Why don't Mormons catch as much crap as Scientologists for their crazy beliefs?

[TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW]

I was doing a little research on Mormonism lately after they came to my door and dropped off one of those books, and those people believe some craaaaaaaaaaaazay stuff! A good deal of it is Zardoz-level stuff like the Scientologists, but the Mormons don't seem to catch as much crap in the public eye. Why?

[Speaker for the Dead]

I would say that part of it (except for the more cultish offshoots) is that the Mormons aren't out to suck people's money the way the Scientologists are.

[Geek Mecha]

There aren't any high-profile Mormons like there are high-profile Scientologists.

[F. U. Shakespeare]

Actually, I'm amazed at how much flack the Mormons get from mainstream Christians.

Nothing in Mormon theology strikes this atheist as any crazier than a guy walking on water or turning water into beer.

The only differences I can see are that:

1) Mormon theology is not part of mainstream western culture; and

2) Many of the events are alleged to have happened more recently, so the lack of evidence is more discrediting.

[Czarcasm]

Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

[begbert2]

Actually, I'm amazed at how much flack the Mormons get from mainstream Christians.

Nothing in Mormon theology strikes this atheist as any crazier than a guy walking on water or turning water into beer.

The only differences I can see are that:

1) Mormon theology is not part of mainstream western culture; and

2) Many of the events are alleged to have happened more recently, so the lack of evidence is more discrediting.Seconded; my family's mormon and even though I don't buy it and never did, none of it that I ever heard seemed any crazier than, say claiming that you transubstantiate bread and wine into actual flesh and blood so that your parishoners can be literal cannibals. It actually all just sounded like fundamentalist Christianity polished up for marketing purposes. (Dead babies don't go to hell, families are together forever, the eternal punishments are more like white-collar prison than a supher pit, etc...)

I'd like to hear what in particular the OP thinks is nutty. I mean, beyond the usual bearded sky-god stuff.

[Der Trihs]

I was doing a little research on Mormonism lately after they came to my door and dropped off one of those books, and those people believe some craaaaaaaaaaaazay stuff! A good deal of it is Zardoz-level stuff like the Scientologists, but the Mormons don't seem to catch as much crap in the public eye. Why?Because it's supernatural based like mainstream Christianity, and not pseudoscience based like the Scientologists. Just like people who claim visitations by angels get more respect than people who claim visits by aliens. America is a country that puts great store in superstition and mysticism, and gives you far more slack if you couch crazy beliefs in such terms.

[Captain Amazing]

When Mormonism first got started, it caught a lot of crap. As late as the turn of the 20th century, Reed Smoot, the first Mormon senator, had to put up with a three year Senate investigation before the Senate voted that a Mormon could be seated.

[John Mace]

People.
Glass houses.
Stones.

[dangermom]

There aren't any high-profile Mormons like there are high-profile Scientologists.You mean besides Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, Steve Young, Gladys Knight, Jon Heder, Rick Schroeder, Henry Eyring and so on?

My answer would be that a) Mormons do get a lot of people thinking they're crazy, and as I said in another thread there's a small industry devoted to telling people that, and b) they aren't as weird as Scientologists and aren't in the habit of suing people who say so.

[RTFirefly]

Not to mention Gov. Oven Mitt Romney, his father Gov. George Romney, the Marriott family (as in the hotel chain)...

Getting back to the OP, I'll go with what Der Trihs said: the Mormons' 'crazy' beliefs are about supernatural things, which is a topic where everything's beyond proof. As a more mainstream Christian, my crazy ideas simply have a longer continuous pedigree.

But the Scientologists' crazy ideas are to a fair extent crazy ideas about the things of this world, and consequently are more transparently bullshit.

Not that Mormons don't take a lot of shit, but I concur that they get a good deal less, these days, than the Scientologists.

[gonzomax]

http://mormonstories.org/?p=124 Utube is on the case.

[Mr. Excellent]

You mean besides Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, Steve Young, Gladys Knight, Jon Heder, Rick Schroeder, Henry Eyring and so on?

My answer would be that a) Mormons do get a lot of people thinking they're crazy, and as I said in another thread there's a small industry devoted to telling people that, and b) they aren't as weird as Scientologists and aren't in the habit of suing people who say so.

There's also Mitt Romney - who, by the way, *does* catch a lot of flack on the Mormon thing.

Another part of the answer might have to do with the fact that Mormons are more than happy to tell you precisely what they believe, for free, while Scientologists like to claim that their religion is also their intellectual property - and they're sue people just for distributing information about those beliefs, let alone criticizing them. This doesn't help them.

[kevja]

Sky God
Immaculate conception
A baby is born and is the son of God
He has special gifts/powers
He dies on the cross for the sins of humankind
He comes back from the dead three days later
His blood has washed the humans sins away, if you accept Him as your personal savior
And He’s going to return to Earth when the World comes to an end
Believers go to Heaven, non believers go to Hell

Glad the most popular religion in the West isn’t as crazy as LDS or Scientology

[Kuboydal]

Sky God
Immaculate conception
A baby is born and is the son of God
He has special gifts/powers
He dies on the cross for the sins of humankind
He comes back from the dead three days later
His blood has washed the humans sins away, if you accept Him as your personal savior
And He’s going to return to Earth when the World comes to an end
Believers go to Heaven, non believers go to Hell

Glad the most popular religion in the West isn’t as crazy as LDS or Scientology

It's still not as wacky as Reaganomics.

[Sam Stone]

I suspect part of it is that Mormons have a reputation for decency that scientologists don't have.

I know lots of Mormons. Most of them are just outstanding people. The tenets of their faith tell them to be loving parents, to take care of themselves, to be humble, to be assets to their communities, etc. They're not really a proselytizing faith, so they tend to leave others alone. In terms of a faith's effect on its followers, modern Mormonism seems pretty benign, or even positive.

Scientology, on the other hand, seems totally different. It reeks of quackery, dangerous beliefs, aggressive 'recruitment', and scamming. Its main effect on people's lives seems to be to separate them from their money while feeding them bullshit. If you read up on church practices, they're pretty foul. For example, forcing people to abandon friends or even wives/girlfriends if they won't join the faith.

Read what happened to Tom's girlfriend before Katie. She describes being increasingly pressured to join the church, and left Tom after he invited her to dinner, and it turned out to be a grilling where she had to sit in front of a whole gaggle of church officials and be lectured/browbeaten/cajoled into joining the faith. Pretty scary stuff.

Bad-mouth the Mormons, and they'll turn the other cheek and forgive you. Bad-mouth the scientologists, and you might have an army of lawyers harassing you and dirty tricks being played to destroy your life.

I don't think the Mormon faith is any wackier than the Christian faith. I don't think it's any stranger to wear special holy underwear than it is to get down on your knees and bow to Mecca periodically, or to eat a cracker and wine and believe it is the transubstantiated body and blood of your saviour that you're scarfing down.

If we're willing to give a pass to people who see the image of Christ in a piece of toast and think it's a miracle, or to people who think they won the big game because Jesus sat on their shoulder and helped them make the 3-pointer, why shouldn't we give a pass to the Mormons for believing that Joseph Smith recovered a new testament from God and has some new prophecies? What's the difference?

[Freudian Slit]

I suspect part of it is that Mormons have a reputation for decency that scientologists don't have.

I know lots of Mormons. Most of them are just outstanding people. The tenets of their faith tell them to be loving parents, to take care of themselves, to be humble, to be assets to their communities, etc. They're not really a proselytizing faith, so they tend to leave others alone. In terms of a faith's effect on its followers, modern Mormonism seems pretty benign, or even positive.
That was basically the message of the "South Park" Mormon episode. They mocked the Mormon faith because that's what they do, but the Mormon family was nice and cared about each other--way more than the other South Park families. So the message I got...nice people...kooky beliefs.

[dangermom]

They're not really a proselytizing faith, so they tend to leave others alone. We aren't? Good golly, what are all those thousands of missionaries doing, then? :p

It's true that most Mormons won't actively try to convert you every single time you meet them at work. But ask a question, and they'll happily invite you to church.

[Enter the Flagon]

Just to expand on what Sam Stone said, Scientology was founded by a guy who was not only a nutcase, but a dirtbag of the highest order (or perhaps the second-highest order, I tend to forget my dirtbag hierarchy).

In any case, read what Cecil has to say about L. Ron:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_134.html


"By establishing a religion Hubbard was able to set himself up as a font of revelation rather than a scientist and thus control the movement. He also hoped to deflect outside criticism and indeed might have succeeded in doing so had it not been for his own implacable paranoia. He established thought police, conducted purges, and declared his critics "fair game," who "may be deprived of property or injured [or] tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."'

[Superfluous Parentheses]

I may be talking out my arse from across the pond, but I think the big difference is that mormonism is a split-off of christianity, while scientology isn't.

As far as I can see, objectively scientology is no worse or crazier than some of the more materialist christian factions that seem to be accepted in the U.S.

[RickJay]

I think we have come to agreement that the beliefs of Scientology aren't inherently crazier than the beliefs of any other religion; they're all objectively absurd. The world's largest religious group claims to engage in magical cannibalism every Sunday. It doesn't get a lot crazier than that.

The question, however, is not whose beliefs are crazier; the question asked by the OP is why the Scientologists get most of the flack. I think it's been partially answered a number of times but basically comes down to three things:

1. Scientology is simply a different kind of crazy. Half of the people in the world at least nominally fall under two religions, Christianity and Islam, that have the same origin and worship the same God, plus a less popular but very famous religion, Judaism, is in the same family. As nutty as Catholicism is, you're used to it. As nutty as Judaism is, you're used to it. Most of the rest of the world is either Hindu or Buddhist, which are different but at least they're distinctively spiritual in nature. (I realize some Buddhists claim it is not a religion.) Scientology, however, is not in any way related to any of the world's major religious traditions, and isn't even really spiritual in nature. Its sci-fi basis is the antithesis of what most people consider "religion."

2. Scientology is, openly, a scam. Other religions are full of scam artists, as you can see every Sunday morning on church shows, but the religions have a basis in genuine faith. Scientology, it would appear, was and is organized to steal people's money. It was founded by a guy who admitted he was doing it to make money and likely didn't believe any of it. It's as if Christianity had been invented by Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.

3. As Sam Stone has pointed out, Scientologists have a record of acting in an extraordinarily appalling, vicious fashion. There appears to be no good intent that comes out of it at all.

[Marley23]

You mean besides Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, Steve Young, Gladys Knight, Jon Heder, Rick Schroeder, Henry Eyring and so on?
With all due respect, I don't think those are much competing for Tom Cruise and John Travolta, among others, who are VERY public with their views. Cruise draws more ink for his religious views on any given Tuesday than Jon Heder ever has, and Travolta made a spectacularly expensive and boring Scientologist movie. Mittens Romney is very understated by comparison.
Many people do think Mormon beliefs are odd, if they know anything about Mormons, but a lot of people don't know thing one about them. Compared to Scientology, at least, the LDS mostly keeps it to themselves. I know they do a lot of missionary work, but it's primarily overseas as I understand it. They're not giving people stress tests and trying to recruit in the subway stations around Times Square. I think the fact that the LDS is centered in the Mountain West area (not in Hollywood) keeps it out of the media eye a little, too.

[John Mace]

I don't think the Mormon faith is any wackier than the Christian faith.
The Mormon faith is a Christian faith.

[BrainGlutton]

I suspect part of it is that Mormons have a reputation for decency that scientologists don't have.

Scientology still needs to find its Donnie & Marie. (Cruise and Travolta and Kirstie Alley ain't up to it, so sorry.)

[amarinth]

I know lots of Mormons. Most of them are just outstanding people. The tenets of their faith tell them to be loving parents, to take care of themselves, to be humble, to be assets to their communities, etc. They're not really a proselytizing faithI was with you until this point - I grew up in an area with a reasonably high percentage of LDS (not Utah high, or even Idaho high, but noticeable minority high). Almost every single one of the boys went on mission for a while after high school. They proselytize - a lot.

Still the first part of the paragraph was dead on.

[marshmallow]

At its core the LDS church doctrine has Jesus Christ as a supernatural figure playing a major role. Despite the bizarre back stories and their outlandish views regarding Native Americans it's a Christian faith. Many Christians will disagree with that statement, others won't. But they all reject Scientology because it doesn't even pretend to acknowledge Jesus. In fact, given Scientology doctrine AFAIK, Jesus and all worldwide religions are a false memory implanted onto your thetans.

[Musicat]

I grew up in an area with a reasonably high percentage of LDS (not Utah high, or even Idaho high, but noticeable minority high). Almost every single one of the boys went on mission for a while after high school. They proselytize - a lot.Perhaps this is enough topic for a separate thread, but Jehovah's Witnesses are the scourge of so many neighborhoods -- I put a permanent sign on my door in L.A. that said, "Jehovah's Witnesses not welcome" -- but I don't think I ever had a visit from a Mormon missionary person or group. Why is that? Is it simply the numbers (fewer Mormons, more Witnesses)? Or do they target other (non-USA) countries?

[dangermom]

Perhaps this is enough topic for a separate thread, but Jehovah's Witnesses are the scourge of so many neighborhoods -- I put a permanent sign on my door in L.A. that said, "Jehovah's Witnesses not welcome" -- but I don't think I ever had a visit from a Mormon missionary person or group. Why is that? Is it simply the numbers (fewer Mormons, more Witnesses)? Or do they target other (non-USA) countries?No, there are lots of LDS missionaries in the US. Even Utah. There are undoubtedly some missionaries in your area--the easiest way to find them is to send an email through www.mormon.org or look up your local LDS chapel in the phone book and call the bishop. The LDS Church sends missionaries out to every country that will accept them, which these days is nearly everyone except the Middle East and China. We don't send out stealth missionaries, only legal ones.

LDS missionaries do engage is street contacting and door-to-door proselyting, but not when they have anything better to do. Going door-to-door is the least effective method of finding investigators, though it does happen every so often. Missionaries spend most of their time teaching basic lessons about the Church to anyone who is interested, trying to find people to teach, and doing service. Some are on full-time service missions. Single young men and women are most of the missionaries, but there are also many retired couples or single people on missions; they mostly do service work.

Should a pair of missionaries knock on your door, and you don't want to talk with them, it's perfectly fine to just say "No, thank you." They will probably thank you for being straightforward and honest. They don't want to waste their time or yours if you're not actually interested.

[Sevastopol]

The Mormon faith is a Christian faith. No other Christian faith recognises Mormon's as such.

[BrainGlutton]

Should a pair of missionaries knock on your door, and you don't want to talk with them, it's perfectly fine to just say "No, thank you."

Of course, it's even better to drag them inside and try to convert them to your religion! Hooh-boy fun! :)

[Hail Ants]

Read what happened to Tom's girlfriend before Katie. She describes being increasingly pressured to join the church, and left Tom after he invited her to dinner, and it turned out to be a grilling where she had to sit in front of a whole gaggle of church officials and be lectured/browbeaten/cajoled into joining the faith. Pretty scary stuff.I believe that was Scarlett Johanson, and it was even worse than that. They had dinner alone together, although Cruise rambled on about the great god Xenu thru the whole thing. Johanson continued to smile politely until Cruise opened a set of double doors revealing the gaggle of Scientology grand-high-exalted-mystic rulers. At which point she sort of freaked and asked to leave.

Plus, the point of the date was Cruise was offering her the femme fatale lead in Mission Impossible 3, a role which would have earned her over $10 mil and shot her to super A-list status. She turned it down solely because of the Scientology nonsense!

[BrainGlutton]

Scientology is why Michael Jackson's marriage to Lisa Marie Presley didn't work out. Michael just cannot handle weirdness!

[FriarTed]

I believe that was Scarlett Johanson, and it was even worse than that. They had dinner alone together, although Cruise rambled on about the great god Xenu thru the whole thing....!

However much the basic story might or might not be true, I can assure you that Tom did not talk about "the great god Xenu"...

You see, in Scientology, Xenu is the Devil!

There is no really well-defined God in any of what I've read of Scientology, unless it's L. Ron himself.

[Sam Stone]

I was with you until this point - I grew up in an area with a reasonably high percentage of LDS (not Utah high, or even Idaho high, but noticeable minority high). Almost every single one of the boys went on mission for a while after high school. They proselytize - a lot.

Still the first part of the paragraph was dead on.

I guess I should have said 'aggressively proselytizing'. I didn't really mean they don't go on missions. The way I see it, Mormons tend to spread the faith through example. They believe that by becoming pillars of their communities and doing good works they'll attract people to the faith. That's pretty much what a lot of Christians do.

Or maybe that's just the Mormons in my neck of the woods. I do remember a few standing on streetcorners handing out literature when I was a kid, but I haven't sen that for years.

[Annie-Xmas]

Scientology still needs to find its Donnie & Marie. (Cruise and Travolta and Kirstie Alley ain't up to it, so sorry.)

And all those other Osmonds.

Compare the Osmonds to the Cruises and you have your answer.

[LouisB]

The Mormon faith is a Christian faith. I agree but I've been assured by quite a few fundamentalist Christians that the LDS is a cult and not a true religion.

[John Mace]

I agree but I've been assured by quite a few fundamentalist Christians that the LDS is a cult and not a true religion.
"Cult" and "sect" aren't exactly scientific terms, but I think we can safely assume that the LDS faith has moved from the latter to the former by now, regardless of what fundamentalist Christians say.

[Acsenray]

Sam, I won't disagree with the gist of your post, but I think some of your specific statements don't hold up.

They're not really a proselytizing faith, so they tend to leave others alone.


!




!!



Mormonism is the top (or perhaps the second) fastest growing religion in the world and almost all that growth is through proselytizing. In order to become a full member of the church, a Mormon man must go on a proselytizing mission.

Bad-mouth the Mormons, and they'll turn the other cheek and forgive you.

Perhaps this is generally true, but I seem to recall cases in which church critics were not just "forgiven."

[Rucksinator]

I agree but I've been assured by quite a few fundamentalist Christians that the LDS is a cult and not a true religion.

I've been assured by quite a few fundamentalist Christians that Catholicism is a cult and not a true religion. [shrugs]

[Bridget Burke]

I agree but I've been assured by quite a few fundamentalist Christians that the LDS is a cult and not a true religion.

Ask them what they think about the Roman Catholics! Even the Episcopalians & Methodists are regarded with suspicion by some of the hard shell folks.

[Acsenray]

As far as I can see, objectively scientology is no worse or crazier than some of the more materialist christian factions that seem to be accepted in the U.S.

In their beliefs, Scientology is perhaps no worse, etc. But in their behaviour, Scientology is a bunch of thugs. You can't say that about Mormons as a group.

[Bridget Burke]

I guess I should have said 'aggressively proselytizing'. I didn't really mean they don't go on missions. The way I see it, Mormons tend to spread the faith through example. They believe that by becoming pillars of their communities and doing good works they'll attract people to the faith. That's pretty much what a lot of Christians do.

Or maybe that's just the Mormons in my neck of the woods. I do remember a few standing on streetcorners handing out literature when I was a kid, but I haven't sen that for years.

I've seen quite a few pairs of conservatively dressed young guys cycling through the streets for years. But they've never knocked on my door.

[Monty]

In order to become a full member of the church, a Mormon man must go on a proselytizing mission.

False. In order to become a full member of the church, one must be baptized and confirmed into it. There are no other requirements. I am a full member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have never gone on a mission. Missions are encouraged, but not required.

[LouisB]

Ask them what they think about the Roman Catholics! Even the Episcopalians & Methodists are regarded with suspicion by some of the hard shell folks.As a child I formed a friendship with a Catholic boy my age; my entire hardshell Southern Baptist family was appalled. Catholics bowed down before graven images and worshiped them. They served wine as a part of their church service and everyone knew that was just wrong; Christians didn't drink alcohol. Back then, anyway, and if they did, it was because they had a cold or a weak heart or something; if they HAD to drink whiskey, they didn't enjoy it. Catholics went to confession and everyone knew that only God could forgive sins. I think it was then that I began to seriously question everything related to religion; I liked that kid but couldn't have him as a friend because he might lead me astray. Episcopalians were Catholic at heart, everyone knew that, and Methodists were sprinklers, not total immersionists, if that's a word, and one had to be bathed in the blood of the lamb or one wasn't saved and how could one be bathed without total immersion?

Yeah, I know what they think: Baptists are right; the rest of you poor benighted folk are doomed and we are glad of it.

[John Mace]

As a child I formed a friendship with a Catholic boy my age; my entire hardshell Southern Baptist family was appalled. Catholics bowed down before graven images and worshiped them. They served wine as a part of their church service and everyone knew that was just wrong; Christians didn't drink alcohol.
This part always confuses me. What do Baptists teach about the last supper? Were they drinking grape juice? And Christ's first miracle... didn't he change water into wine? Or was that just grape juice, too? Was there some point in the development of "true" Christianity that drinking wine was discovered to be sinful? That is was OK before a certain point, but not after that point?

[Acsenray]

False.

Thanks for the correction, Monty. I have no interest in spreading misconceptions. I don't consider myself an expert on Mormonism, but I thought that this was basic enough information that I was safe in expounding it. Let me just :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: for the injury I have inflicted on the Straight Dope mission.

[Dinsdale]

GQ-ish sort of hijack if you please:


2. Scientology is, openly, a scam. Other religions are full of scam artists, as you can see every Sunday morning on church shows, but the religions have a basis in genuine faith. Scientology, it would appear, was and is organized to steal people's money. It was founded by a guy who admitted he was doing it to make money and likely didn't believe any of it. It's as if Christianity had been invented by Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.


Not defending Scientology (or any other religion), but just curious, exactly who is profitting from the $ being scammed by Scientology? Does someone "own" Scientology? If so, who? L. Ron's estate? Is there a board of directors at the top like a closely held corporation? Is it run like a pyramid scam?

Because if no one is specifically profitting from it, and all the income is turned back into buildings, salaries, outreach, and the like - and that makes the believers/givers feel good - then I'm not sure that's too different from many/most other religions.

[Baldwin]

Sky God
Immaculate conception
A baby is born and is the son of God
He has special gifts/powers
He dies on the cross for the sins of humankind
He comes back from the dead three days later
His blood has washed the humans sins away, if you accept Him as your personal savior
And He’s going to return to Earth when the World comes to an end
Believers go to Heaven, non believers go to Hell

Glad the most popular religion in the West isn’t as crazy as LDS or Scientology"Immaculate conception" doesn't refer to Jesus being Incarnated without the benefit of a mortal dude's sperm; it refers to Mary's conception (that is, the point at which her soul was created and infused into her body) without the stain of Original Sin on her soul. I would bet we've had whole threads in the past on this subject.

(Like a lot of former Catholics, I like to nitpick points of the mythology. I can't really imagine what it would be like, as an adult otherwise capable of reason, to believe all that stuff is literally true.)

I lived in Utah for a year, surrounded by Mormons. Nice people, mostly; nobody ever tried to convert me.

[LouisB]

This part always confuses me. What do Baptists teach about the last supper? Were they drinking grape juice? And Christ's first miracle... didn't he change water into wine? Or was that just grape juice, too? Was there some point in the development of "true" Christianity that drinking wine was discovered to be sinful? That is was OK before a certain point, but not after that point?My grandmother always maintained that the wine Christ created didn't have alcohol in it, nor did any wine that might pass his lips. It might have been alcoholic when it was poured into his cup but it wasn't when he drank it. I don't know where she got all that. I don't remember her saying anything about the wine the disciples drank but if Jesus was present, then it couldn't have been "bad."
I don't know when Southern Baptists decided any and all alcoholic drinks were bad; I was taught that from the time my parents began to force me to attend Sunday school and church.

[dangermom]

Of course, it's even better to drag them inside and try to convert them to your religion! Hooh-boy fun! :)
Oh, you can if you like. I think probably every missionary has that happen. Usually they'll grin and offer to trade church meetings. They're not supposed to get into Bible-bashing fights, but some do anyway.

I had one friend who served in the South, and a preacher asked them in to pray. He said a fairly inocuous prayer and when they said "Amen," he decided that meant he had saved them!

[Musicat]

This part always confuses me. What do Baptists teach about the last supper? Were they drinking grape juice? And Christ's first miracle... didn't he change water into wine? Or was that just grape juice, too? Was there some point in the development of "true" Christianity that drinking wine was discovered to be sinful? That is was OK before a certain point, but not after that point?I can only speak for fundie Presbyterians, but my parents truly believed that all references to wine in the bible were mistranslations or misconceptions. They used non-alchohol grape juice for communion.

If you start with the premise that "your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost," then you wouldn't want to do any harm to such a godly appendage. Therefore, wine isn't wine at all.

Isn't it amazing what flights of logic can be taken when belief is paramount?

[FriarTed]

This part always confuses me. What do Baptists teach about the last supper? Were they drinking grape juice? And Christ's first miracle... didn't he change water into wine? Or was that just grape juice, too? Was there some point in the development of "true" Christianity that drinking wine was discovered to be sinful? That is was OK before a certain point, but not after that point?

I'm a drinking member of a non-drinking church. the Assemblies of God. Various explanations I've heard over the years-

JC & the early C'tians drank "new wine", grape juice that had not yet fermented.

If it had fermented due to time passing, it was heavily diluted.

Since the miracle of Cana was, of course, a miracle, Jesus produced miraculous grape juice that delighted but not intoxicated the wedding guests. (Ever see the old movie THE BISHOP'S WIFE?)

Water was of dubious quality & wine was used to kill germs. Plus, they couldn't keep juice very long without it fermenting. Since we have clean water & ways to preserve juice, we don't have to drink alcohol.

[John Mace]

I can only speak for fundie Presbyterians, but my parents truly believed that all references to wine in the bible were mistranslations or misconceptions. They used non-alchohol grape juice for communion.

If you start with the premise that "your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost," then you wouldn't want to do any harm to such a godly appendage. Therefore, wine isn't wine at all.

Isn't it amazing what flights of logic can be taken when belief is paramount?
Yes, it is amazing. You start with the answer, and then work your way back to the "facts".

[Spoke]

Here's a site that expounds on the way many Baptists and related churches view drinking (this is a church of Christ site) (http://www.teachuslord.com/Articles/What%20About%20Drinking.shtml):
If drinkers know nothing else about the Bible, they know Jesus turned water to wine (John 2:1-11). Remember, "wine" can mean either fresh grape juice or alcoholic wine, depending on the context. When Jesus turned the water to wine, the guests had already "well drunk" (verse 10). Jesus gave them an additional 120 - 180 gallons of wine (verse 6). If this wine was alcoholic, the Master helped a bunch of drunks get totally plastered! When He challenged His enemies to name His sin (John 8:46), they could have replied, "You got a whole wedding party passing out drunk!" The context obviously demands that the wine of this passage was grape juice. But wasn’t this the good stuff? (verse10) Why do you think "good wine" refers to alcoholic? There is no evidence that the judgment of morally upright Jews was the same as that of our ungodly society.

I am not endorsing the view. Just reporting it. The logic seems awfully tenuous to me.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

This part always confuses me. What do Baptists teach about the last supper? Were they drinking grape juice? And Christ's first miracle... didn't he change water into wine? Or was that just grape juice, too? Was there some point in the development of "true" Christianity that drinking wine was discovered to be sinful? That is was OK before a certain point, but not after that point?
Believe it or not, a lot of them do claim it was unfermented grape juice. Never mind that grape juice could not be pasteurized at the time and could not be prevented from fermenting almost immediately. Also never mind that we have plenty of documentation that wine meant wine.

Another explanation, with more historical validity, is that the wine people drank with meals or to quench thirst was usually watered down. Wine was a way to kill bacteria in water and make it more drinkable. Unwatered wine was consumed to get drunk. Those who favor the notion of a teetotaling savior can therefore argue that the wine Jesus made at Cana and distributed at the Last Supper was diluted, low alcohol table wine, not party wine.

[Musicat]

[Steven Wright]

Hey, Jesus, willya quit turning the water into wine already? I'm trying to take a shower here!

[/Steven Wright]

[DrFidelius]

I was doing a little research on Mormonism lately after they came to my door and dropped off one of those books, and those people believe some craaaaaaaaaaaazay stuff! A good deal of it is Zardoz-level stuff like the Scientologists, but the Mormons don't seem to catch as much crap in the public eye. Why?

I know I'm getting here a little late, but look at the history of the LDS.

The level of shit thrown at the Scientologists today is NOTHING compared to what the Mormons were given when they were a young faith. They are reasonably well regarded today only because we (as in more mainstream denominations) have mostly gotten used to them being around.

[RTFirefly]

The Mormon faith is a Christian faith.As you've probably noticed, there's far from universal agreement on this.

And it's not the sort of thing with a definitive answer - it really depends on one's definitions.

[tagos]

I know I'm getting here a little late, but look at the history of the LDS.

The level of shit thrown at the Scientologists today is NOTHING compared to what the Mormons were given when they were a young faith. They are reasonably well regarded today only because we (as in more mainstream denominations) have mostly gotten used to them being around.

We've watched Scientology being made up by a bunch of charlatans within living memory while the bunch of charlatans and madmen who concocted mormonism and the credulous people that sucked it up are safely behind the veil of history.

[OneCentStamp]

We've watched Scientology being made up by a bunch of charlatans within living memory while the bunch of charlatans and madmen who concocted mormonism and the credulous people that sucked it up are safely behind the veil of history.This leads to another question: in 100 years, will Scientology be a fringe-but-generally accepted religion, much like Mormonism is today? Will there be a handful of $cieno congresspeople, and amybe a candidate for president?

Wow, scary.

[Monty]

Water was of dubious quality & wine was used to kill germs. Plus, they couldn't keep juice very long without it fermenting. Since we have clean water & ways to preserve juice, we don't have to drink alcohol.

But wouldn't the "wine" (er, grape juice) be the stuff with the alcohol in it?

[Cluricaun]

The level of shit thrown at the Scientologists today is NOTHING compared to what the Mormons were given when they were a young faith.

Whenever it's time to run the Scientologists out of town at gun point like what happened to the Mormons in Nauvoo Illinois back in the 1800's I'm ready.

[dangermom]

But wouldn't the "wine" (er, grape juice) be the stuff with the alcohol in it?I have always been confused by this too. Does it disinfect the water if you put wine in it? don't you jsut get dirty water mixed with wine? I guess not.

My little girl was surprised just yesterday to hear that Jesus drank wine, though I've never 'hidden' it from her. I told her that everyone in Biblical times drank wine and that was OK; the LDS commandment about alcohol is a modern one, specifically for our time. I can see where it's a tricky subject for the Baptists.

[FriarTed]

But wouldn't the "wine" (er, grape juice) be the stuff with the alcohol in it?

Yeah, that explanation is - back then, they couldn't help but drink alcoholic wine as the water needed it to kill the germs & the juice alone wouldn't keep for long without fermenting. We have good water & ways to preserve juice w/o fermentation so we don't have a reason to drink alcoholic wine.

I didn't say it was a GOOD explanation! *G*

[ralph124c]

I friend (ex-mormon) once told me that the LDS "prophets" are busily modifying the belief set of mormonism, He predicted that by 2050 or so, the LDS Church would be pretty much equivilent to anglican Christianity. So what would they do with the weird stuff? Can they just can the BOM? What about other embarrassing stuff (like the "Book" of Abraham-proven to be an unrelated egyptian funerary text?
All religions change-I expect that the LDS will, as the educational level of its membership rises.

[BrainGlutton]

I have always been confused by this too. Does it disinfect the water if you put wine in it? don't you jsut get dirty water mixed with wine? I guess not.

You get water in which the microorganisms have been killed by contact with ethanol. The ancients did not know this, of course, but they knew drinking water mixed with wine was generally safer than drinking water straight.

[dangermom]

I friend (ex-mormon) once told me that the LDS "prophets" are busily modifying the belief set of mormonism, He predicted that by 2050 or so, the LDS Church would be pretty much equivilent to anglican Christianity. So what would they do with the weird stuff? Can they just can the BOM? What about other embarrassing stuff (like the "Book" of Abraham-proven to be an unrelated egyptian funerary text?
All religions change-I expect that the LDS will, as the educational level of its membership rises.Well, that's one way to look at it, I guess. A primary tenet of the LDS Church is that we need a living prophet to serve as God's mouthpiece for the entire church. He receives revelation of God's will (as every member is entitled to do for their own stewardship; the prophet's stewardship is thw whole church). Change is built into the LDS Church. The idea is that we should be continually learning, gradually getting rid of errors and wrong traditions and replacing them with better ways.

The current LDS prophet hasn't moved away from 'weird stuff' at all; under his leadership, the number of temples worldwide has increased from about 50 to about 120. The Nauvoo temple has been rebuilt and scholarship on Joseph Smith has flourished. Since the 1980's, when the previous prophet told everyone to focus on the Book of Mormon more, BoM scholarship has grown tremendously and it's common wisdom that everyone should read the BoM daily (as well as other scripture). And we still like the Book of Abraham too.

From an outside perspective, the main change has been in LDS PR; there's been a large focus on raising awareness of the Mormons as Christians (obviously that hasn't succeeded yet) and on actively showing Mormons to be, on the whole, nice people who won't eat you. Within the church there's been an effort to root out old 'folk doctrine' (that is, Mormon ULs) that has no basis in scripture and to get everyone studying the doctrine and learning the gospel for themselves.

But I don't see how the LDS Church could possibly "can the BoM" or get rid of the weird stuff. The entire theological bedrock of LDS thought would have to be thrown out too--not going to happen. If people want to be Methodists or Anglicans, they can go be them, no problem.

[John Mace]

But wouldn't the "wine" (er, grape juice) be the stuff with the alcohol in it?
Exactly. It wouldn't have killed the bugs if it was just grape juice.

At any rate, it seems that there are any number of rationalization one can come up with, especially if you pick and choose your historical facts carefully enough.

[dropzone]

I suppose it can't be repeated enough that all a religion needs to be accepted is that most of its members are nice, if rather boring. Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc? Most members are nice, if rather boring. Scientology? The most public members are obviously nuts and the ones you meet on the street are batshit crazy.

A large part of the problems the Muslims have is that too much notice is given the crazies and not enough to the ones who aren't, but the crazies are WAY crazy and the rest are nice, if rather boring, and make for lousy TV.

[Reloy3]

Well, that's one way to look at it, I guess. A primary tenet of the LDS Church is that we need a living prophet to serve as God's mouthpiece for the entire church. He receives revelation of God's will (as every member is entitled to do for their own stewardship; the prophet's stewardship is thw whole church). Change is built into the LDS Church. The idea is that we should be continually learning, gradually getting rid of errors and wrong traditions and replacing them with better ways.

The current LDS prophet hasn't moved away from 'weird stuff' at all; under his leadership, the number of temples worldwide has increased from about 50 to about 120. The Nauvoo temple has been rebuilt and scholarship on Joseph Smith has flourished. Since the 1980's, when the previous prophet told everyone to focus on the Book of Mormon more, BoM scholarship has grown tremendously and it's common wisdom that everyone should read the BoM daily (as well as other scripture). And we still like the Book of Abraham too.

From an outside perspective, the main change has been in LDS PR; there's been a large focus on raising awareness of the Mormons as Christians (obviously that hasn't succeeded yet) and on actively showing Mormons to be, on the whole, nice people who won't eat you. Within the church there's been an effort to root out old 'folk doctrine' (that is, Mormon ULs) that has no basis in scripture and to get everyone studying the doctrine and learning the gospel for themselves.

But I don't see how the LDS Church could possibly "can the BoM" or get rid of the weird stuff. The entire theological bedrock of LDS thought would have to be thrown out too--not going to happen. If people want to be Methodists or Anglicans, they can go be them, no problem.

Ditto - thanks for expressing my thoughts & experiences so well.

Next year all adult members will be taking a Sunday School Class on the Book of Mormon and another class, in Relief Society (for women) and Priesthood (for men) on the life and prophesies of Joseph Smith. There is a major effort in the works to publish the Joseph Smith Papers. The LDS church is trying hard to dispel misconceptions, mischaracterizations and myths about the church,but I see nothing about "running away" from the core docrines of the faith.

[gonzomax]

We've watched Scientology being made up by a bunch of charlatans within living memory while the bunch of charlatans and madmen who concocted mormonism and the credulous people that sucked it up are safely behind the veil of history.
Only about 150 years old. History sandblasting has not been completed yet. We can still find Smiths goofiness in text. It will be erased in a century or so.

[aruvqan]

Perhaps this is enough topic for a separate thread, but Jehovah's Witnesses are the scourge of so many neighborhoods -- I put a permanent sign on my door in L.A. that said, "Jehovah's Witnesses not welcome" -- but I don't think I ever had a visit from a Mormon missionary person or group. Why is that? Is it simply the numbers (fewer Mormons, more Witnesses)? Or do they target other (non-USA) countries?
Hm, I have gotten both, and I am in eastern CT. I would take a mormon missionary over a JW *any day* as we can have a nice discussion, and they recognize when it is time to leave whereas a JW is heavily into badgering. When I worked nights the mormons always apologized for waking me up, and asked if there was a more convenient time to come back and left politely [on their bicycles!] where the JW wouldnt leave, kept wanting to come in and discuss my spiritual situation despite me being a night worker [it was CRUCIAL, and more important than sleep... :rolleyes: ]

It got to the point where I would hyper my dog Luke into a barking frenzy at the thought of getting to go outside and hurl open the door yelling 'kill' when ever I saw the JW drive into my yard. Kept them away like a charm. Of course Luke was happily barking because he got to go outside and romp around the yard and had no idea he was threatening, though he was hopeful at the possibility of being taken to the local McDonalds for a naked burger.

[kaylasdad99]

Thanks for the correction, Monty. I have no interest in spreading misconceptions. I don't consider myself an expert on Mormonism, but I thought that this was basic enough information that I was safe in expounding it. Let me just :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: for the injury I have inflicted on the Straight Dope mission.You might want to print this out and frame it. It looks pretty rare to me, possibly even unique.

:)

[RickJay]

No other Christian faith recognises Mormon's as such.
So? Many Christian faiths don't recognize Catholics as Christians.

Internecine conflicts aside, Mormonism is a branch of Christianity in any objective sense that matters. That is part of the answer to the OP's question. To any disinterested observer, Mormons are Christians and Scientologists are not, so that's why Scientology is viewed as weirder.

[alphaboi867]

When Mormonism first got started, it caught a lot of crap. As late as the turn of the 20th century, Reed Smoot, the first Mormon senator, had to put up with a three year Senate investigation before the Senate voted that a Mormon could be seated.

The Senate was more concerned with Smoot's plural marriages then him simply being a Mormon.

[Punoqllads]

GQ-ish sort of hijack if you please:



Not defending Scientology (or any other religion), but just curious, exactly who is profitting from the $ being scammed by Scientology? Does someone "own" Scientology? If so, who? L. Ron's estate? Is there a board of directors at the top like a closely held corporation? Is it run like a pyramid scam?

Because if no one is specifically profitting from it, and all the income is turned back into buildings, salaries, outreach, and the like - and that makes the believers/givers feel good - then I'm not sure that's too different from many/most other religions.
The Church of Spiritual Technology owns the copyrights to Hubbard's works. The Church of Scientology pays licensing fees to the CST which presumably come from the auditing fees that believers pay. The Religious Technology Corporation is the organization responsible for enforcement of the CST's copyrights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Spiritual_Technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Technology_Center

[Acsenray]

The Senate was more concerned with Smoot's plural marriages then him simply being a Mormon.

I don't think Smoot actually had more than one wife. So far as I remember the Senate was concerned with the suspicion that although the LDS had officially renounced plural marriages that it was secretly approving of them.

[Sevastopol]

So? Many Christian faiths don't recognize Catholics as Christians.

Internecine conflicts aside, Mormonism is a branch of Christianity in any objective sense that matters. That is part of the answer to the OP's question. To any disinterested observer, Mormons are Christians and Scientologists are not, so that's why Scientology is viewed as weirder. It may be that other Christian faiths do not recognise Catholics as Christians, although I query whether the number amounts to 'many'.

However, with regard to Mormons and Christians, the rejection position is universal and the causes are not not minor and historical as with Ch vs C. Instead their elementary doctrine is outside that of each Christian faith.

[dangermom]

Actually, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of Christian churches that accept Mormons as Christians; it's mostly the fundamentalists that don't. I've never had a Catholic accuse me of not being Christian, for example. No other churches accept an LDS baptism as valid, but that's perfectly fair--we don't accept theirs either. :)

[BrainGlutton]

There is a major effort in the works to publish the Joseph Smith Papers.

Eh? Why have they not already been published? Like, more than a hundred years ago?

[chorpler]

This leads to another question: in 100 years, will Scientology be a fringe-but-generally accepted religion, much like Mormonism is today? Will there be a handful of $cieno congresspeople, and amybe a candidate for president?

Wow, scary.

We had a big thread on this a while back. Personally, I don't see anything preventing Scientology from becoming more mainstream like Mormonism has, once a century or two has passed. Lots of people in the other thread disagreed, though.

Mormons caught a lot of crap in their early days, including being seen as a bunch of thugs -- I don't think Scientology has anything comparable to the polygamy or the Mountain Meadows Massacre in their history, so they may have an even easier time of it. Although as Der Trihs and others pointed out, Mormonism does have a Christian basis and shares most of the same beliefs as orthodox Christianity, so Scientology does have that disadvantage.

[BrainGlutton]

It may be that other Christian faiths do not recognise Catholics as Christians, although I query whether the number amounts to 'many'.

However, with regard to Mormons and Christians, the rejection position is universal and the causes are not not minor and historical as with Ch vs C. Instead their elementary doctrine is outside that of each Christian faith.

Put another way: All Orthodox, all Catholic, and most Protestant* Christians follow the trinitarian Christianity of the Nicene Creed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_creed) Mormons are at least as far out of that mainstream as the ancient Arians and the surviving Monophysite sects.


*Jehovah's Witnesses deny Christ's divinity, at least as being coequal with Jehovah's -- and it is for that reason debatable whether they count as "Protestant Christians" at all; they certainly come out of the Protestant Christian tradition, but so do we Unitarians. ;)

[chorpler]

I don't think Smoot actually had more than one wife. So far as I remember the Senate was concerned with the suspicion that although the LDS had officially renounced plural marriages that it was secretly approving of them.

Yeah. B.H. Roberts was actually the first Mormon elected to Congress (the House of Representatives) but he was denied his seat because we was, in fact, practicing plural marriage. Reed Smoot himself wasn't, which is why he was eventually allowed to become a Senator. They were worried that the church's official renunciation of polygamy in 1890 was just a cover to attain statehood, which was apparently justified; the church actually had to issue another "manifesto" in 1904, stating that they really meant it and polygamy was over, and even then there are records of plural marriages being performed up until about 1920 when the mainstream LDS church finally got everybody to understand that they really, really meant it ... thus kicking off the fundamentalists.

[Sevastopol]

Put another way: All Orthodox, all Catholic, and most Protestant* Christians follow the trinitarian Christianity of the Nicene Creed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_creed) Mormons are at least as far out of that mainstream as the ancient Arians and the surviving Monophysite sects.


*Jehovah's Witnesses deny Christ's divinity, at least as being coequal with Jehovah's -- and it is for that reason debatable whether they count as "Protestant Christians" at all; they certainly come out of the Protestant Christian tradition, but so do we Unitarians. ;) Yes.

[BrainGlutton]

Yeah. B.H. Roberts was actually the first Mormon elected to Congress (the House of Representatives) but he was denied his seat because we was, in fact, practicing plural marriage. Reed Smoot himself wasn't, which is why he was eventually allowed to become a Senator. They were worried that the church's official renunciation of polygamy in 1890 was just a cover to attain statehood, which was apparently justified; the church actually had to issue another "manifesto" in 1904, stating that they really meant it and polygamy was over, and even then there are records of plural marriages being performed up until about 1920 when the mainstream LDS church finally got everybody to understand that they really, really meant it ... thus kicking off the fundamentalists.

And laying the ground for a hit HBO drama! (http://www.hbo.com/biglove/) :)

[Monty]

I suppose it can't be repeated enough that all a religion needs to be accepted is that most of its members are nice, if rather boring. Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc? Most members are nice, if rather boring. Scientology? The most public members are obviously nuts and the ones you meet on the street are batshit crazy.

A large part of the problems the Muslims have is that too much notice is given the crazies and not enough to the ones who aren't, but the crazies are WAY crazy and the rest are nice, if rather boring, and make for lousy TV.

Re: paragraph (1). You should come here to South Korea, the home of the World Mission Society Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God) (also known here as the Heavenly Mother Church). Not only are they BSC, but they send out incredibly gorgeous--and I mean drop-dead, you'd walk a hundred miles barefoot on broken glass to see gorgeous--college-aged single spokeswomen well-trained in English to try to convert us foreign teachers here. So far, as the Wiki says, their success in that effort is mostly on Korean-Americans (aka Gyopo).

Re: paragraph (2). Perhaps they should take a cue from our play-book (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLyyO6Wp1ig)?

[Monty]

Thanks for the correction, Monty. I have no interest in spreading misconceptions. I don't consider myself an expert on Mormonism, but I thought that this was basic enough information that I was safe in expounding it. Let me just :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: for the injury I have inflicted on the Straight Dope mission.

I should've posted this earlier:

No worries, acsenray.

[Reloy3]

Eh? Why have they not already been published? Like, more than a hundred years ago?

This is much bigger - see Here. (http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/content/0,15757,4609-1-2335,00.html)

[Airblairxxx]

This leads to another question: in 100 years, will Scientology be a fringe-but-generally accepted religion, much like Mormonism is today? Will there be a handful of $cieno congresspeople, and amybe a candidate for president?

It's suspected, but hasn't been confirmed, that there is already at least one Scientologist in Congress already. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ileana_Ros-Lehtinen)

[Guinastasia]

Mormonism didn't have a Lisa McPherson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_mcpherson). Nor is she the only one.

And Mormonism never gave us Battlefield Earth.

(Although what famous writers have been LDS?)

[Punoqllads]

...Mormonism never gave us Battlefield Earth.

(Although what famous writers have been LDS?)
Orson Scott Card (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card), for one.

[chorpler]

Mormonism didn't have a Lisa McPherson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_mcpherson). Nor is she the only one.

Lisa McPherson? Mormonism had much worse accusations directed against it, like blood atonement and the Mountain Meadows Massacre, where 120 defenseless men, women, and children were slain. Yet they've overcome all that in just a century.

And Mormonism never gave us Battlefield Earth.

You know, this could well be the defining factor. Scientology will lever live THAT down.

(Although what famous writers have been LDS?)

Well, Orson Scott Card of Ender's Game fame ... and there's always Battlestar Galactica ...

[Monty]

(Although what famous writers have been LDS?)
From here (http://www.famousmormons.net/artists.html):

Brian Crane, Cartoonist
Brian Fairington, Editorial Cartoonist
Yuki Saito, Essayist/Poet/Actress/Singer

[dangermom]

Besides OSC:

Stephenie Meyer, who is currently on YA best-seller lists with her vampire romance trilogy Twilight, is LDS.

Anne Perry writes popular Victorian mysteries

Brandon Sanderson is going to finish the Wheel of Time and has several books of his own out

Terry Tempest Williams wrote Refuge

Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, women's studies author extraordinaire

And the authors of the Dragonlance series.

There are some others too, but those are most of the well-known ones.

[gonzomax]

I would say that part of it (except for the more cultish offshoots) is that the Mormons aren't out to suck people's money the way the Scientologists are.
Tithing is a financial operation. They demand tithing.

[dangermom]

Sorry, correction: Stephenie Meyer's books are a quartet, not a trilogy. The third one has been published, but it's not the last.

[Monty]

Tithing is a financial operation. They demand tithing.
You really should share with us the name of the publisher of your dictionary.

[treis]

You really should share with us the name of the publisher of your dictionary.

What?

[mswas]

There is a kind of sociological growth pattern as cults become religions. If you look at the history of Mormonism, 50 years into their life cycle they WERE treated like loons.

The single word that answers the OP is nothing more than:

Gentrification

Scientology is making the transition from cult to religion, and people are currently resisting it. In 75 years, no one will care about Scientologists either.

[Monty]

What?
He appears to have a different definition of demand than the rest of the English-speaking world does.

[BrainGlutton]

Lisa McPherson? Mormonism had much worse accusations directed against it, like blood atonement and the Mountain Meadows Massacre, where 120 defenseless men, women, and children were slain. Yet they've overcome all that in just a century.

"Blood atonement"?

[dangermom]

Blood atonement (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophets.shtml#blood), an explanation thereof. Much more smoke than fire, more rumor than reality. Read and enjoy!

[treis]

He appears to have a different definition of demand than the rest of the English-speaking world does.

Don't you have to pay your tithe to be a member in good standing of the church?

[dangermom]

Don't you have to pay your tithe to be a member in good standing of the church?Well, what do you mean by "member in good standing?" You should be a full tithe-payer in order to have a temple recommend, but that's about it. No one talks about it or anything; I have no idea how much tithing, if any, the various members of my ward pay. The only people who know anything about tithing are the bishop and the guy who keeps the financial records.

Tithing funds go to build and maintain temples and meetinghouses, pay for materials (books, ingredients for activities, etc.), and stuff like that. Quite boring really.

[treis]

Well, what do you mean by "member in good standing?" You should be a full tithe-payer in order to have a temple recommend, but that's about it.

What do you mean "that's about it"? Isn't the temple where the important rituals such as marriages are performed? How does a person get into the highest level of heaven without being a member in good standing?

[dangermom]

What do you mean "that's about it"? Isn't the temple where the important rituals such as marriages are performed? How does a person get into the highest level of heaven without being a member in good standing?Well, what's the point of going to the temple if you aren't willing to pay tithing? In the temple, one makes promises that are considerably more demanding than just 10% of one's income (if any). If a person is not willing to give 10% to the Lord, he is not ready to make those promises, which are far more serious.

If the goal is to get to the highest level of heaven, that's going to demand everything you've got. 10% is the easy part.

[treis]

Well, what's the point of going to the temple if you aren't willing to pay tithing? In the temple, one makes promises that are considerably more demanding than just 10% of one's income (if any). If a person is not willing to give 10% to the Lord, he is not ready to make those promises, which are far more serious.

If the goal is to get to the highest level of heaven, that's going to demand everything you've got. 10% is the easy part.

That's really besides the point isn't it? The Church of LDS is essentially saying give us money or you don't get into (the best) heaven and participate in important rituals. That fits any definition of demand you can come up with. Therefore Monty is either being very disingenuous, or is mistaken on Mormon theology.

[Monty]

Or neither.

One is either a member of the church or one is not a member of the church. Membership requires baptism and confirmation. If one is a member but does not pay tithing then one is still a member.

To assert that the LDS Church demands tithing is the same error as to assert that the Roman Catholic Church demands one be male as females cannot be Pope.

[dangermom]

No, that's exactly the point. The temple is the place where you go if you're trying to become the sort of person who lives in the Celestial Kingdom. Giving 10% of what the Lord gave you in the first place, in order to maintain the facilities you use yourself, isn't a high price for that--it's the lower law. In the temple you promise to be willing to live the higher law, which asks everything. Why anyone would want to go to the temple if they don't believe in its principles is beyond me. It would be like going to an amusement park when you don't like rides.

No one has to pay tithing. It's completely private, no one knows if you pay tithing or not. (If you want to, you can lie to the Bishop's face about it and he'll probably give you a recommend; if you're really looking to lie to God he won't stop you.) But if you actually want to go to the Celestial Kingdom and do all that, then you have to try to be the sort of person who lives there, and that means acknowledging how the Lord blesses you and giving some back to Him.

And then there are specific blessings that go along with that; Malachi 3: 10 reads: "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it." IME that works.

Paying tithing is a privilege, not a burden. It's what you do first. I can understand that you think that's crazy, but it has worked very well indeed for us.

[treis]

Or neither.

One is either a member of the church or one is not a member of the church. Membership requires baptism and confirmation. If one is a member but does not pay tithing then one is still a member.

To assert that the LDS Church demands tithing is the same error as to assert that the Roman Catholic Church demands one be male as females cannot be Pope.

What a ridiculous comparison. One does not need to be Pope to be a full member of the Catholic Church, nor does one need to be Pope to go to heaven. There isn't one heaven for those that pay and one for those that don't. The LDS Church says you can either pay us and go to the good heaven and be a full member, or you can not pay us and go to the bad heaven while being a 2nd class member. It's extortion and a demand for money.

No one has to pay tithing. It's completely private, no one knows if you pay tithing or not. (If you want to, you can lie to the Bishop's face about it and he'll probably give you a recommend; if you're really looking to lie to God he won't stop you.) But if you actually want to go to the Celestial Kingdom and do all that, then you have to try to be the sort of person who lives there, and that means acknowledging how the Lord blesses you and giving some back to Him.

Of course you are not giving it back to God but rather to the LDS church. I would have no problem if the tenet was "give away 10% of your income to charity", but that's not what it is. It's "give 10% of your income to us". No one has any objection to a religion asking it's adherents for donations simply because it's a fact of life that religions need money to operate. When that request changes to a demand alarm bells start ringing everywhere in my head and I see little more than a scam to make money.



Paying tithing is a privilege, not a burden. It's what you do first. I can understand that you think that's crazy, but it has worked very well indeed for us.

Very well indeed. It's not every religion that has a billion dollars laying around to spend on shopping malls.

[beckwall]

I know lots of Mormons. Most of them are just outstanding people. The tenets of their faith tell them to be loving parents, to take care of themselves, to be humble, to be assets to their communities, etc. They're not really a proselytizing faith, so they tend to leave others alone. In terms of a faith's effect on its followers, modern Mormonism seems pretty benign, or even positive.



Lived in Salt Lake City for a year, not an expert on the subject but would like to chime in. In most of the rest of the country, Mormons are as described above. Leave them alone, tell them no and they will respect your wishes. In SLC, if you don't go to their ward house, then you will not be invited into their home, into their conversations at work, into anything they are doing. And then there are the SLC "Jack Mormons", those who drink heavily and go home to kick the dog and beat the wife.

So generally speaking, most of the country does not see anything to get down on when it comes to the Church of LDS. But try living in their midst, when you are the minority, and you might come up with some other conclusions.

[dangermom]

It's not every religion that has a billion dollars laying around to spend on shopping malls.All that stuff isn't being built with tithing money; it's from the businesses owned by the LDS Church, such as the radio stations and farms. It's different money entirely.

A good chunk of tithing does go to charity work of various sorts. One can also donate directly to different charity branches like Humanitarian Aid, the Perpetual Education Fund, etc. The LDS Church also runs a bunch of welfare farms (there are a whole lot of farms, some welfare, some plain business--I live near a business one). And then there's Deseret Industries, some schools and vocational training programs, a hospital or so, and so on.

Oh, fast offerings are another one again. When you fast, part of it is to donate at least the amount of money you didn't eat, which then goes to a sort of food bank that we call the Bishop's storehouse. People who can't buy groceries go there to get food, and the food nearly all comes from Deseret Industries.

There's not much profit in tithing; it all goes right back into running things. We have a lay ministry and hardly anyone gets paid; only the full-time ones who don't have enough to live on get a stipend. Nobody ever got rich working for the LDS Church. I fully realize that to you, it looks just the same as a widow handing over her life savings to Peter Popoff or something, but I happen to disagree.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, what do you mean by "member in good standing?" You should be a full tithe-payer in order to have a temple recommend, but that's about it. No one talks about it or anything; I have no idea how much tithing, if any, the various members of my ward pay. The only people who know anything about tithing are the bishop and the guy who keeps the financial records.

Tithing funds go to build and maintain temples and meetinghouses, pay for materials (books, ingredients for activities, etc.), and stuff like that. Quite boring really.

I think the question is, are Mormons expected to donate 10% of their income to the Church, or are they not? (And what is a "temple recommend"?)


[reverend lovejoy]

And tithing means ten percent of gross, not net! Don't make me start auditing you!

[/rj]

[Jurph]

My grandmother always maintained that the wine Christ created didn't have alcohol in it, nor did any wine that might pass his lips. It might have been alcoholic when it was poured into his cup but it wasn't when he drank it. I don't know where she got all that. I don't remember her saying anything about the wine the disciples drank but if Jesus was present, then it couldn't have been "bad."
I don't know when Southern Baptists decided any and all alcoholic drinks were bad; I was taught that from the time my parents began to force me to attend Sunday school and church.

All this from the fundamentalists who insist on Biblical literalism in every other endeavor. :rolleyes:

[BrassyPhrase]

It got to the point where I would hyper my dog Luke into a barking frenzy at the thought of getting to go outside and hurl open the door yelling 'kill' when ever I saw the JW drive into my yard. Kept them away like a charm. Of course Luke was happily barking because he got to go outside and romp around the yard and had no idea he was threatening, though he was hopeful at the possibility of being taken to the local McDonalds for a naked burger.[/QUOTE]


Actually? And no offense to the JWs--I have some relatives who are that faith. But I went thru a period when I was kid and they'd come by. Always this one lady, who was very sweet. And I'd seen her at the corner store--she was about as scary as a ladybug.

But she ended up knocking on her door and giving me literature. And I was too nice to just tell her to go away.

My Momster: Tell her you're Catholic.

Me: Mom! We aren't!

Her: She'll never come back. Trust me.

I'm the world's worst liar. I couldn't. She was a nice lady. (I'd been to lots of different Christian services--and we had the relatives..)

My non-Catholic grandmother had bought us a St. Francis statue that we had in the back yard. (She liked his story. She was Unitarian)

My mom put it by the door. I never saw that lady again.

[treis]

All that stuff isn't being built with tithing money; it's from the businesses owned by the LDS Church, such as the radio stations and farms. It's different money entirely.

A good chunk of tithing does go to charity work of various sorts. One can also donate directly to different charity branches like Humanitarian Aid, the Perpetual Education Fund, etc. The LDS Church also runs a bunch of welfare farms (there are a whole lot of farms, some welfare, some plain business--I live near a business one). And then there's Deseret Industries, some schools and vocational training programs, a hospital or so, and so on.

Oh, fast offerings are another one again. When you fast, part of it is to donate at least the amount of money you didn't eat, which then goes to a sort of food bank that we call the Bishop's storehouse. People who can't buy groceries go there to get food, and the food nearly all comes from Deseret Industries.

There's not much profit in tithing; it all goes right back into running things. We have a lay ministry and hardly anyone gets paid; only the full-time ones who don't have enough to live on get a stipend. Nobody ever got rich working for the LDS Church. I fully realize that to you, it looks just the same as a widow handing over her life savings to Peter Popoff or something, but I happen to disagree.

I seriously doubt that the money didn't originate primarily from tithing. It may have gone through different businesses or what not, but that doesn't change anything. That money came from tithing, or at best other donations that were freed up by tithing. The funny thing is that you say where the tithing money goes as if it's a fact you know. The church has, as far as I know, never disclosed anything to do with it's finances. Compare that with the Vatican that gives detailed financial reports. As do, I believe, all of the dioceses. Why the secrecy?

Besides, that still doesn't change the fact that the tithing is essentially being extorted, which is the main issue.

[BrainGlutton]

Actually? And no offense to the JWs--I have some relatives who are that faith. But I went thru a period when I was kid and they'd come by. Always this one lady, who was very sweet. And I'd seen her at the corner store--she was about as scary as a ladybug.

But she ended up knocking on her door and giving me literature. And I was too nice to just tell her to go away.

My Momster: Tell her you're Catholic.

Me: Mom! We aren't!

Her: She'll never come back. Trust me.

I'm the world's worst liar. I couldn't. She was a nice lady. (I'd been to lots of different Christian services--and we had the relatives..)

My non-Catholic grandmother had bought us a St. Francis statue that we had in the back yard. (She liked his story. She was Unitarian)

My mom put it by the door. I never saw that lady again.

What do you get when you cross a Jehovah's Witness with a Unitarian?

Something that knocks on your door for no particular reason! :)

[Monty]

I'd love to continue this discussion with you in another thread, treis. But first you'll have to admit that you don't know what you're talking about. I don't see that happening.

[dropzone]

I've never had a Catholic accuse me of not being Christian, for example. Too polite. Which, in light of Church history and how the nuns and priests tried to raise those people, says a lot about how well their parents did it. I mean, c'mon! Members of my Lutheran congregation were being given an explanation of Muslim beliefs at the local mosque and I, being well raised but too old to remember it, muttered to our pastor, "Well, they're closer than the Mormons." And it's true and no reason to not find Mormons to be nice, if a little boring. They're just not Christians unless you stretch the definition far beyond the breaking point.

As for the lack of success Jehovah's Witnesses may have converting Catholics, I realized long ago, like when I was still a Catholic, that no other NORMAL faith could provide the sheer wackiness beauty and mystery Catholics had come to expect. Scientology has wackiness the beauty and mystery in spades so I expect lapsed Catholics to be easy pickings. The Witnesses, as Millerites, have the necessary theological underpinnings but, being nice, if more than a little boring, there isn't the FLASH! needed to seal the deal.

[treis]

I'd love to continue this discussion with you in another thread, treis. But first you'll have to admit that you don't know what you're talking about. I don't see that happening.

What have I said that is factually incorrect or incomplete?

[Der Trihs]

Compare that with the Vatican that gives detailed financial reports. As do, I believe, all of the dioceses. Since when ? There's been quite a few scandals in recent years invoving various dioceses and secrecy. For example, in only took me a short google to find this (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E6D81338F93AA15754C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all).

The first of the two, Bishop J. Keith Symons, learned in 1994 that the diocese's chief financial officer, Robert Schattie, had plundered the church treasury, but to avoid scandal the bishop did not file charges, church officials said. Instead, the diocese signed a secret agreement with Mr. Schattie under which he was to repay $200 a month, a schedule that would have required more than a century to reach restitution.

But Mr. Schattie quit paying after only a few months, church documents indicate, and Bishop Symons took no action before he resigned in 1998 for molesting boys. Under his successor, Bishop Anthony O'Connell, the diocese continued to consider it more important to keep the embezzlement secret than to recover the money, said J. Patrick Fitzgerald, a lawyer for the diocese.

[treis]

I didn't say that they were scandal free. Just more transparent.

[Der Trihs]

I didn't say that they were scandal free. Just more transparent.The Catholic Church is transparent ? Since when ?

[treis]

The Catholic Church is transparent ? Since when ?

The 80s, I think.

[dropzone]

Yeah, that was the turning point. The present still sux, but it's closer than ideal. You are de3aling with 2K of inertia here. It isn't going to be perfect, just yet.

[dropzone]

BTW, Mountain Meadows is, as 19th Cenury Catholics might say, an "unfortunate incident." Fully culpable against the Mormon faith at the time, but something we all need to IGNORE because it IS NOT CURRENT!

And yes, I'm theologically mellow on Friday nights because that's the night I drink, but I keep thinking while I'm drinking and The Drink has been a center of Philosophy for millenia. Look it up.

[gazpacho]

The 80s, I think.you have not been following the sexual abuse lawsuits in San Diego. The Church has been doing a lot of obfuscating of their true financial position.

They are more transparent than when they did not report at all but that is not saying a whole lot.

[dangermom]

Too polite. Which, in light of Church history and how the nuns and priests tried to raise those people, says a lot about how well their parents did it. I mean, c'mon! Members of my Lutheran congregation were being given an explanation of Muslim beliefs at the local mosque and I, being well raised but too old to remember it, muttered to our pastor, "Well, they're closer than the Mormons." And it's true and no reason to not find Mormons to be nice, if a little boring. They're just not Christians unless you stretch the definition far beyond the breaking point.
Oh well, if everyone doesn't think so, it's not my problem. I still like you. It would be fun to argue out the exact definitions, though. I don't see why Mormons don't count under any reasonable definition of Christian; we believe in Christ as the Savior and Son of God, born of a virgin, died on the cross and was resurrected after 3 days, the way, the truth and the life and the only way to the Father. I really can't see a need for quibbling over more than that.

No, we don't accept the Nicene creed; it's not scripture. I guess we're just more sola scriptura than the rest of you folks. :p

[MrDibble]

And Mormonism never gave us Battlefield Earth.
(Although what famous writers have been LDS?)

Just to add - the writer/artist of the best Space Opera webcomic in the universe, Howard Tayler of Schlock Mercenary (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/), is LDS. Which fact easily makes up for my occasional annoyance at nicely dressed men (no bicycles) coming to my door.

[dropzone]

I really can't see a need for quibbling over more than that.And I'd argue that our recent parishoners from India named "Thomas" have probably been Christians since St Thomas hit the Indies 2k yrs ago, while our (majority) parishoners are Nordic and their ancestors have been Christian since long after about 1000AD so they have no reason to brag, but I prefer going with my "nice but boring" definition while ignoring technicalies; them which the OP wants us to pick anew.

(blowing a kiss at my pal, dangermom, because, jerk I may be, I hate starting fights.)

[dropzone]

Which fact easily makes up for my occasional annoyance at nicely dressed men (no bicycles) coming to my door. Dib, that makes up for some of what a (welcome because this board sometimes needs it) jerk you sometimes are. :) We SF argumentists sometimes need someone to remind us why we argue with each other and blow off everybody else.

[MrDibble]

Dib, that makes up for some of what a (welcome because this board sometimes needs it) jerk you sometimes are. :) We SF argumentists sometimes need someone to remind us why we argue with each other and blow off everybody else.
Jerk I sometimes am, but I recognise good webcomic, and also the inherent niceness of a lot of LDS missionary folk. I generally have little problem with door-to-door missionaries, anyway. I have no problem saying "no thanks, I'm not interested".

Lately, it's been lots of Asian people - Chinese, I think, by what I can tell when they speak to each other. Never got enough of a spiel to tell if they're LDS (there are women, which isn't usual, is it?) - not JW, though, no Watchtowers in evidence.

[Der Trihs]

Just to add - the writer/artist of the best Space Opera webcomic in the universe, Howard Tayler of Schlock Mercenary (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/), is LDS. A webcomic I like enough that I got my username from it. Fortunately, unlike certain other comic artists, he can write a comic without turning it into unentertaining religious/political propaganda. I'd have never known his religious denomination, except that I heard it elsewhere.

I just hope he never has some massive religious surge and turns the thing into the Mormon Jack Chick In Space.

[Dangerosa]

Lived in Salt Lake City for a year, not an expert on the subject but would like to chime in. In most of the rest of the country, Mormons are as described above. Leave them alone, tell them no and they will respect your wishes. In SLC, if you don't go to their ward house, then you will not be invited into their home, into their conversations at work, into anything they are doing. And then there are the SLC "Jack Mormons", those who drink heavily and go home to kick the dog and beat the wife.

So generally speaking, most of the country does not see anything to get down on when it comes to the Church of LDS. But try living in their midst, when you are the minority, and you might come up with some other conclusions.

I've heard similar reports from several non-Mormons who have lived in SLC and Provo. I've enjoyed spending time with every Mormon I've ever met, but from everything I've heard, I wouldn't move to SLC.

[ralph124c]

I did mention this rather dubious work, because it is revered by Momons. The history of the curious tome is quite instructive: Joseph Smith purchased this egypi\tian paparyrus document froma travelling show, in Chicago. He claimed to "translate" it (perhaps using the mysterious "seer" stones mentioned in the BOM?). Anyway, he did this translation at a time before ANYONE in the West could reach egyptian hieroglyphs. The French scholare Champollion didn't crack the hieroglyphic alaphabet until 1840 or so.
At any rate, the egyptian document that Smith claimed to have translated (as the history of the patriarch Abraham) turned up recently, and Egyptologists found that it was actually a potion of a well-known egyptian funerary text 9the book of the Dead).
So what are we to make of this? Is the LDS Church correct in their embrace of the spurious text? Or did their chief prophet make a mistake? :confused:

[ralph124c]

I did mention this rather dubious work, because it is revered by Momons. The history of the curious tome is quite instructive: Joseph Smith purchased this egypi\tian paparyrus document froma travelling show, in Chicago. He claimed to "translate" it (perhaps using the mysterious "seer" stones mentioned in the BOM?). Anyway, he did this translation at a time before ANYONE in the West could reach egyptian hieroglyphs. The French scholare Champollion didn't crack the hieroglyphic alaphabet until 1840 or so.
At any rate, the egyptian document that Smith claimed to have translated (as the history of the patriarch Abraham) turned up recently, and Egyptologists found that it was actually a potion of a well-known egyptian funerary text 9the book of the Dead).
So what are we to make of this? Is the LDS Church correct in their embrace of the spurious text? Or did their chief prophet make a mistake? :confused:

[FriarTed]

Oh well, if everyone doesn't think so, it's not my problem. I still like you. It would be fun to argue out the exact definitions, though. I don't see why Mormons don't count under any reasonable definition of Christian; we believe in Christ as the Savior and Son of God, born of a virgin, died on the cross and was resurrected after 3 days, the way, the truth and the life and the only way to the Father. I really can't see a need for quibbling over more than that.

No, we don't accept the Nicene creed; it's not scripture. I guess we're just more sola scriptura than the rest of you folks. :p

Well, I'm not gonna question your or any LDS member's commitment to Christ. But when the LDS view of God the Father suggests that He may have been anything other than Eternal Deity, but instead a Deified mortal, that causes many Christian believers in the Catholic, Orthodox & Reformational churches (the ones that Joseph Smith's God referred to as "abominations") to question the soundness of the essential LDS theology.

[JustThinkin']

Oh well, if everyone doesn't think so, it's not my problem. I still like you. It would be fun to argue out the exact definitions, though. I don't see why Mormons don't count under any reasonable definition of Christian; we believe in Christ as the Savior and Son of God, born of a virgin, died on the cross and was resurrected after 3 days, the way, the truth and the life and the only way to the Father. I really can't see a need for quibbling over more than that.
I had an interesting "aha" moment a few years ago regarding a memory from just after college.

I was raised Mormon (I'm now an atheist). When I graduated from BYU, I moved to Indiana intending to establish residency and go to graduate school there. I got a job at a departments store. One of my co-workers was a sweet young pentacostal woman. At the time, all these non-Mormons surrounding me were quite the exotics, and this pentacostal most exotic of all. :rolleyes: :p I was only just barely starting to question my faith at that time.

We (the pentacostal woman and I) had a few interesting conversations about religion. She asked me if I were a Christian. I hesitated. The answer was yes in the way that Dangermom defined it. But, I somehow felt weird about saying simply "yes."

Years and years later, I got to thinking about the incident and realized that there was a semantics issue there that I didn't really understand at the time, only sensed.

When a pentacostal or other fundamentalist Christian uses the word Christian, they have a very specific definition of it. The best way I can describe it is that, for me, christian (lowercase c) is a simple noun used for a person with a certain religious belief that includes some kind of devotion to Jesus Christ. For her, Christian (uppercase C) is a person that subscribes to rigidly defined sub-category of those beliefs.

The question made me uncomfortable because, even though I knew I believed in Jesus Christ as a huge part of my theological underpinnings, I sensed that the word Christian meant something different to her. I could answer "yes" truthfully by my own definitions, but not by hers.

(My. I hope all that made at least some sense.)

[dangermom]

Ralph124c, I don't have time for a real discussion of the BoA, nor do I think that this thread is the right place for that discussion. The short version is: it's a lot more complicated than you realize. But here are some links for you to peruse. Read and enjoy!

A complex but thorough dissection of BoA criticisms (http://www.boap.org/LDS/critic.html)
A simpler FAQ version (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml)
The FAIR wiki version (http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long))

[Stranger On A Train]

I guess I should have said 'aggressively proselytizing'. I didn't really mean they don't go on missions. The way I see it, Mormons tend to spread the faith through example. They believe that by becoming pillars of their communities and doing good works they'll attract people to the faith. That's pretty much what a lot of Christians do.You haven't been to Utah. I don't mean Salt Lake City, which in the interests of becoming a tourist destination demonstrates tolerance for all kinds of ideas, behaviors, musical tastes, and skin colors, but backwoods southern Utah, where if you ain't a-Morman you better keep a-movin'. The Mormons I've kwown and worked with outside of Utah tend to be more tolerant and generally less dogmatic.

The Book of Mormon (once described by Mark Twain as "chloraform in print") is pretty much a transparent fabrication that bares scant relation to reality, demonstratably in terms of the geography and zoology described within. Joseph Smith was well known as a spinner of tall tales long before he dug up those gold plates, and the Mesoamerican archeology done at BYU and Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies is barely short of academic fraud. See Hampton Sides "This Is Not The Place" (http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon33.html) for more detail on the problems with Mormon archeology.

All of that being said, Mormonism certainly has a less bloody history than many other branches of Christianity (of which it is a subset, the protestations of other Christians aside) and certainly less than Judism. The Book of Mormon may be fraudulent and kooky, but it's certainly less so than earlier books of the Bible, and particularly those of the Old Testament which can't even offer a more unifying moral principle than that the only way to thrive is to be a white male who is willing to kill his own children or throw his virgin daughters to a mob. And certainly the Catholic church (among others) has repeatedly edited the Bible to take out the worst of the really rough stuff in the interests of making it more in alignment with the beliefs they'd like to promote. And unlike the Scientologists, their particular bit of pseudoscience archeology is pretty harmless in comparison to the whole auditing business. On an offensiveness scale of 1 to 10, the Mormons barely hit a 2.5, and then just because of Mitt Romney.

Of course, it's even better to drag them inside and try to convert them to your religion! Hooh-boy fun! :)Or actively go out and proselytize atheism to them. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV-a1vmZ6y8)

It's still not as wacky as Reaganomics.You're my new favorite hero for the day.

Stranger

[dangermom]

FriarTed, I understand that. But since it's all supposed to have happened before the universe existed, I don't really agree with the horror. I'd be happy to discuss it further, but I just went over to my bookcase and discovered that the book I want isn't there, I bet I lent it to my mom. So it would have to wait until tomorrow.

JustThinkin, I totally understand what you mean. I've gotten over it now, though. :) I know that the people who ask that question usually mean "Are you an evanglical or fundamentalist Christian, and Catholics definitely don't count?" --But OTOH I'm not sure that their personal definition of "Christian" is my problem. It's not their word.

It's a lot like when people ask you if you're saved. Did you ever get that one? A Mormon's natural reaction is to sort of go "....I don't know?" Because to a Mormon, that question translates to "Are you going to the Celestial Kingdom when you die?" And of course you can't say. Mormons are like the ancient Greeks, they can't say they're happy until they're safely good and dead. But what that question really means is "Do you have a testimony of Jesus Christ?" And the answer to that ought to be "Yes!" So now I just say that--it's not my problem that the person asking wouldn't agree with me.


I've never lived in Utah. I've heard the stories. And I've had lots of Utah folks defend themselves and say that it's only a few who act like that, and they're very hurt by those generalizations. *shrug* It's like a lot of groups when they get into the majority; half the time they don't realize how they're acting, I suppose. There are a lot of major sermons about it. At any rate, I can truthfully say that I don't think I'd enjoy living in Utah; I'm no good at all at being in the majority, but I'm great at being the stubborn oddball.

[dangermom]

I'd like to clarify for anyone who cares just why Mormons get so irritated when people tell them they're not Christian. It's not because we want so badly to be accepted into the club, or because we particularly feel the need for approval. It's more like the irritation many Dopers feel when someone says "Did you know that a duck's quack doesn't echo?!?" Or when you get an email that forwards some stupid UL for the zillionth time. It's not accurate, and it's irritating to have other people trying to define your beliefs for you. Mormons say "We are too Christian!" in just the same way you send off a link to Snopes.

At any rate, I won't be around for the rest of the day. Bye.

[Speaker for the Dead]

Tithing is a financial operation. They demand tithing.
For what it's worth, my point was not that Mormons don't request money, but that they don't go out seeking converts with financial gain as their main intent.

[pepperlandgirl]

Lived in Salt Lake City for a year, not an expert on the subject but would like to chime in. In most of the rest of the country, Mormons are as described above. Leave them alone, tell them no and they will respect your wishes. In SLC, if you don't go to their ward house, then you will not be invited into their home, into their conversations at work, into anything they are doing. And then there are the SLC "Jack Mormons", those who drink heavily and go home to kick the dog and beat the wife.

So generally speaking, most of the country does not see anything to get down on when it comes to the Church of LDS. But try living in their midst, when you are the minority, and you might come up with some other conclusions.

I grew up in a small town in Northern Utah and moved to CA when I was sixteen. I lived in the Bay Area for 2 years and Los Angeles for 5 years, then moved back to SLC about 15 months ago. I'm stuck here for the foreseeable future, and SLC isn't entirely my favorite place to be. However, I've never had these problems. SLC is actually a pretty pleasant place to live. Plenty of bars and clubs. Plenty of places to shop. Plenty of good restaurants. Plenty of things to do on a Saturday night. Plenty of nice people to talk to. 99.9% of the time, I don't even remember I'm living in the reddest state in the union.

NOTE: I am only referring to Salt Lake City here. I don't pretend that Utah is an easy place to live for non-Mormons. Once you get out of the major population centers (and Park City), then you can find a lot of pockets of backwards people. Unfortunately, I know this because most of my family live in such areas.

But then, maybe I blend better. I'm an atheist, but I was raised in the LDS Church and know their ways. Honestly, I got harassed more by members and missionaries when I lived in So Cal (there is a HUGE Mormon population in San Bernardino and everybody was a Mormon where my husband worked).

Now, Provo on the other hand.....there is something seriously wrong with Provo. I hate visiting my sister down there. You couldn't pay me enough to live down there.

[Chief Pedant]

I was doing a little research on Mormonism lately after they came to my door and dropped off one of those books, and those people believe some craaaaaaaaaaaazay stuff! A good deal of it is Zardoz-level stuff like the Scientologists, but the Mormons don't seem to catch as much crap in the public eye. Why?

I'm comin' in late here, but exactly what do the Mormons believe? For such a tightly-controlled bunch, it seems surprisingly tricky to get a simple list of core beliefs. On the Protestant side (my heritage) the evolution of beliefs has simply resulted in dozens of sects. For Mormons, though, official theology seems to reside with the honchos--in theory there is a collection of specific, official current beliefs, is there not?

So what is that set of beliefs? Is it publicly available to all? Are there core beliefs which are hidden from all but deep insiders? I have found it amazingly tricky to get a list of (current) beliefs, particularly ones that are at substantial odds with traditional Roman Catholic and Protestant theology. The proselytizing strategy seems to be "We are a variant of Christianity" with the more extreme "variations" being revealed only once someone takes the bait.

IMHO Mormons get as much crap for their secrecy as they do for the nuttiness of their beliefs, since as has been pointed out in many responses, any given religious belief is nutty once it steps beyond science and evidence.

Monty? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone? Do I get a shot at being God on my own planet, or not? Did God used to be a Regular Guy? And so on...

[Ocean Annie]

I'm comin' in late here, but exactly what do the Mormons believe? For such a tightly-controlled bunch, it seems surprisingly tricky to get a simple list of core beliefs. On the Protestant side (my heritage) the evolution of beliefs has simply resulted in dozens of sects. For Mormons, though, official theology seems to reside with the honchos--in theory there is a collection of specific, official current beliefs, is there not?



If you have time to watch, PBS has an informative documentary, and I'll throw in a healthy dose of critical review to read after the broadcast.

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/view/

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070514/howl

[dangermom]

I'm comin' in late here, but exactly what do the Mormons believe? For such a tightly-controlled bunch, it seems surprisingly tricky to get a simple list of core beliefs. On the Protestant side (my heritage) the evolution of beliefs has simply resulted in dozens of sects. For Mormons, though, official theology seems to reside with the honchos--in theory there is a collection of specific, official current beliefs, is there not?Yep; it's the scriptures and the current teachings of the prophet. Critics do complain that figuring out Mormon doctrine is like nailing Jello to the wall! We tend to resist lists and we don't have a catechism or anything like that.

So what is that set of beliefs? Is it publicly available to all? Are there core beliefs which are hidden from all but deep insiders? I have found it amazingly tricky to get a list of (current) beliefs, particularly ones that are at substantial odds with traditional Roman Catholic and Protestant theology. The proselytizing strategy seems to be "We are a variant of Christianity" with the more extreme "variations" being revealed only once someone takes the bait.No, there aren't 'secret' beliefs. We don't talk about what happens in the temple, but the actual theology of the temple isn't any different than what you get on Sundays.

The closest thing we have to a creed is the Articles of Faith (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1), a short summary of basic beliefs written by Joseph Smith. Children memorize them and so on.

A longer summary work is Gospel Principles (http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d7561b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ea697befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____) which details all the basic theology of the gospel. It's a textbook, not scripture, and it's used in Sunday School for new members. I'm currently going through it with my 7yo daughter so that she knows everything before she gets baptized next summer.

You could also look at the Sunday School manuals (http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=249553ef19ee5010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD&locale=0) for regular members if you like. All teaching materials, and of course all the scriptures, are now available online. The final authority in the LDS Church is the scriptures and the prophet, that's it. Anything else is just commentary and opinion.


Monty? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone? Do I get a shot at being God on my own planet, or not? Did God used to be a Regular Guy? And so on...Perhaps this FAQ (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_theosis.shtml)will help you out with those questions?

If you're really curious about how Mormons think, you might like to take a look at some of the more theological blogs on the Bloggernacle. Issues are minutely dissected and discussed, and they're easy to find. You might like to look at Times and Seasons, Millennial Star, or By Common Consent.

[Polerius]

We don't talk about what happens in the temple
This made me curious.

Why not talk about what happens in the temple?

Most other major religions (Christianity, Islam, etc) have very open ceremonies. Why would one religion have secret ceremonies?

After some Googling, I found this
http://www.exmormon.org/templex.htm

Secret ceremonies, secret handshakes, passwords, masonic-like rituals, etc

Mormonism seems more like a cult than a religion.

[Polerius]

Mormonism seems more like a cult than a religion.
More from that website (http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon301.htm)
I had been a faithful temple attendee from 1977 to 1991, so I had regularly pantomimed slitting my throat, ripping open my chest and disemboweling my guts while saying, “rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken.” The endowment ceremony had been deeply embedded in my body and brain.
...
At a later date, I put the robe, veil, sash, shoes and apron on for a nevermo friend. My mouth opened and out poured the words.

“I (think of the new name) promise to never reveal the first token of the aaronic priesthood with its accompanying name, sign and penalty. Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken.”

My nevermo friend was amazed. My brain just clicked on, like someone had pushed the play button on a tape recorder, and out spewed all the tokens, names, signs and penalties. Then I told her about the veil.

Tap, tap, tap,
“What is wanted? Eve having been true and faithful. . .
“What is that? The first token of the arronic priesthood. Has it a name? It has. Will you give it to me? I will through the veil, Deborah (my new name). What is that? The second token of the aaronic priesthood. Has it a name? It has. Will you give it to me? I will through the veil, the Son. What is that?. . . .”

My nevermo friend started feeling uncomfortable at this point.

But wait! I wasn’t done! There’s still the five points of fellowship! Where you put mouth to ear, hand to back, breast to breast, knee to knee and inside of foot to inside of foot while holding the patriarchal grip and say,

“Health in the navel, marrow in the bone, strength in the loins and in the sinews, power in the priesthood be upon me and upon my posterity through all generations of time and throughout allll eterrnnnittyyy!!!!!!”

“Wow, it really is a cult,” she said as she pulled away from me.

[chorpler]

Perhaps this FAQ (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_theosis.shtml)will help you out with those questions?

Just a quick note: Jeff Lindsay's site is very open about being an apologetic site, so clearly it tells the side of the story from a devout Mormon perspective.

And it does have a few factual errors; for instance, the page discussing temple sealing and divorce says that, after a divorce, members who have been sealed together in the temple (also known as "temple marriage" or "eternal marriage," for those who aren't familiar with LDS practices) have to get a "cancellation of sealing," which is basically the equivalent of a "temple divorce," before they can be sealed to somebody else. But the Church Handbook of Instructions (which is essentially the manual that bishops get to tell them how to run the ward) says that only women have to get a cancellation of sealing; men have to get a "sealing clearance." Which means men can be sealed to more than one living woman, but women can't be sealed to more than one living man.

[chorpler]

More from that website (http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon301.htm)

Most of the "scary" or "offensive" parts of the temple ceremony were deleted in 1990, for what it's worth.

[chorpler]

Ralph124c, I don't have time for a real discussion of the BoA, nor do I think that this thread is the right place for that discussion. The short version is: it's a lot more complicated than you realize. But here are some links for you to peruse. Read and enjoy!

A complex but thorough dissection of BoA criticisms (http://www.boap.org/LDS/critic.html)
A simpler FAQ version (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml)
The FAIR wiki version (http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham_papyri_(long))

The best non-apologetic resource I've found about the whole Book of Abraham story is Charles Larson's By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus (http://www.amazon.com/His-Own-Hand-Upon-Papyrus/dp/0962096326/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197804031&sr=8-1). It's written from a Christian perspective, but it does a pretty good job of staying mostly neutral and factual until the last chapter, when he writes about how Mormons need to be saved and blah blah blah. The book also has full color fold-out pictures of the Joseph Smith papyrii that were discovered in New York in the 1960's, which are really spectacular. The pictures alone would be worth the price of the book ... but if you go here (http://www.irr.org/mit/Book-of-Abraham-page.html) you can request a free copy (but only if you're LDS, since this is another Christian "save the Mormons" site...) or even read the book online (but without the pictures and charts, sadly).

Larson goes into great detail about the papyrii and the whole story, which is a fascinating tale whether you believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet or just a nut.

[chorpler]

I think the question is, are Mormons expected to donate 10% of their income to the Church, or are they not? (And what is a "temple recommend"?)

[reverend lovejoy]

And tithing means ten percent of gross, not net! Don't make me start auditing you!

[/rj]

Apologies if somebody already answered your question, but I didn't see anybody answer it.

Yes, mainstream Mormons are expected to donate 10% of their income to the church. And every bishop I've ever had has said it's supposed to be 10% of your gross income, not net, but I understand there are numerous Latter-day Saints who pay it on net income. It's basically handled on trust; at the end of each year you go in and meet with the bishop, he shows you how much you've paid, and you tell him "Yes, that makes me a full tithe payer," or "I didn't pay the full 10% ... that only makes me a partial tithe payer." Unless your bishop happens to be your accountant (like my parents' bishop was until two months ago when he was released), they'll just take your word for it.

If you aren't a full tithe payer, you can't get a temple recommend. This is basically the "permission slip" that says you can go to the temple and participate in the ceremonies performed there; practically speaking, the most important of these are the endowment, where you learn things necessary to be exalted in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom after resurrection, and the sealing, where you are sealed to your spouse for eternity. Having a temple marriage and being sealed together for eternity is pretty much the whole point of existence in Mormonism, because eternal marriage is necessary for exaltation, so essentially yes, believing Mormons have to pay their tithing.

[Chief Pedant]

Yep; it's the scriptures and the current teachings of the prophet. Critics do complain that figuring out Mormon doctrine is like nailing Jello to the wall! We tend to resist lists and we don't have a catechism or anything like that.
No, there aren't 'secret' beliefs. We don't talk about what happens in the temple, but the actual theology of the temple isn't any different than what you get on Sundays.

The closest thing we have to a creed is the Articles of Faith (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1), a short summary of basic beliefs written by Joseph Smith. Children memorize them and so on.

A longer summary work is Gospel Principles (http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d7561b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ea697befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____) which details all the basic theology of the gospel. It's a textbook, not scripture, and it's used in Sunday School for new members. I'm currently going through it with my 7yo daughter so that she knows everything before she gets baptized next summer.

You could also look at the Sunday School manuals (http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=249553ef19ee5010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD&locale=0) for regular members if you like. All teaching materials, and of course all the scriptures, are now available online. The final authority in the LDS Church is the scriptures and the prophet, that's it. Anything else is just commentary and opinion.

Perhaps this FAQ (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_theosis.shtml)will help you out with those questions?

If you're really curious about how Mormons think, you might like to take a look at some of the more theological blogs on the Bloggernacle. Issues are minutely dissected and discussed, and they're easy to find. You might like to look at Times and Seasons, Millennial Star, or By Common Consent.

Many thanks. I found these helpful.
The neat thing about theology is that you can say anything you want--even exactly opposite things in the same sentence--and it feels like you've clarified the Church's position.

Some examples from the FAQ site:

"It is true that we believe the Father and the Son are separate beings, but they are one and comprise, with the Holy Ghost, one united Godhead."

"The concept of man becoming "like God" or "as God" is thoroughly, solidly Biblical and Christian - but it doesn't mean becoming exactly like Him."

"...the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence." "...He then considers the word "continuance" and notes that its usage in the scriptures (Ps. 139:16, Is. 64:5, and Rom. 2:7) does not indicate totality of duration, but progress in advance of an earlier stage."

"It's wrong to say that science can prove or disprove the sacred text of any religion..."

I'm not putting these out there to debate them or criticize the theology; only to point out how impossible it is to pin down what anyone actually thinks. This is, of course, no different for any other religion than it is for the LDS folks.

Priase God for the English language which will keep religion alive indefinitely. What you thought I said is not what I said, exactly.

[jali]

What's the difference between those who go door to door to convert others to their beliefs (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons) and Christian missionaries who go country to country to convert others to their beliefs?

[Polerius]

This is basically the "permission slip" that says you can go to the temple and participate in the ceremonies performed there; practically speaking, the most important of these are the endowment, where you learn things necessary to be exalted in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom after resurrection
My question is, why keep it a secret what needs to be done to be "exalted in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom after resurrection"?

In Christianity, they say pretty clearly, to anyone, what you need to do to go to Heaven. I assume Islam and the other religions do so as well, concerning whatever state-after-death they each consider to be best.

Basically, if you "know" how human beings can get to some great state after death, why keep that a secret?

(and what's worse, a secret that you can get to only after paying money)

[dangermom]

My question is, why keep it a secret what needs to be done to be "exalted in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom after resurrection"?

In Christianity, they say pretty clearly, to anyone, what you need to do to go to Heaven. I assume Islam and the other religions do so as well, concerning whatever state-after-death they each consider to be best.

Basically, if you "know" how human beings can get to some great state after death, why keep that a secret?

(and what's worse, a secret that you can get to only after paying money)
First, it's not as if paying tithing is the only requirement for a temple recommend. There's a whole list; you have to be living right to go to the temple, because what you mostly do there is make more promises to live even more right.

I will now tell you the secret of how to go to the Celestial Kingdom!

First, love the Lord your God with all your might, mind, and strength.
Then, love your neighbor as yourself. Be kind, give to others, love everyone.
Since you love God, obey His commandments (see #2 above). Part of this is getting baptized.
If you are keeping 1, 2, and 3, you can go to the temple to be sealed to your family.
Now keep doing all of those for the rest of your life. You will screw up, so repent a lot. Yay, you win!


I've been busy all day and now I'm going to be more busy, so this is all I can manage for now. Someday I would like to solve the mystery of why huge long threads about Mormons always seem to show up at Christmas time!

[tagos]

Only about 150 years old. History sandblasting has not been completed yet. We can still find Smiths goofiness in text. It will be erased in a century or so.

Will they be erasing all the nonsense about golden plates, comically named angels and anthropology too?

In my darker moments I look at these made-up-before-our-very-eyes religions and think, 'I could do that.' Make some money, get some gullible women.

Then I sink into dark despair that anyone can look at the history of these quack cults and the self-evident, gold plated bullshit they espouse and not just point and laugh.

But I guess you are right.

[Shirley Ujest]

I believe that was Scarlett Johanson, and it was even worse than that. They had dinner alone together, although Cruise rambled on about the great god Xenu thru the whole thing. Johanson continued to smile politely until Cruise opened a set of double doors revealing the gaggle of Scientology grand-high-exalted-mystic rulers. At which point she sort of freaked and asked to leave.

Plus, the point of the date was Cruise was offering her the femme fatale lead in Mission Impossible 3, a role which would have earned her over $10 mil and shot her to super A-list status. She turned it down solely because of the Scientology nonsense!


I've heard this repeatedly, but have never read any direct interview or quote. Is there a cite on this?

[OneCentStamp]

It's suspected, but hasn't been confirmed, that there is already at least one Scientologist in Congress already. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ileana_Ros-Lehtinen)BURN HER!! :mad:








(I'm kidding. But that is scary.)

[Annie-Xmas]

Will they be erasing all the nonsense about golden plates, comically named angels and anthropology too?



Not to mention the sacred, magic undies.

[Acsenray]

What do you mean "that's about it"? Isn't the temple where the important rituals such as marriages are performed? How does a person get into the highest level of heaven without being a member in good standing?

From conversations I've had with Mormons, my understanding is that most Mormons don't have temple recommends, and they aren't too worried about it either. I can't say I know what the calculations are in their own minds regarding the afterlife, but judging from their attitudes, it didn't seem like they felt any spiritual pressure to "get in."

[Acsenray]

So generally speaking, most of the country does not see anything to get down on when it comes to the Church of LDS. But try living in their midst, when you are the minority, and you might come up with some other conclusions.

I'm wondering whether this is different from any other location that is dominated by a single identity group. How is a "Jack Mormon" different from a substance and domestic abuser anywhere else in the world? And I'm sure I've heard of other groups that shun non-members in places where they are in the majority.

[Acsenray]

Not to mention the sacred, magic undies.

Sikhs have special underwear too. I've always been curious regarding what is different about Mormon undies, but I don't see why this is risible, in the context of religious beliefs and practices around the world and throughout history.

[gazpacho]

Sikhs have special underwear too. I've always been curious regarding what is different about Mormon undies, but I don't see why this is risible, in the context of religious beliefs and practices around the world and throughout history.You don't see how magic underwear is funny? But I agree with your main argument. Special clothing is not really that weird in the context of other religious practices.

[dropzone]

What's the difference between those who go door to door to convert others to their beliefs (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons) and Christian missionaries who go country to country to convert others to their beliefs?They're knocking on somebody else's door and not mine.