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).

[John Dibble]

One thing I will ask, however. Please do not dismiss my faith as "impossible"

Ok. It's implausible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can't ask people to discuss your faith and then restrict the mention of facts that are in contradiction with the claims of that faith. Real discussion of an idea involves potential criticism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I will promise to treat your ideas on the same basis as I treat any other ideas - based on their merits.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If someone has legitimate historical evidence for that claim then you have no basis on which to report them. In regards to the Mormon faith however it has little relevance as it doesn't reflect on the truth of the claims he made, so using it to demonstrate that the Mormon faith is false is merely an ad hominem fallacy. At worst such a claim just shows he had a poor moral character, though considering that the marriageable age for girls was much younger during his era it may be more of a reflection of the ethics of that time than on one man.

[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.

[afleitch]

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.

[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.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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?

[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.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

[RI]

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.

[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.

[TJ in Oregon]

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.)

[RI]

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

That's more liberal than the Catholic Church.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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

That's more liberal than the Catholic Church.

It's also identical to the Episcopal Church's guidelines for its own clergy.

[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.

[ZuWo]

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"?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Why did you guys baptize Godwin's Law?

[Lief 🗽]

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.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.

This is why I suspect Obama might've won white evangelicals in Utah.

[ingemann]

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.

Seeing that the Mormon settlement in Utah happened with a mix of 19th century White former Protestant American (before the South European immigration to USA) and North European converts and mostly grew afterward through high birth rate, it's not surprising that Utah Mormons are lighter than the average White American.

[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.

[RI]

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)

Women are only fertile about 72 hours a month. I don't have a dog in this fight, but people have a tendency not to realize that. It's relatively difficult to get a woman pregnant if you just have sex with a her on any given day. However, the times when she's most fertile are also the times when she's most likely to choose to have sex due to biological (hormonal) reasons.

[afleitch]

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?

Taking a lot of liberties with your statements. Israelite's themselves were not known for their naval prowess; the Phoenicians were of course and sailed past Gibraltar and probably as far as the Azores. They may have sailed across the Atlantic and such an expidition is not entirely without basis but Thor's expedition (as Columbus' expeditions highlighted) that sailing west with the aid of currents was likely to land you square in the Carribean. DNA evidence, in terms of haplogroups etc is a fairly new science but is faily conclusive. Native Americans have very distinct genetic markers that sits with the settlement theory of Native Americans emigrating from central and east Asia some 10,000-17,000 years ago. Haplogroup Q is the defining haplogroup amongst Native Americans throughout the Americas. It is found in Siberia and other isolated pockets of the Arctic as vestigial groups who didn't cross the Bering landbridge. Also strong is Haplogroup C3 which for example is also found in the Mongolian steppes, Siberia and amongst Native Americans. Haplogroup R curiously does appear in Native Americans and Europeans (as well as the Indian subcontinent) and may be a more recent marker, but is not particularly strong in the Middle East so there is no evidence it came from there; if anything given it's concentration in Labrador/Quebec and Hudson areas it may have came from the Norse or from early European settlers.

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.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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?

[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.