Let's discuss Mormonism.

[Zioneer]

So I've noticed that there isn't a general discussion thread about Mormonism and the LDS Church, of which I am a member. So I've started one. I don't have a specific LDS-related topic to discuss, so feel free to ask about or talk about anything related to the LDS Church. I'll try to answer questions as best I can.

One thing I will ask, however. Please do not dismiss my faith as "impossible" and please do not get wrapped up in the "Native Americans have no Hebrew DNA, thus your faith is false!" rhetoric. Please at least treat my faith as at least a legitimate religion, or even just a cult that is well-meaning. Oh, and if you go "Joseph Smith was a pedophile", I will report you. So don't do that either.

Other than that, discuss away!

EDIT: Ignore that above, it was written in a moment of anger. Here's a glossary of common LDS terms. The terms are in bold, and terms that appear in the descriptions will be italicized.

Ward: Geographically located congregation, usually from 100-300. Led by a bishopric. Many wards form a stake. Like in other influential religious cultures, it's an easy social link for those who belong to it.

Stake: A geographic collection of wards, vaguely analogous to a Catholic bishopric. Led by a Stake Presidency.

Bishop: Spiritual leader of a ward, is in charge of the ward's spiritual well-being. Keeps an eye on all leadership functions in a ward, and can also act as the LDS version of a confessor. Must be a member in good standing

Bishopric: The bishop and his two counselers (imaginatively called the First and Second Counselers), plus a clerk who oversee the ward. The counselers are  basically advisers who help the bishop be in two or three places at ones. They can do most, but not all functions of a bishop. The clerk is the ward's main administrator, he takes care of the paperwork.

Stake President: Basically an upgraded bishop (and many bishops actually do become stake presidents), in charge of a stake. Has greater authority than a bishop, and his job is to make sure there's no problems in the stake or individual wards. He has the counselers and clerk for stake matters just as a bishop does for ward matters. The only difference is that usually, a stake president isn't confessed to and if he's brought in, that's a sign of escalation.

President/Prophet of the LDS Church: The highest authority in the LDS church besides God himself and the scriptures, he's basically our Pope. LDS folks believe the Prophet to be able to receive spiritual revelation for the entire church, letting him change or create doctrine and policy. He is not worshiped or venerated, but merely highly respected. He is understood to be a man, and having sinned like everyone else. The prophet is said to be chosen by God, and every time but the first, he has been the longest-serving Apostle, and frequently the most senior in terms of age. Referred to as "President" or "the Prophet". Another term used for the Prophet is "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator". The current prophet is Thomas S Monson.

First Presidency: The prophet and again, two counselers, who are taken from the ranks of the apostles. They oversee the entire church and address major problems within the Church

Quorum of the Twelve: Based upon the original twelve apostles in the Bible, these are twelve men chosen by revelation by the prophet who help him oversee the Church. Roughly analogous to Catholic cardinals with even greater authority, as they are also considered "prophets, seers, and revelators" almost equal with the prophet. Their decisions could theoretically override the prophet's authority, but that has never happened, because their collective decisions must be unanimous.

Singles Ward: Basically, a ward for unmarried, adult men and women, created to make them more comfortable. You don't have to join it, but it's strongly encouraged. Some young LDS adults treat it as a friends+dating service.

The Promised Land: America, basically.

Nephites: Descendants of Nephi, a man from Jerusalem circa 600 who sailed with his extensive family to Americas (though there's no specifics on where). His people play a major part in the narrative of the Book of Mormon, being righteous at first, wicked and corrupt later, then humble, defeated, and righteous again. His brother Laman's people, the Lamanites are arch-enemies of the Nephites, and serve as a major threat throughout the scriptures.

Book of Mormon/Doctrine and Covenants/Pearl of Great Price: Our scriptures that aren't the Bible. Book of Mormon is a record of a specific civilization in the Americas, the Doctrine and Covenants are a series of revelations regarding doctrine and administration given to the prophets (mostly Joseph Smith), and the Pearl of Great Price is a record translated by Joseph Smith that mainly deals with more doctrine and a few explanations of under-explained people and events in the Bible (like Enoch).

[Zioneer]

Ok. It's implausible.

Fair enough. I do admit that it's very implausible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I realize that, but I also don't want one person to go "but isn't your faith totally false because of DNA study such and such", and have an entire thread go to waste because the rest of the posts are people simply agreeing with that first guy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you. That's all I ask.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but as before with the DNA remark, it's both offensive trolling and would derail the thread. I've had too much insults levied at my faith, and I've had too many forum threads that have been a fairly honest discussion about Mormonism derailed by some joker who has an axe to grind.

[Zioneer]

My understanding of Mormonism comes from a gay, formerly married friend of mine with two kids. Let's just say doctrine aside his understanding of Mormonism as practiced is not particularly complimentary.

And that's fine; I'll discuss gay issues and Mormonism, I'll discuss blacks and Mormonism, I'll discuss corporate power and Mormonism, I'll even discuss ex-Mormons, but I have said the two things I will not talk about in the OP.

[Zioneer]

I think people are interpreting this thread as a venue on which to challenge Mormonism... which I don't think is what you're intending. I also think it's unfortunate.

So I'm going to use it as a venue to ask about Mormonism, because I honestly don't know much about it. I had a friend who was raised by a single mother--the mother was a staunch Mormon, and my friend hated her for it.

One thing she kept talking about was the fact that her mother believed Jesus was living on the moon. This is probably a total oversimplification, and I apologize for using it, but is that actually a component of Mormonism?

Yes, that's what I mean. I don't want to have this thread become an excuse to challenge and insult Mormonism. I'm willing to talk about negative aspects of my church, but the two things that I forbid in the OP are often used as an excuse to simply insult and question the legitimacy of the church. I don't want this thread to devolve into a flame war, so that is why I so strongly forbid those two things. Thank you for clarifying what I meant. I want people to ask about and discuss Mormonism, not insult it in the crudest way possible.

Anyway, as for the "Jesus living on the Moon" thing, yeah, that's a total oversimplification. What it's probably a reference to is Kolob, which is supposed to be the star closest to where God and Jesus live. They don't actually live on it, and it may just be an elaborate metaphor. Some of the fringe Mormon philosophers (like Cleon Skousen) have incredibly elaborate theories about it, but personally, I think it's somewhere between a metaphor (possibly of Jesus Christ) and an unimportant side-theological idea. Kolob itself is not central to LDS thought anyway.

[Zioneer]

I talked to a pair of Mormon missionaries in the town my mother lives in a year or two back (Sister Sarah and Sister...Whitney, if I remember correctly?). They were very nice and quite respectful and accepting when I told them that I'm already quite committed to the Episcopal Church and sincerely doubt that will change, and I took some literature from them as a courtesy.

Sorry, I don't really have much more to add to this conversation.

I had the same situation happen to me at school a couple quarters back.

While I don't care much for the content of their doctrine, and they seem rather paradoxical in the way they seem to be almost arbitrarily conservative on some social matters and not so much on others (from a Catholic's perspective), for example on birth control/condoms, I have never once had a bad experience with a Mormon. I have never met an unkind one, and Washington has a fair few of them. I admire a lot about them sociologically and find their geographic and historical attributes fascinating. I really like that they're generally anti-alcohol, etc (though I personally couldn't live without caffeine and won't be converting any time soon).

From what I've seen, a lot of Mormons tend to have a common physical and physiological appearance to them. They aren't the only smallish conservative religious group where this is the case, but I've noticed it most often with Mormons. I can't quite describe what it is, but my Mormon-dar is pretty strong.

Actually, Mormons tend to frown on birth control unless it's between a married couple.

And yeah, I've noticed that non-Mormons who know Mormons frequently say that Mormons tend to have a common physical appearance; that could be due to the extremely white skin color of most Mormons combined with the non-usage of alcohol. Of course, then they meet the Polynesian Mormons and that tends to throw off the Mormon-dar.

[Zioneer]

Doesn't Mormonism teach that there is a continuous revelation, such that the Mormon church could change its beliefs and morals at some future date without a problem of historical consistency?

I ask this because I read some evangelicals are concerned that having Mormon president would mean that Mormon teachings could simply change on them. (In reality this is far enough down my list of concerns that it's basically irrelevent, but I'm curious at how a Mormon would respond.)

Yeah, basically. God doesn't change, but what he wants us to do changes based on our needs/circumstances, so there's continuous revelation given to the prophet of the LDS Church, who then tells the rest of the church about it.

There's also personal revelation, which basically falls under the "miraculous knowledge/luck" category. You know, the "lost my car keys/paycheck to feed my family, prayed and suddenly knew where it was" or the "I couldn't find my baby so I prayed and there he was, sleeping on cushions in the middle of the store" type of thing. Stuff like "I just got a strong feeling that I really shouldn't go [place], so I didn't, and it turns out there was a huge car wreck there that killed 5 people" also counts.

There's also patriarchal blessings, which are long, personalized blessings that the patriarch of the stake/what non-Mormons would call a diocese or district (always an elderly man who has been put directly in his position by the the higher-ups in the church) transmits from God to you through himself. Basically an incredibly vague "be righteous in this and this way, and you'll have blessings to help you instruct others, be righteous in this way and God promises you that you won't die before you're married" sort of thing. The specific details of these patriarchal blessings aren't supposed to be shared with anyone but your spouse and possibly your bishop.

Sorry for the stream-of-thought post; I'm just typing things down as I remember them.

[Zioneer]

Why should one care about his/her afterlife and make an effort to follow the teachings of any church or faith if he/she can be saved through "baptism by proxy"?

Because an individual is more likely to accept the gospel and repent of any sins they might have in their regular lifetime. Once you're dead, according to LDS theology, you're usually more set in your ways, but if you're a good person, they assume you eventually accepted and were fine with the baptism.

Why did you guys baptize Godwin's Law?

I don't actually know, but this LDS.net forum thread discusses the issue fairly well.

Oh, and if you go "Joseph Smith was a pedophile", I will report you. So don't do that either.

There's no evidence (as far as I know) that he was medically-speaking a pedophile, but it's undeniable that he married and had sex with a number of underage girls, many of whom probably hadn't even finished puberty (while some, like Helen Mar Kimball, potentially hadn't even begun it!) and wouldn't have been considered old enough to marry by normal society (or even Mormon society) at the time. A term like "sexual predator" would be more accurate than pedophile.

My reply to that is that if he had sex with those girls, in an age where birth control methods were harder to find and use, wouldn't there be the possibility of children? And if there were no children, isn't that a fairly even indicator that Joseph Smith didn't do as you say (I don't deny the marriages, only that anything happened during them)

I'm not going to try and hide my hatred of Mormonism but I have a sincere question to ask of PioneerProgress. Do you honestly believe that the indigenous people are descended from the Hebrews regardless of the mountains of evidence that says otherwise? How do you (and other learned Mormons) reconcile your faith with the history written on the pre-1492 Americas? I haven't had the opportunity to speak with any progressive Mormons so it would be nice to get a sincere answer.

As far as personal interactions with Mormons go, I'm probably one of the few posters here who's had many Mormon friends. I find their distaste for swearing, rated R movies and the like to be hilariously outdated. Strong filial values and a less judgmental attitude against non-believers than fundamentalist are nice selling points for the church but if you look beneath the veneer, you'll find that the creepy cultist tendencies outweigh the politeness. The closer you venture towards hubs of LDS members, the more anti-LDS the non-believers are. This is certainly the case in my town.

Here's the thing; years ago, people said Mormonism couldn't be true because no ship of the Israelite era could survive a trip to the Americas. Then Thor Heyerdahl did just that. Science can turn out to have been wrong, even when all the data gathered so far seems correct. If I'm remembering correctly, isn't DNA evidence especially finicky in some tests?

Also, I'm open to the possibility of much of the Book of Mormon being a metaphor. For example, I'm pretty sure the mention of "iron" weapons in the BoM is Joseph Smith trying to translate the words as best he could understand. Kind of like how Revelations is supposed to be John trying to describe what he saw in his visions as best he can understand.

And I am personally affronted whenever someone calls the LDS Church a cult; we're not a cult at all. We're a lot more centralized than most religions are, but not a cult.

[Zioneer]

There is no evidence; none, zip, nada that Native Americans contain 'tell-tale' genetic markers from the Levant or anywhere in the Middle East. I understand that the LDS had a whole industry of pseudo-science dedicated to trying to fight this or provide other explanations but it's a deliberate fudge.

This is exactly why I declared the DNA thing off-limits; it distracts from the point of this thread, and it just makes the one Mormon (i.e. myself) willing to talk to you all about other controversial issues in Mormonism very annoyed, because you are directly insulting my faith. Look, I'll literally discuss any other topic having to do with Mormonism except for those two issues I mentioned in the OP. Will that not satisfy you all?

Was there any type of Charismatic Mormon offshoot? I find it kind of weird that there wasn't. Any Mormon churches where people raise their hands or dance and jump around?

From what I remember, I don't think so. Modern Mormon services are rather subdued, except for the lessons for the kids under 11 years of age. Even then, it's more just energetic body motions to the song "Head, shoulders, knees and toes" than spiritual experiences.

I'm not as familiar with the methods of Community of Christ off-shoot or the FLDS, so they might have Charismatic-esque tendencies, but the mainline church does not. There's even a scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants which talks about how unnecessary the body movements of the Shakers are.

[Zioneer]

I really should have clarified here; my point with this thread was less arguing about theology and more talking about modern issues in the church (like the lingering affects of black men having the priesthood for only 34 years, or the success of Polynesian Mormons, the corporate and political power of the LDS Church, and the way the church plays a numbers game in Latin America).

I'll talk about some parts of LDS theology, but I simply do not see the point in discussing certain other parts of the theology. It'll just turn this thread into an echo chamber of "hey PioneerProgress, what about THIS thing that I think makes your faith look crackpot?"

As I said, we're not getting anywhere in this thread if there's a rehash of those specific things that question the legitimacy of the LDS Church, rather than the legitimacy of it's action.

Plus, I don't see you guys barging in on other threads by forum members of different members, so why go straight for the jugular of Mormonism, metaphorically speaking?

Look, I'll literally discuss any other topic having to do with Mormonism except for those two issues I mentioned in the OP. Will that not satisfy you all?

You ignored my post about the silliness of the magic stones in a hat.

Oh, sorry about that. I'm fully willing to talk about that; Mormon expert Richard Bushman talked about the "stones in a hat" issue in his very informative and neutral book Rough Stone Rolling, after all. From what I understand, it was a pretty common practice in Yankee New England in the 1820s and 30s. Plenty of would-be preachers did similar actions ( many also undertook treasure hunting to prove their credentials), using symbolic and spiritual items to instruct their followers in specific doctrines, as well as "translating" doctrines that they were compiling in scriptures, whether the preachers believed in the doctrines or not.

From all indicators, it seems like Joseph Smith believed his own teachings, so while I'm open to the magic stones being mundane items that were given too much superstitious significance, it seems Smith himself thought they were more than that.

If God used to be a regular person, how could the world have been created?

The LDS Church doesn't go into much detail on this, but there's essentially a murky bit of "time before time" in which God was man, but at some point, he became the all-powerful being he is today. As Jesus had to be as man is to experience our mortal life (and thus be able to bear our sins), thus God must have been as we are at some point, because if not, we would not be able to become like he is.

[Zioneer]

As I said, we're not getting anywhere in this thread if there's a rehash of those specific things that question the legitimacy of the LDS Church, rather than the legitimacy of it's action.

Well where is it you want to go? I mean I'm a historian so I'm quite keen on discussing the LDS's understanding of the history of Pre-Columbian America and why it's contrary to the historical, archaelogical, biological, genetical, cultural and linguisitic record. I take it that's a no no?

Correct.

As I said, I will discuss most things relating to the LDS Church; politics, (most of the) history, culture, lifestyle, demographics, (some) theology, odd acendotes and quotes, interesting cultural figures, etc.

I will literally discuss and talk about most anything regarding Mormonism besides the things I expressively pointed out in the OP. And just like I said, those things I have (tried to) declined talking about have bogged down the thread.

[Zioneer]

It's been said already, so moving on...

I've read a number of Mormon deconversion stories in the last few years. One common thread is that when the person in question talked to their spiritual advisor in the church about reading things written by the opposition they were discouraged from doing so. Do you have any such experiences or if there is any official church policy in regards to this?

First of all, thank you for changing the subject.

I haven't had any experiences in being discouraged from reading/listen to things written by the opposition, but that's mostly because I don't bother to tell my bishop (who is roughly equivalent to a pastor or parish priest), or if I do, we (neither myself or the bishop) don't treat it seriously because the source is usually my ex-Mormon dad, who has a serious chip on his shoulder when it comes to the LDS Church.

Of course, I do treat the more reasonable opposition stuff seriously, just not the "yarrgable the Mormons are doing everything they can to make my life uncomfortable and it's not just me being inexplicably mad at every bit of Mormon culture because I can" type of complaints. I'm exaggerating with that, but those kind of "ex-Mormons showing you the TRUTH and being tormented by these evil Mormons" sources are not really reliable in my opinion.

There's no official list of sources that we're discouraged from checking out, but church members are asked to trust the church over "the world" when it comes to sources. Some Mormons take that to an extreme; they won't read the writings of the Richard Bushman guy I mentioned a few posts ago, even though he's still a Mormon in good fellowship, simply because he's a scholar who doesn't feel the need to airbrush all of Joseph Smith's flaws away (he still whitewashes Smith a bit, but not as much as the official church sources). Again, I highly recommend Bushman's book Rough Stone Rolling, it's a very good and scholarly book on Joseph Smith.

Plus, it's probably the closest to neutral (that is, not taking either the words of Smith or his detractors as absolute truth) you're going to get.

[Zioneer]

Sorry for the double post, but here's an example of sorts of issues I was hoping to discuss: The LDS Church and politics, for instance. In this specific article, it points out that the Church leadership has a large amount of influence in regards to the voting habit of Utah Mormons; and that the leaders themselves practice what they preach in regards to voting every single election. This kind of discussion could lead to a larger debate on the LDS Church's influence in politics (including, yes, Prop 8 ).

[Zioneer]

I'm assuming that as opposed to someone like Bushman, someone like for instance Fawn Brodie would be pretty much persona non grata as far as the attitude towards her work?

(I'm not fond of Fawn Brodie. Her work is biased and excessively Freudian. This is unfortunate because I'm going to be writing a psychobiography of sorts of a deceased Japanese writer for my BA thesis or equivalent. But I digress.)

Yes; the Church doesn't tend to name names, but Fawn Brodie is definitely persona non grata there. As are the God Maker guys (who are ridiculed by the other fierce anti-Mormons, so you know they're full of misinformation).

You mention your father is an ex-Mormon - is your mother still in the church? I ask because one deconversion story I read involved a woman whose husband deconverted before she had lost her faith as well, and it was mentioned the other women would gossip behind her back about how her place in heaven was threatened due to this. My current understanding of this is that she would be unable to go to the Celestial kingdom of heaven, and would instead would only get the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom, ultimately based on where her husband ends up - is this an accurate understanding of the theology?

My mom's still in the church, yes. More devout than I am, actually (though I'm definitely not inactive or non-believing. I still believe, and strongly believe. I'm just not particular devout about it.) As for the "place in heaven threatened" not my mother in particular, since my dad has not taken his name out of church records, thank goodness. The Celestial Kingdom has more than one "level", however, so no, my mom would not go to the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdom, unless she was selfish and negative, which she is not, or committed particularly cruel acts, which she has not.

However, if he took his name out of the church records officially, she would not be sealed for all eternity to my dad, and she would "only" get the second best level of the best afterlife possible (keep in mind that all the kingdoms are described as being much, much better than mortal life).

[Zioneer]

My questions involve your sharing with us your anecdotal experiences.  In  your experience PioneerProgress, just how up to speed are LDS members on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and the actions of Brigham Young in connection therewith, including inter alia, Young ordering the destruction of the cairn the US army put up in remembrance of the slain (whom the LDS did not even bother to bury)?  How familiar are they with Young's authoritarian regime back then, when nobody was allowed to own property, and some of the controversial practices of the LDS back then, since abandoned, such as blood atonement? What is the reaction of other members, if one member has the courage to speak out on these issues?  And on the ground, how typical is it for LDS members to shun those who refuse to convert after being proselytized, particularly those with children, who are concerned about exposing their kids to gentile children whose parents refuse to join up?

First of all, sorry for all the anecdotal experiences. I can remember them far better than I can remember statistics, and as you can imagine, the statistics in anything involving Mormonism are strongly disputed.

Anyways, the LDS Church does not talk about Mountain Meadows much at all. Most who do know about it blame John D Lee or the Native Americans involved (blaming John D Lee is actually quite reasonable, since it's unclear whether any message asking for permission could've gotten to Brigham before Lee ordered the killings).

I wouldn't say that no one was allowed to own property; there's plenty of examples where early Mormons squabbled amongst each other about prices and about neighbors "borrowing" their property. I think it'd be more accurate to say that, in terms of separating LDS property from non-LDS property, no LDS person was allowed to share with a Gentile. It was a social democracy for Mormons, hard capitalism for nonbelievers type of thing. I would characterize Young's era as less of a North Korea (as you seem to be claiming it to be), and more of a "everybody agrees with Brigham, so why don't you?" type of state. Territorial Utah was not some nightmarish dictatorship.

It depends; if a member just talks about the abandoned doctrines, they're seen as kind of loony, but if they insisting on yelling about them, they're usually asked quietly to stop. I haven't seen anything beyond that, as the only person I've seen go farther than that is my dad, who left the church under his own power a while back, before he talked about those doctrines in church (he yells about them all the time now though).

We aren't the Amish; we don't really shun those non-believer family members of faithful members; we do encourage them to attend non-Sunday church activities (particularly the youth and attending the youth activities), and we do leave them alone if asked (which is again what has happened with my dad).

In any case, most early Mormon history is incredibly sanitized; we are taught selected bits of Joseph Smith's life, and very few moments of Brigham Young's life and teachings, but learn a lot about the lives of the next dozen prophets. I would say that we know about the current prophet's life than Brigham Young's. But here is a good, well-informed (if very caustically pro-Mormon) source on a lot of Mormon stuff. This guy viciously criticizes LDS leaders as well though, and he does place part of the blame for Mountain Meadows at Brigham's feet. Read this post for good details about Mountain Meadows. I do think the church is doing the members a disservice by not teaching at least a little bit of the more controversial bits, though.

Where exactly do non-Mormons who there's nothing else actually wrong with ostensibly end up, and if it depends on other factors what might those be?

I think the theology is that they are given a second chance to accept Mormonism in the afterlife (hence the "baptism of the dead"), but I'll let him elaborate.

What do you think of ordaining women?

You're basically correct on your first comment.

As for ordaining women; I think it'd be interesting, but I don't see the need for it; for the highest level of the celestial kingdom, an ordained man needs a woman just as much as that woman needs the man.

I do think that women should be allowed more leadership roles and more offices in the church be opened to non-priesthood holders, though.

[Zioneer]

Ah, some questions that I feel completely comfortable answering. Thank you! And thank you all for easing up on the questions I don't feel comfortable answering. I know I came off as being heavy-handed earlier, and I apologize for that.

What's really the deal with some of these charges of racism in the Mormon church and do you know of any present-day examples of racism in Mormonism?

Well, it depends. Most Mormons wouldn't admit it, but as mainly white middle-class suburbanites, they generally subscribe to most of the stereotypes about minorities (y'know, "blacks=lazy" and etc), though excluding the members of their congregations/wards that are members of those minorities. At least in Utah, there seems to be a stronger bias against Hispanics (with the erroneous stereotype of Hispanics being mainly illegal immigrants), but that's slowly going away as the LDS Church itself takes a public and what can only be described as fanatically moderate line on immigration. Unfortunately, the white Mormon teenagers seem to retain old, bigoted racial attitudes at a higher rate than non-Mormon white teenagers. Good thing that the church is getting more Hispanic by the year.

I'm not sure about the Mormons who are minorities themselves, but from what I've observed of them, they seem to be much more accepting of others, and don't even believe the stereotypes that their ethnic group are "supposed" to believe (for example, don't certain populations of blacks and Hispanics have negative stereotypes about each other?). Minority Mormons are very tolerant.

There is one very striking and disturbing example of racism from the leadership, however. In one of the youth handbooks (I forget which), it still has a quote from 1976 which goes like this:

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question”

To be honest, it's quite sad that we haven't removed that, since there are thousands of happy interracial LDS marriages, but it was never even close to being a commandment, and even now it's just cultural practice that's only done in the United States (because again, overwhelmingly white middle-class suburbanites). But things are changing, quite rapidly in fact. For example, one of the most recent famous Mormon athletes to appear on the national scene is Jabari Parker, a mixed Tongan-African American basketball player. And I think one of our newest Seventies, Larry Echo Hawk is half-Native American, half-white. So things are definitely changing, it's just that we were very, very white for the longest time, and we're very, very slow to change on just about anything.

Personally, I take incredible pains to not be racist, and I criticize racist jokes by my (LDS) friends frequently. I find racism disgusting, and I'm fully determined to experience different cultures and ethnic groups as best I can. God made us all, and he did not make one race inferior to another.

Has it ever been viewed as problematic for a top-ranked LDS official to be of, as most of them seem to be, extremely advanced age, for health reasons mental or otherwise for example?

Yep; we've made a few Apostles into Emeritus Apostles and removed their responsibilities and station, but that's only because of major health reasons and extreme age. Usually the church leadership waits until they die before calling (appointing, basically) forward a new guy. We also have ridiculously old Presiding Patriarchs (the bosses of the fellows who give special blessings); Eldred G Smith is sort of our current one (but is essentially retired), and he's 105.

And to be honest I kind of think the over-90 apostles should have reduced responsibilities. Their minds usually continue to work correctly (at least during General Conference, they don't seem to have a hard time speaking), but their bodies start falling apart. Heck, with the poor health that a few of the apostles have, I'm predicting that there'll be two deaths within another year (and I predict that there will be two Hispanic apostles to replace them, incidentally).

[Zioneer]

Why does your church do so much harm to the gay community from gay Mormons to Prop 8? Why does it spend money and organise 'ex-gay' programs that don't work and leave those trapped in them or who have escaped from them psychologically scarred?

Probably because, like any large evangelical church would, it saw an opportunity to influence a major state in a way that allows its doctrine to be promoted. And the LDS Church wasn't the only church that worked on Prop 8. The biggest one yes, the richest one yes, the one with the most volunteers yes, but everyone needs to remember that we weren't the only ones.

As for the "ex-gay" programs, yeah I don't really have an answer to that, because I disagree with those programs. I disagree with Prop 8 as well (having more of a libertarian approach to gay marriage), but my big complaint with Prop 8 is more that it was unnecessary, wasteful, and hurtful to the church's image. We should have just let it go and not supported it.

Side note, Harry Reid (who is Mormon) supports gay marriage, so there's at least one prominent Mormon who disagrees with Prop 8.

Why are LDS leadership so old anyway?

Nathan is 100% correct. The most senior apostle (as in length of time served as apostle, not actual age) is always the next in line for being prophet. So you get really old prophets. There isn't really a criteria for being appointed an apostle, but it tends to be older General Authorities. Senority counts for a lot in the higher echelons of the church. A notable exception is David A Bednar, who was only 52 when made an apostle, and is only 60 now. That's very young for an apostle, and a lot of people see Bednar as a possible future prophet even though he's the 3rd newest apostle, simply because he'll outlast everyone else.

[Zioneer]

So do you concider yourself a Christian or not?

I do. LDS people like myself specifically follow what we see to be the teachings of Jesus Christ. Despite the claims of other religions that we can't be Christians because we believe man can become like God, we still believe in God as the highest authority and Christ as his son/the savior of mankind. There's no worship of anyone but God.

In fact, I like to joke that we're more Christian than other Christian faiths, as they only have Jesus going to one continent, and a small piece of it at that. We have Jesus hanging in one more continent than they do!

[Zioneer]

So was Jesus born again and live a whole life in America, or did he just pop in after the resurrection?

The latter. Jesus basically hangs out with the righteous/unrighteous inhabitants for a few months, teaches/reminds them what they're supposed to be doing and the doctrines they're supposed to follow, then leaves after organizing a Nephite version of his Apostles. He does the biblical tradition of doing miracles, healing the sick, and all that, but the biggest difference is that he blesses three of the Nephite Apostles such that "they will not taste death until my coming", by which he means his second coming. I don't know if any other church does this, but LDS doctrine also teaches that Jesus blessed John the Apostle (who is himself considered to be John the Beloved and John the Revalator in one man) with the same kind of immortality. So John and the Three Nephite apostles (known as the Three Nephites) are supposed to be running around in the modern day.

Just like most Christian churches have their folk stories of angelic visits, receiving miraculous aid and getting saved by Bibles in their coat pocket, Mormons have the "no guys the Three Nephites totally visited me and fixed my car when I prayed to God" stories. These kinds of people are also the ones who will say "I was saved from a chainsaw by my garments".

As you can probably tell, I don't exactly have a high opinion of folk stories like that, unless told by a LDS official who (compared to anyone else in my religion) might have had these kinds of experiences. It's like the difference between a random Catholic guy saying that he was saved by a rosary or whatnot, and the Pope or a cardinal doing it. Since I believe in the LDS Church (though I do have reasonable cynicism about it's members and some doctrines), it stands to reason that I'd trust someone who's supposed to a mouthpiece for God, over a relative that said they say three guys in white save their cat. Of course, the prophet and apostles don't tend to use folk stories like that; their stories are more "I prayed in a time of conflict, and it slowly got better".

But now I'm rambling, sorry about that.

[Zioneer]

So do you read the Bible all that often? I know you perfer your own texts, but about how often is the Bible used?

We divide our time relatively equally between texts, actually. And we friggin love footnotes and cross-references at the bottom of pages, so many times study of the Book of Mormon leads back to the Bible.

[Zioneer]

Skipping over everything...why? It's the most repulsive combination of Christian ignorance with American exceptionalism...aka the result of generations of America's worst, yet disturbingly prominent, traits. Sounds a lot like our politics if you ask me. Not worth a discussion, just a dismissal.

Seriously? You're going to just dismiss my entire faith? You're going to go "nope not worth talking about", and instead of just ignoring this thread, you've posted to that effect? You're going to needlessly offend for no reason whatsoever?

[Zioneer]

Skipping over everything...why? It's the most repulsive combination of Christian ignorance with American exceptionalism...aka the result of generations of America's worst, yet disturbingly prominent, traits. Sounds a lot like our politics if you ask me. Not worth a discussion, just a dismissal.

Seriously? You're going to just dismiss my entire faith? You're going to go "nope not worth talking about", and instead of just ignoring this thread, you've posted to that effect? You're going to needlessly offend for no reason whatsoever?

I think you are the one who is taking offense here. Bear in mind it is you who set suspicious limits on what we were allowed to talk about and people have been civil throughout. However it remains that Mormonism is one of the most easily disoprovable of the modern faiths because it's claims are downright ludicrous and contemporary evidence of it's fabrication and what influenced Joseph Smith is so easy available to anyone who goes looking for it. Christianity is shielded somewhat by it's age which makes untangling it a slow game, but Mormonism makes direct claims (almost within living memory) about pre-Columbian America which are demonstratably false. These claims are made by a man who has so obviously lifted the King James Bible including some of it's translation errors and pretended he's reading it from hidden tablets. Because you are raised in the faith and still believe it you don't see it or don't want to see it. But it obviously troubles you so much to ask the rest of us not to talk about the herd of elephants in the room.

Mormonism doesn't require awed discussion 'because it might just be true' for the same reason Scientology doesn't require it. Your faith is making extraordinary claims contrary to our understanding of history, archaeology, lingusitics, genetics and the movements of people. If you believe it to be truthful and for the concensus to be wrong then you must provide the evidence.

I don't want awed discussion; I have repeatedly said that I'm willing to discuss most issues in Mormonism, even the ones uncomfortable to my faith (like my faith's issues with black people, Mormonism's authoritarian streak that is the same time survivalist, and others, heck I've even discussed Mountain Meadows). I just want reasonable, respectful limits. Sure, you can make "cult" or polygamy jokes or whatnot, and you can ask most tough questions; I just want a small measure of respect and decency that I'm clearly not getting.

And like I pointed out, discussion of Mormonism goes nowhere when you just fall back on the "but it's faaaalse" line of rhetoric. Don't you think I've already heard all that before? I've made up my mind and to harp on about it is insulting and sucks the life out of every other issue that we could discuss. There's just no point in discussing the issues I wanted to restrict, because minds have already been made up about them, and there's no new information that either side could bring forth about it to change the other sides mind. However, with the other issues, both I and the skeptics can bring forth interesting information and have a reasonable, respectful discussion, as we have done throughout this thread. The arguing and disrespect only starts when someone goes "lololol your faith is completely false and I don't care about your personal reasons for believing", as you and others have done.

Now do you understand?

As a side note; here's a very recent discussion that Jon Stewart of the Daily Show has with a prominent Mormon liberal scholar, Joanna Brooks. Stewart, a comedian whose whole shtick is being disrespectful, is more respectful to my faith than you guys are.

[Zioneer]

So, Mormon church president = Mormon Pope?

Basically yes (and you could call the Apostles Mormon Cardinals), but the LDS church president has a lot more power and influence than the modern Catholic Pope. You know how a lot of Catholics ignore the Pope when he says something they disagree with (birth control, for instance)? That doesn't really happen in the LDS Church. When President Thomas S Monson says something, almost every Mormon listens.

It's actually a very interesting bit of controversy; church leaders have literally said "when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done", and that contributes to the somewhat authoritarian culture within the church. On one hand, it provides a sense of continuity and community; you know that everybody has the same religious beliefs as you, and there's very little theological misunderstanding between members. On the other hand, it's a bit suffocating to those who have a slightly different view, and you're expected to respect the judgment of those with authority within the church.

To be honest, that cultural quirk may have leaked into my requests in the OP; since I'm one of the few Mormons here, I suppose I expected that I'd at least have that small amount of respect I wanted in regards to Mormon topics. Silly of me, I guess. I apologize for that.

Anyway, another problem with the immense influence and power of the church president is that we don't have a good system of "Mormon infallibility". At best, the prophets/church presidents/apostles say "sometimes we speak as men, but other times as prophets". Since we don't have a system of sorting between the two, nothing a previous prophet has said can be specifically denounced by current church authorities. This means that instead of saying "yeah Brigham Young was wrong on black people", we have to metaphorically push that issue under the rug and say "oh it was a different time, and since nobody had the guts to point out that he may have been wrong, we have to treat that teaching as doctrine that existed until 1978). The same goes for Ezra Taft Benson's support for the John Birch Society and his anti-civil rights beliefs.

We can't say "hey yeah, sometimes a prophet can be wrong on a doctrine", because even within the LDS community, that opens up the current prophet to criticism about doctrine. The church does not want members to just pick and choose doctrines because that's exactly what led to the various splinterings of the church back in the 1800s.

[Zioneer]

How common are "Jack Mormons," and do you consider yourself one as a fairly liberal person?

I'd say that Jack Mormons are a little less than a million of the church's recorded 14 million (which is probably more like 9 or 10 million, but that's another issue). I don't know where they usually congregate, but if I had to take a guess, it'd be Salt Lake City. It's close enough to the larger portion of Mormondom that many feel like they can't cut off ties altogether, but it's insulated in it's own culture enough that a member could feel comfortable going inactive.

They're not talked about much because these days most inactive Mormons simply cut off all ties with the church. That authoritarian "trust us" streak tends to hinder any culture of "questioning, but still devout" Mormons. Again, in comparison to Catholicism, it's harder to be a secular Mormon than a secular Catholic.

Politics doesn't usually have anything to do with being a Jack Mormon or not (though specific political actions like Prop 8 do), and especially in Salt Lake City, there's a small population of fully-devout liberal Mormons who take inspiration from previous prophets saying things that could be considered liberal (like an anti-war quote or a "take care of the impoverished" quote). Personally, I feel my Mormonism fuels my liberal politics, rather than the usual route of Mormonism fueling conservative politics (as a side note, I deeply despise Glenn Beck for his promotion of rabidly conservative Mormonism).

It's my belief that taking care of the poor in an effective way is a progressive issue, and as such, with all the BoM scriptures talking about helping the poor (and condemning the rich who don't), I feel that at least in my experience, progressive politics fits my view of Mormonism.

[Zioneer]

Since you mentioned personal reasons for believing, what are they? What to you makes the claims of the Mormon religion superior to the claims of other religions?

I have several reasons, so I'll put them in a list.

1) It feels good. Basically, when I follow church doctrines (like praying and silently calling upon God for help) I feel calm, collected, and compassionate, and I like that feeling.
2) I've tried being agnostic (though secretly so) when I was about 12-14. Didn't work; I felt bitter and unhappy all the time, and I felt inadequate. Skip to about 16 with a new outlook on my faith and I feel great and self-confident.
3) The afterlife doctrine; I feel that the afterlife system of the mainstream LDS Church is incredibly fair; everybody gets something better than they have now (unless they literally defy God after they have clearly seen or felt his influence), and the level you get to is a spiritual meritocracy.
4) Mormon culture is what I've been raised in and the only culture I've ever known, so I feel that I should stay in it, despite its flaws.
5) Spite: If I can remain a believing Mormon in good standing with my politics, then I spite the religious right, and I spite Glenn Beck by my faith. They'll never know, but I get to feel satisfied in defying their (and others) expectations. Similarly, my aggressively atheist dad (who curses at and mocks religion, especially the LDS Church whenever he can) seems to be made bitter by his dislike of the Church, so I stay within the Church to prove him wrong.
6) Even though the LDS community tends to be close-minded politically, it's very loving and would give the shirt off its back to me in an instant. Fellow Mormons help each other, and I love that fact about the church.
7) With the rise of alternative LDS thought on the net, I can discuss any doubts or alternative interpretations I have with no judgment or mockery from my fellow Mormons. I can explore the diversity of thought and enjoy the interesting viewpoints people have.
8 ) I want to be a part of LDS history in my own way. I want to be my individual story in the larger narrative of Mormonism.
9) Whether the details are right or not, whether the circumstances in the Book of Mormon could ever happen or not, I do like the narrative it builds, and the stories it weaves. And the lessons it teaches are good ones; stuff like Mosiah chapter 4 goes on and on about helping the poor and not being judgmental of them, for example.
10) Because Mormon history is interesting, and being a member of the church makes me feel like I have a stake in the conflicts throughout it. Kind of like how Catholics can feel connected to the early struggles of Catholic leaders.

Do you value Smith/Young over Jesus?

No, not at all. In fact, Brigham Young specifically taught that "Joseph Smith has done more save Jesus only for the salvation of man than any other men have done." And we get that quote regularly taught at church, so we understand that Brigham Young thought himself inferior to Smith, who himself is inferior to Jesus. And personally, I know of both Smith and Young's flaws, and in Young's particular case, will happily call him out on it (seriously the "blacks can't have the priesthood" thing was a jerk move by Young who got offended by what would be an uppity black preacher in the lingo of that time; Smith ordained the few black men who joined the church under his tenure).

I still see both men as prophets, but I acknowledge that they're flawed. Standard Mormonism whitewashes them a lot (so much that we only really get taught about maybe a few months of Young's 30 year tenure), but it is understood that both men were flawed.


I gotta say though, I'm surprised that you guys aren't asking me about my view of specific Mormons in American politics, like Orrin Hatch or whatever.

[Zioneer]

Why, if Mormonism is the true faith, did Jesus not reveal all the teachings of Mormonism when he had the unique opportunity to do so while being on earth and so basically misled all Christians up to the 19th century by withholding crucial aspects of Mormon doctrine from them?

He did, but after He left, nobody listened, and then the Great Apostasy happened.