On Being Christian, Part 2

The Challenge of Transitioning from Mormonism

Then . . .

“There is tranquility in ignorance, but servitude is its partner.” – unknown

Then . . .

“The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.” – Gustave Le Bon

Then to Shawn . . .

Show 26 401 On Being Christian Part II June 24th 2014

“Live from the Mecca of Mormonism – Salt Lake City Utah – This is Heart of the MatterTGNN’s original show where Shawn McCraney deconstructed religion and developed fulfilled theology. – Where Mormonism Meets Biblical Christianity . . . Face to Face”

And I’m Shawn McCraneyFounder of TGNN and developer of the fulfilled perspective—calling people to faith outside of religion., your host. The Lord God is moving in some radical ways – we praise Him and thank you for tuning in.

Got a call from a friend in another State who I came to know through the show. His whole family is being torn up by division – a division caused by the fact that the patriarchs – a bunch of brothers, (who have led their families to believe Mormonism is true for the past forty of fifty years) have discovered that it’s not, and have in the meantime dived head first not only into Church history but the Bible as well.

Navigating Family Division

All of this has served to devastate the family. I mean wives and sister-in-laws are writing hate mail to the brothers, and kids are up in arms, and daughters-in-law are throwing fits. Well, this large extended family (who all live in the same vicinity to each other) also have a very close friend who is in the hierarchy of the LDS church – way up. The brothers gave him a call and asked if they could fly into Salt Lake for a visit – which was granted.

Before they went into the meeting, they called me for any last-minute advice and after we talked, I asked them to let me know how the meeting went. The next day they gave me an assessment of the whole ordeal. After talking for quite a long time, and bringing up Church history and points of doctrine from the Bible to this leader, these brothers walked out and arrived at a pretty helpful conclusion. I’m going to use the white board to illustrate it.

(Go to white board to illustrate the issue with trying to reach the LDS) here

While I’m on the subject . . .

(WENDY ERASE THE BOARD WHILE I TALK)

The Importance of Why One Leaves Mormonism

I want to give you another illustration that might shed light on the difficulty people coming out of the LDS church face. We have long said that “Why someone leaves Mormonism is perhaps more important than if they leave at all.” It used to be Christian apologists and missionaries did everything they could to get LDS people to leave the church (a method I have labeled the EDDE approach for reasons I won’t explain here).

We have seen all this approach does is take people from believing in God (in some fashion) to not believing in Him at all. Not real good. In fact, I find it highly irresponsible.

You see, no matter who we are, we all see life through a set of glasses (of lenses) that we have hung on our noses since birth. Certainly, there are genetic factors that come into play on how these specific lenses actually bend and refract our world views, but every human being sees the world (at least for a time) through the lenses they have been given by their parents (or caregivers) and the things the parents allow to influence and contribute to our world view.

Hannah Whitall Smith said something interesting relative to these lenses we are given at birth. She said:

“I could not fail to see, moreover, that, after all, each one of us was largely a creature of circumstance—that what we were, and what we did, was more or less the result of our temperaments, of our inherited characteristics, of our social surroundings and of our education; and that, as these were all providentially arranged for us, with often no power on our part to alter them, it would not be just of the God who had placed us in their midst, to let them determine our eternal destiny.” – Hannah Whitall Smith

Understanding the Lenses

If this is the case for the average Joe or Jane born into this world making their changing their world view difficult, I would suggest it is doubly difficult for the true believing Latter-Day Saint who has worn LDS lenses for any period of time.

Let me illustrate why this is and how it works.

Parables and Spiritual Blindness

In Matthew chapter 13, the disciples ask Jesus why He taught in parables. In His reply, He says:

Matthew 13:11-16

11 . . . Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

What can we do for those whose eyes have been made blind, whose ears have been made deaf, who see the world through lenses given them by circumstance and to not only get them to surrender them but to help them reach for Jesus in exchange instead of all the other goggles the world offers them? First, we pray, pray, pray for them. That God would open their eyes and ears and hearts to Him. Next, we share with them – and this includes all sorts of combinations of methods and content. Some may require years of quiet friendship and little talk of the Lord. Others might require a challenge to their faith and beliefs, and some may need to be shaken with historical facts – mixed with the love of Jesus. May the Spirit preside over every engagement. But remember, my friends they are blinded – by culture, false teachings, emotionalism, and are terrified of the light.

God’s Uniqueness

Exodus 8:10 reads: “there is none like unto the LORD our God.” Deuteronomy 32:39 says “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me:” (god is a lower case g here) 2nd Samuel 7:22 says “Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.”

1st Samuel 2:2 says “There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.” Isaiah 45:22 says “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” Isaiah 40:18 “To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?” How about Isaiah 46:9 “Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me.”

Monotheism and Christian Belief

Bible believing Christians also state (unequivocally) that there will always only be one God. Isaiah 44:8 asks “Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God;”

Doctrine of God

“I know not any.”

Psalms 90:2 “ . . . even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”

I think we can plainly and safely say that God is one, God is always and Only God, and there is none else beside Him nor will there ever be. Mormonism teaches some VERY different things relative to God. At a funeral of a man named King Follett, just before Joseph was shot, He said: “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.”

(Shawn only: Psalms 90:2 says God is “everlasting to everlasting,” meaning no beginning to no end, and Joseph Smith said, “I will refute that idea!”) Now LDS defenders will say that the King Follett comments are sketchy because they were all recorded in personal journals and the LDS church is attempting to PUBLICLY – PUBLICLY, distance itself from Joseph’s views on God. They try and pass these teachings off as “couplets” or as teachings that are at best vague in the minds of the Saints.

LDS Teachings on God's Nature

Listen to apostle Orson Pratt’s comments in the Journal of Discourses: “remember that God, our Heavenly Father was perhaps once a child, and mortal like ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress . . .” pg 26. James Talmage, another respected Apostle for the Church said: “God is a being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow.”

The LDS teachings have always been, regardless of what they say publicly or infer deceptively, that “God was once a man, that God had a father, who had a father, who had a father, and that man may become a God by obedience to the Laws and ordinances of the Mormon Church. To say Anything less than this is deceptive. The late LDS prophet Gordon B. Hinckley was living evidence of the church leaders attempts to deceive the general masses on these fundamental LDS teachings.

Back in 1997, in an interview with a reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle, Hinckley, instead of boldly proclaiming this fundamental LDS belief, was rather vague: The reporter asked: “Don’t Mormon’s believe that God was once a man?” Hinckley replied: “I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “AS man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology we don’t know very much about.” Anyone listening to this interview would walk away with the idea that the LDS are not so firm on the position that God was once a man.

Public Perception vs. Core Teachings

But it is a fundamental teaching, belief, and driver in the church. Any active member would have to agree. As a follow-up note Hinckley later, in an August 97 interview in Time magazine, is quoted by writer David Van Biema as saying – in regard to the doctrine that God was once a man – “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it.” This was a flat out lie from THEN LDS president Hinckley.

In fact, just one year earlier, Robert Millet, BYU professor wrote about God in the Church published magazine, The Ensign, and said: “He is an exalted and glorified being; that He was once a man and dwelt on an earth.” President Hinckley got some heat by people for his response. In an act of sheer duplicity, and less than a year later, he stood up in an LDS General Conference and provided a coded message that would be consistent with his public deception while at the same time support the Saints knowledge of the doctrine.

He asked: “What is the Mormon doctrine of deity, of God?” Then he quoted from Joseph Smith himself: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for certainty the Character of God, and to know that we converse with Him as one man converses with another . . .” Why was his using this quote duplicitous? Because he didn’t finish it! And stalwart member knew it. Had he finished it, he would have said: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for certainty the Character of God, and to know that we converse with Him as one man converses with another and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ did, and I will show it from the Bible.”

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

“Our

Theologians' Perspectives on Godhood

Father in Heaven, according to the prophet, had a father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father . . .” (Doctrines of Salvation)

Many years earlier, Brigham Young said in the JOD: “How many Gods are there, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and not worlds, and when men were passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through.”

A final and fundamental LDS teaching, which is a natural extension of the doctrine of an eternal regression of Gods and the idea that God was once a man is the LDS teaching that men and women have the potential to become Gods too!

LDS Doctrine of Divine Potential

In June of 1993, in an article in the LDS published magazine, the Ensign, it said: “The stunning truth, lost to mankind before the Restoration (That means to Christians), is that each of us is a god in embryo. We may become as our heavenly parents. We, too, in exalted families, may one day preside in our own realms . . . .”

Prophet Spencer W. Kimball said: “In each of us is the potentiality to become a god – pure, holy, influential, true, and independent of all these earthly forces. We learn from scripture that each of us has an eternal existence, that we were in the beginning with God. And understanding this gives to us a unique sense of MAN’S DIGNITY.”

So when it comes to the LDS teaching that God was once a man and that Man may become a God, all of it must be trashed in our effort to establish common ground.

Trinitarian Concepts and Christian Suffering

However . . . (beat) Did Smith (and therefore, does Mormonism) tap on a biblical idea (albeit errantly) that modern Christianity has avoided almost entirely. I would say so.

You see, as we mentioned last week, the Bible clearly teaches that God intends that Christians – by and through suffering for Christ – become joint-heirs with Him.

Here’s the sticky wicket part to consider. If Jesus was the Son of God from before the creation (meaning He did NOT become the Son of God by taking on flesh but WAS “God the Son” before the world was created, as the Trinitarians suggest) and man is to become a joint heir with Jesus who Trinitarians say is God the Son, wouldn’t those human beings who truly become Joint Heirs with Him – ultimately sharing EVERYTHING JESUS has and is and is therefore becoming co-Gods through Christ?

(LONG BEAT) Now, I don’t believe this – at all.

Perspectives on Joint Heirship

I do believe, however, that the human being named Jesus, filled with the Spirit of God, God with us, chose to overcame all things, and God has placed all things in His hands as a result, and those who suffer with Him will become joint heirs with Him as Sons and Daughters of God – but never God’s themselves.

Next week we will look at what our becoming Joint Heirs through suffering looks like in an amazing heuristic model.

FROM BIKER BOB in CALIFORNIA

Hi Mr. McCraney,

Today (6/21/14) for the first time I watched one of your videos and the first few words made a lot of sense. You were speaking about when you left the Mormon Church, your experience at your pool, but the thing that got me was what you said about your wife, love. Even though you were having a difference in spirituality, where most couples break up, you were to continue to love her and that was Jesus' main teaching. Where all other mainstream religions fail to grasp that main concept. Most talk about the 10 Commandments which were a covenant under Mosaic Law. After Jesus was Baptist and Christianity was opened to all, the Jewish System was canceled. The 10 Commandments were no longer under obligation and now the new Law was Love, Matthew 22:37,38,39,40. And the hardest of these scriptures for me is Matthew 5:44. These Jesus said would cover the 10 Commandments and the 600 laws the Jews added to them. I am currently a shunned Jehovah's Witness and after the last few days I have e-mailed what JW's call apostates, so I'm probably now disfellowshipped. After what I have seen in life, I am going back to my original beliefs, outlaw biker. Most everybody hates outlaw bikers, but they are just a bunch of guys that have been kicked around by society that kick back a little harder.

I studied with the Jehovah's

Emotional Struggles in Religious Transitions

Witnesses and did all the right things and was shunned for reporting a bad situation they sweep under the table like another one of the BIG RELIGIONS.

Just want to say your doing the right thing and I'll be watching your videos. It's too hot in the desert or I would take a ride out to your Bible Study in Salt Lake City.

Keep up the good work, Bob Harwood. Psalms 145:20

From: Sheila in Boston

“I’m having a lot of difficulty leaving, it’s a very strong emotional tie.”

From: Sheila

Subject: Mormons

Message Body:

I’m having a lot of difficulty leaving, it’s a very strong emotional tie. Hi Mr. McCraney,

Today (6/21/14) for the first time I watched one of your videos and the first few words made a lot of sense. You were speaking about when you left the Mormon Church, your experience at your pool, but the thing that got me was what you said about your wife, love. Even though you were having a difference in spirituality, where most couples break up, you were to continue to love her and that was Jesus' main teaching. Where all other mainstream religions fail to grasp that main concept. Most talk about the 10 Commandments which were a covenant under Mosaic Law. After Jesus was Baptist and Christianity was opened to all, the Jewish System was canceled. The 10 Commandments were no longer under obligation and now the new Law was Love, Matthew 22:37,38,39,40. And the hardest of these scriptures for me is Matthew 5:44. These Jesus said would cover the 10 Commandments and the 600 laws the Jews added to them.

I am currently a shunned Jehovah's Witness and after the last few days, I have e-mailed what JW's call apostates, so I'm probably now disfellowshipped. After what I have seen in life, I am going back to my original beliefs, outlaw biker. Most everybody hates outlaw bikers, but they are just a bunch of guys that have been kicked around by society that kick back a little harder. I studied with the Jehovah's Witnesses and did all the right things and was shunned for reporting a bad situation they sweep under the table like another one of the BIG RELIGIONS. Just want to say your doing the right thing and I'll be watching your videos. It's too hot in the desert or I would take a ride out to your Bible Study in Salt Lake City.

Keep up the good work, Bob Harwood. Psalms 145:20

Assurance of Salvation

FROM JILL –

Subject: Assurance of Salvation

Hi, I’m a born-again Christian but because of the below verses have trouble believing in "once saved always saved". How do you reconcile these verses (Mt 7:21, Mt 24:13, Rom 11:22, Phil 2:12, 1 Cor 9:27, 1 Cor 10:11-12, 2 Tim 2:11-13, Heb 6:4-6, Heb 10:26-27 and Jn 15:10) with your belief in the assurance of salvation. God Bless! Thanks, Jill

I agree with your assessment of what one would have to do to lose their salvation. I believe one would have to sinMissing the mark of faith and love—no punishment, just lost growth or peace. seriously, on purpose, and then refuse to repent. Basically, knowingly turning their back on God. I personally have a hard time picturing this happening to someone who has really experienced being born again. But I believe the tone of the verses I sent you. To me they basically warn us of our fallen nature and that if we're not working with God to keep moving in the right direction in our lives then our fallen nature moves us in the wrong direction.

The main reason I write this is because I really have been enjoying the ExMormon files. (I've watched all of them and am awaiting new ones). I love hearing how the Holy Spirit worked in the people's lives. I know you helped get the program started and were instrumental in Bishop Earl's conversion out of the LDS Church. But Bishop Earl and his guests are always emphasizing how they can't lose their salvation, now that they've been saved. If the Apostle Paul can't find fault within himself but still won't count himself as secure, who am I to think that I am secure. I do believe we need to "stand fast" against our fallen nature and not assume our salvation is "secure". I believe the message being sent on the program could cause some people not to be vigilant with regards to their faith, leading to a possible lapse into their old, less than Godly ways. That is my concern.

It is my understanding that this idea of eternal security came from Martin Luther because he suffered from the emotional illness of scrupulosity, a religious form of OCD.

Understanding Salvation and Security

My condition is mostly under control now. It is called the doubting disease. The hallmark symptom of scrupulosity is the need for certitude. He supposedly doubted his good works were enough, and the anxiety it caused supposedly drove him to create or make up the idea of Sola Fide (faith alone – hence no works needed) and once saved always saved. He needed certitude with regard to his standing with God and his salvation in order to find peace. I'm told he even tried to throw out the book of James because of the verse that states that, "faith without works is dead". But other reformers wouldn't let him. That's how I understand it. I thought it was interesting.

If you're interested in hearing the story of a man emotionally tortured by his scrupulosity you can check out his story at Mormon Stories #229/230. I enjoyed your story there too.

Oh, and could you please pray for my brother Greg and his wife Susan and kids that they find out the truth about Mormonism. My brother read the Fawn Brodie book and then still joined. I think he liked what he saw in the people. He lives in Pleasant Grove, Ut. Thank you for all the good, brave work you do. And thanks for answering me so quickly. Jill Sent from my iPhone

Assurance of Salvation

On Jun 19, 2014, at 9:22 PM, shawn@alatheamedia.com wrote:

Let me add to my reply – a question I have for you is "What could ever be the cause of "forfeited salvation" in your mind? or what is it that would determine that a person has lost/forfeited their salvation?

From: Jill Subject: Assurance of salvation Message Body: Hi, I'm a born-again Christian but because of the below verses have trouble believing in "once saved always saved". How do you reconcile these verses (Mt 7:21, Mt 24:13, Rom 11:22, Phil 2:12, 1 Cor 9:27, 1 Cor 10:11-12, 2 Tim 2:11-13, Heb 6:4-6, Heb 10:26-27 and Jn 15:10) with your belief in the assurance of salvation. God Bless! Thanks, Jill

Reflections on Salvation

MY REPLY . . . ??? (explain here)

Her response . . .

I agree with your assessment of what one would have to do to lose their salvation. I believe one would have to sin seriously, on purpose, and then refuse to repent. Basically, knowingly turning their back on God. I personally have a hard time picturing this happening to someone who has really experienced being born again. But I believe the tone of the verses I sent you. To me, they basically warn us of our fallen nature and that if we're not working with God to keep moving in the right direction in our lives then our fallen nature moves us in the wrong direction.

The main reason I write this is because I really have been enjoying the Ex-Mormon files. (I've watched all of them and am awaiting new ones). I love hearing how the Holy Spirit worked in the people's lives. I know you helped get the program started and were instrumental in Bishop Earl's conversion out of the LDS Church. But Bishop Earl and his guests are always emphasizing how they can't lose their salvation, now that they've been saved. If the Apostle Paul can't find fault within himself but still won't count himself as secure, who am I to think that I am secure. I do believe we need to "stand fast" against our fallen nature and not assume our salvation is "secure". I believe the message being sent on the program could cause some people not to be vigilant with regards to their faith, leading to a possible lapse into their old, less than Godly ways. That is my concern.

It is my understanding that this idea of eternal security came from Martin Luther because he suffered from the emotional illness of scrupulosity, a religious form of OCD. I am a fellow sufferer but my condition is mostly under control now. It is called the doubting disease. The hallmark symptom of scrupulosity is the need for certitude. He supposedly doubted his good works were enough, and the anxiety it caused supposedly drove him to create or make up the idea of Sola Fide (faith alone – hence no works needed) and

Once Saved Always Saved

Once saved always saved. He needed certitude with regard to his standing with God and his salvation in order to find peace. I'm told he even tried to throw out the book of James because of the verse that states that, "faith without works is dead." But other reformers wouldn't let him. That's how I understand it. I thought it was interesting.

If you're interested in hearing the story of a man emotionally tortured by his scrupulosity you can check out his story at Mormon Stories #229/230. I enjoyed your story there too.

Oh, and could you please pray for my brother Greg and his wife Susan and kids that they find out the truth about Mormonism. My brother read the Fawn Brodie book and then still joined. I think he liked what he saw in the people. He lives in Pleasant Grove, Ut. Thank you for all the good, brave work you do. And thanks for answering me so quickly. Jill

Mormonism's Subjective Truth

From: Joan

Shawn, I am an avid visitor to your website and TV programs. Something occurred to me that I thought may be helpful to you as you take calls and emails from LDS people. Oftentimes, you get frustrated because they won't admit to one doctrine or another. What occurred to me was that being LDS becomes whatever you want it to be. An example would be polygamy; if it is distasteful, they will rationalize, in a very personal way, that it was only practiced because; fill in the blank. They do this with any and every point you bring to them. That is why Mormonism is SO successful the truth of it is whatever you want it to be. They don't teach the real/true history or the real/true doctrine, so every member gets a testimony of whatever it is that they want it to be. I hope I got my point across I think it is pivotal. Love you and your ministry. God bless.

Atheism Versus Religion

From Ian in Ireland

Hi….

Mormonism is daft but no dafter than Christianity….. Youtube Matt Dillahunty to see and hear what ex-believers should be doing….. or look up EvilBible.com to read about your holy book…

Ian

I Wrote Back

Ian,

I've seen and hear. Dillahunty is a sideshow. Anyone who claims that there is no evidence of God in this world is a sideshow. But you're right Mormonism and Christianity as religions are daft. But Christ is not.

Ian Replied

Thanks for bothering to reply…..this email is coming from Northern Ireland…..a place being destroyed by Christian theocrats…… Within a 10 mile radius we have 23 different Christian denominations some with very different theologies….all taken from the one set of scriptures….. There is no evidence of a creator….what you have is faith, not proof….. as a secular atheist I have no objection to people's beliefs as long as they keep them in their churches…. we have a first (prime minister) who is a creationist !!!!!!!! Don't like Matt Dillahunty then try Bart Ehrman or Sam Harris….

I Wrote Back

Hey Ian,

I am running out right now, but I've read Ehrman and seen Harris. I cannot disagree with your distain for all organized religion and how they circle the wagons and engage in warfare – but that is not the call of Jesus. I am willing to bet that you have NOT EVER been exposed to the true contextual meaning of following Christ and have instead resonated with atheism (which can be so intellectually stimulating).

Maybe we can converse someday online here. Thanks for taking the time to write. I am NOT a religionist of ANY sort – whether it be Christianity, MormonISM, or Atheism – they are ALL religions. There's a better way.

(Finally Ian Replied and said (which is the point I wanted to get to and speak to hear on the air)

Hi….

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. (He didn’t add this but should have: If he is not able but willing then He is not all powerful) and If he is both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Hi…. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Hi…..

Thanks for bothering to reply…..this email is coming from Northern Ireland…..a place being destroyed by Christian theocrats…… Within a 10-mile radius, we have 23 different Christian denominations, some with very different theologies….all taken from the one set of scriptures….. There is no evidence of a creator….what you have is faith not proof….. As a secular atheist, I have no objection to people's beliefs as long as they keep them in their churches….

Mormons Facing Church Scrutiny

People's beliefs as long as they keep them in their churches… We have a first (prime minister) who is a creationist !!!!!! Don't like Matt Dillahunty then try Bart Ehrman or Sam Harris…

Ian

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:07:38 -0600
Subject: Re: ?
From: shawn@alatheamedia.com
To: ianhoey@live.co.uk

"I have to see and hear what ex-believers should be doing?"

I've seen and hear. Dillahunty is a side show. Anyone who claims that there is no evidence of God in this world is a side show. But you're right, Mormonism and Christianity as religions are daft. But Christ is not.

HI….
Mormonism is daft but no dafter than Christianity…..
Youtube Matt Dillahunty to see and hear what ex believers should be doing…..
or look up EvilBible.com to read about your holy book…

Ian

Mormons and Online Comments Scrutiny

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

The New York Times
Published: June 19, 2014 07:08PM
Updated: June 19, 2014 03:12PM

Rock Waterman, a retired innkeeper in California, writes a blog called “Pure Mormonism,” which attracts Mormons so orthodox that they believe their church is not sufficiently adhering to its own doctrines. Last month, Waterman posted a combative challenge addressed to one of the Mormon church’s top leaders: “Stop making up your own rules and try preaching the Gospel of Christ for a change.” Two days later, he said, he was summoned to a meeting with his bishop and told to either stop blogging or resign his church membership. If he did not resign he would face excommunication, he said the bishop told him, on orders from another official higher up – one of the church’s leaders known as an “Area Seventy.”

From California to Virginia and states in between, more than a dozen Mormons interviewed in the past week said they had recently been informed by their bishops that they faced excommunication or risked losing permission to enter a temple because of comments they had made online about their faith, the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These members said their bishops had questioned them about specific posts they had made on their blogs, Twitter, and Facebook, in the comment streams of websites, or in conversations in chat rooms.

The kinds of comments that have attracted the scrutiny of bishops and stake presidents, who are regional supervisors, include: support for the ordination of women; advocacy for same-sex marriage; serious doubts about church history or theology; and, as in Waterman’s case, protests that the church demands more in tithes than its doctrine requires.

Church Leaders' Concerns

Michael Otterson, managing director of the church’s public affairs office, said: “There is no coordinated effort to tell local leaders to keep their members from blogging or discussing their questions online. On the contrary, church leaders have encouraged civil online dialogue and recognize that today it’s just part of how the world works.” However, he said, church leaders do grow concerned when discussion is used to recruit others for campaigns to change church doctrine or structure. “When it goes so far as creating organized groups, staging public events to further a cause, and creating literature for members to share in their local congregations,” Otterson said, “the church has to protect the integrity of its doctrine as well as other members from being misled.”

The crackdown is much broader than the action taken last week against two prominent Mormons, who were threatened with excommunication – Kate Kelly, the founder of the Ordain Women movement, and John P. Dehlin, creator of the “Mormon Stories” podcast and an advocate for gay Mormons. It has affected Mormons perceived as dissidents from across the ideological spectrum: liberals such as Kelly, Dehlin, and others who support same-sex marriage, and conservatives who devoutly believe Mormon teaching and Scripture but criticize the church as straying from it, like Waterman and Denver Snuffer, a lawyer in Utah who blogs and writes books about Mormonism. Snuffer said on his blog that he was excommunicated for apostasy last fall.

“This is clearly boundary maintenance,” said Jan Shipps, a professor emerita of history and religious studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, who has written extensively about the Mormon church. “They had essentially created a porous boundary, but once you have a porous boundary, sooner or later you’re going to have to maintain a boundary that says, ‘This is as far as you can go.’”

Mormons are such active bloggers and voluble writers that they have created a whole universe of sites, which they call the “Bloggernacle,” where they go to discuss their faith. The church cannot

Church Discipline and Internet Monitoring

Police them all or shut them down, but it can demonstrate to members where it draws the boundaries of acceptability by scaring those who stray.

The church, in a statement this week, said that disciplinary actions were handled by local leaders and were not coordinated or directed by church headquarters. But some of the Mormons facing disciplinary actions said they had been told by their bishops that the instruction to investigate Internet activity came relatively recently from more senior leaders.

“It feels scary to have all the words I say on Facebook and Twitter monitored,” said Kevin Kloosterman, a mental health therapist in Sycamore, Illinois. Kloosterman, who was a bishop from 2007 to 2012, attracted headlines and scrutiny for an emotional talk he gave at a conference in Salt Lake City in 2011 apologizing to gay people rejected by their Mormon families. He also lobbied for same-sex marriage in his state. But there were no consequences until March of this year when, at a meeting, his bishop cited a Twitter post by Kloosterman congratulating the first gay couple to be married in Utah.

“Jesus would never do that,” the bishop said, according to Kloosterman. He said his bishop informed him that an Area Seventy church leader had weighed in on his case (Kloosterman declined to name him), and that leaders had been monitoring his Internet activity and knew he supported groups that disagree with church teaching. The bishop revoked Kloosterman’s “temple recommend,” denying him entrance to the temple, where important rituals like baptisms and marriages are held, and where he and his wife used to go regularly for spiritual uplift. “It’s been devastating,” he said. “I’m in shock still.”

Impact on Church Members

Some supporters of the Ordain Women movement who have posted profiles and pictures of themselves on the movement’s website have also recently had their temple recommends withdrawn or been removed from church volunteer positions, according to Kelly and Ordain Women leaders. Kelly’s parents, who live in Provo, were among those who lost temple privileges, as was a higher-profile leader, Hannah Wheelwright, who just graduated from the church’s Brigham Young University and founded a group called Young Mormon Feminists.

Experiences of Lesser-Known Members

But there are also those who never sought the spotlight, like Dana, a member in the church’s Buena Vista stake in Virginia, who did not want her last name used because she has family in the church. She was very active in the church, but supports the ordination of women and same-sex marriage, which church doctrine prohibits. She said that soon after she posted comments anonymously in an online chat room, her bishop sent her emails quoting what she had written and questioning her about her beliefs. On June 1, she said, her bishop phoned and told her to stop posting or face a church disciplinary hearing. Instead, four days later, she and her family resigned their church membership. “It was just bizarre,” she said. “I was trying to quietly leave the church because of doctrinal reasons, and I hastily left the church because of my bishop.”

As for Waterman, the blogger in California, he has refused to resign and is willing to face discipline. “I’m not trying to get the church to change,” he said. “I’m trying to get the church to abide by its doctrine.”