".

A wiser and more moral group - like a wiser and more moral youth - would have exercised judgment and discretion and examined the policies and practices of each President before making a decision as to whether to go and sing for him.

Is the President in keeping - even loosely - with the moral standards of the Church? Does that President even give so much as credible lip service to such principles?

Is the President at least honorable in his personal life, even if not so much in his public persona?

Is the President at least not a serial adulterer and fornicator who finds it appropriate to violently and without consent grab women by their vaginas? And if that word disturbed you, is not the deed and the boasting of it the more disturbing?

And the singing to such an unrepentant boaster of sin most disturbing of all?

Just as the youth should have clearly defined standards by which he might judge the appropriateness of going to any particular gathering, so should the choir have clearly defined standards.

Standards a bit more stringent than "it's a gathering". Standards a bit more stringent then "it's a President".

What kind of gathering? What kind of President?

We also need to be mindful of the advice in "Appearances" published in Friend in November of '02. "Evil attracts evil. If people making bad choices think you are doing bad things, too, they’ll encourage you to keep doing worse things."

If one sings for Mussolini, expect Hi**er to call. And then Stalin. And why not? When you publicly proclaim that such performances are only to celebrate the nation or the process? It is not as if each of those leaders were illegally installed, each of them gained their place by the "process" of their nation.

And such were democratic processes, too.

Should the choir sing for a modern day Governor Boggs who wants to have Mormons - or any other faith - rounded up and expelled, and murdered if they resist?

Oh, so we can at least make a judgment on that, huh? Even if that Governor was elected President? Even if you're only celebrating "the process of democracy"?

Yeah. The MTC can and would be pretty quick to make that judgment. They should be as quick for the situations that actually present themselves, not just fantastical hypotheticals like Hi**er's wedding or re-incarnated Governor Boggs.

Lastly, do not be fooled by the sophistry of false authority. Neither the MTC or a PR office - even church affiliated - gets to overturn a Prophet or Apostle.

The Apostle Paul and Apostle James Faust have said one thing. The MTC and a PR guy have said another.

Now YOU must judge which you agree with. Neither I - or anyone else - can judge that for you.