Let's discuss Mormonism.

[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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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?

[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).

[afleitch]

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?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Why are LDS leadership so old anyway?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why are LDS leadership so old anyway?

I seem to recall it's based primarily or exclusively on seniority in various orders of the priesthood. PioneerProgress, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or if there's more to it.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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?

I don't think most white middle-class suburbanites have racial attitudes like that.  Same for whites in general.  But anyway, I would agree with you that God didn't make one race inferior to another. 
I've got another question: what do Mormons believe about contemporary Christian music, dress/jewelry, and non-kosher meats?

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.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

So do you concider yourself a Christian or not?

[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!

[7,052,770]

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

[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.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

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

[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.

[fezzyfestoon]

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.

[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?

[afleitch]

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.

[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.

[RI]

...and atheists wonder why people don't like them.

[John Dibble]

...and atheists wonder why people don't like them.

Yeah, caring about facts has never been a popular position to hold.

[RI]

...and atheists wonder why people don't like them.

Yeah, caring about facts has never been a popular position to hold.

Eh, I fail to see how atheists are any less selective in their acceptance of "facts" than any other religiously-oriented group. Regardless, that overt, foundational smugness is one of the reasons, but not the one I was referring to.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

So, Mormon church president = Mormon Pope?

[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.

[RI]

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