I’m younger and not from Utah and have a different experience–I would say that Mormons often tend to think about people according to how hostile they’re likely to be. One is wary around Evangelicals/Fundamentalists since they’re liable to be very unfriendly, unless they’re not, which is a pleasant surprise. I think there’s respect for Catholics. Judaism is respected and romanticized. IME Mormons want to be friends with just about everyone, but are worried about an unfriendly reception. I don’t know that there would be an opinion about atheists at all.
This sounds remarkably unlikely to me. It’s not the sort of thing people do, infertility doesn’t come into it, and it’s not as though there’s a shortage of LDS women who want to get married and have children. The problem runs the other way. There is a slight shortage of faithful LDS men to marry the amazing women. All of us have attractive, intelligent, successful women friends who would like nothing better than to meet a great guy and start a family, but single guys are not common. If my husband dies, or we get divorced (unlikely), I would not expect to get married again for that reason.
Sorry if this repeats what someone else has said, but I haven’t read the entire thread…
To all the Mormons participating in this thread:
What does the church say about the forbidden vices of alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine – specifically, about how they feel when taken, and not just the deleterious effects on mind and body and society? Was caffeine understood as a mild stimulant or was it said to be a highly addictive drug, on a continuum with illegal narcotics? Did you ever partake in any of these forbidden things when you were a practicing Mormon, and how did you react to it? Did you confess it to anyone in your church, and what was the reaction?
Given the ubiquity of caffeine-related advertising in our world, did you find it more difficult to resist Coke/Pepsi/coffee than alcohol or tobacco products?
To ex-Mormons, do you partake in any of these substances, and if so, do you consider your use an addiction, physically unhealthy or immoral?
Oh, snap! I know I already awarded a thread-winner, but this made me laugh out loud.
Just to repeat what (I believe) has already been stated on the thread, coffee and tea are prohibited, caffeinated soft drinks are not prohibited. Some Mormons choose not to drink them, but just as many think it’s fine. I’d say that caffeinated soft drinks are somewhat frowned upon (you won’t find any Coca-Cola in the vending machines at BYU), but that’s it. When I was on my mission in Argentina (and very much a believer), I drank 2 liters of Coca-Cola everyday. No one, including me, thought it was a problem. We had a big mission conference one summer, with all 150 missionaries from the mission, and the only thing the leadership brought to drink was Coca-Cola. There was some grumbling from a couple missionaries who didn’t drink caffeinated soft drinks, so someone had to run to the store to get a couple liters of Fanta.
Obviously, most of the time spent on the Word of Wisdom at church is pointing out the deleterious effects of tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine. It’s not like they said, “Oh, man, feeling drunk is so crazy… but it’s bad for you!” They stuck with (and really harp on) the physiological and addictive stuff. I don’t doubt that many Mormons think there’s a good chance of becoming an alcoholic after one drink.
If you do drink alcohol or smoke, you have to confess to the local Bishop, and he’ll tell you to stop and maybe not take communion for a couple weeks. You definitely can’t go to the temple or serve a mission if you are drinking or using tobacco, but it’s not as huge a deal as, say, sex.
In answer to your last question, I am an ex-Mormon. I have never used tobacco in any form. I never had a drop of alcohol until I was over 30 years old and no longer a believer. Now, I occasionally have a glass of wine with dinner. I have never been drunk. I have had coffee and tea (both after I was 30) but I don’t like the taste of either without dangerous amounts of sugar, so I don’t drink them, either.
Here is a recent quotation from a magazine article (written by a doctor, not a Church authority):
Caffeine is a pretty gray area; a faithful Mormon wouldn’t drink coffee or tea, but Coke is pretty much up to the individual. Some LDS folks drink way too much Diet Coke, and others won’t touch a caffeinated beverage of any kind. (I myself love Dr. Pepper, but have switched to diet and almost entirely to caffeine-free, unless I can’t find it.) Now that energy drinks are popular with those crazy kids, some younger people drink them, but they’re really not considered OK. BYU actually stocks caffeine-free versions of just about every kind of soda, including stuff you can’t get outside of Utah like Barq’s and Dr. Pepper (non-diet).
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone talk about the physical effects of alcohol or drugs like you mean. I’m not sure why anyone would give a description of what it feels like to be high. Those who know don’t want to talk about it much, and those who don’t can’t describe it anyway.
Myself, I’ve never taken a drink or anything like that, nor have I ever been tempted to–my personal weaknesses lie elsewhere. Between my alcoholic relatives and my personal aversion to the smell of coffee, beer, or any of that stuff, it’s never happened. A high school friend of mine once told me she’d taken a sip of beer at a party to see what it was like. I have no idea whether she ‘confessed’ it to anyone else.
Coffee isn’t difficult to resist at all. It smells horrible to me; I think I get that from my dad, since most people seem to actually like the smell and flavor. (My dad grew up with coffee-drinking parents and always hated it.) Coke and Pepsi taste awful–“malted battery acid” is a great description–but Dr. Pepper is pure nectar.
Or we can be honest about the issue and say it like it is–the leaders of the LDS Church are homophobic, hateful bigots. And their bigotry is encouraged by faithful followers who are happy to call it a “societal issue” and ignore the fact that their bigotry is hurting gays and lesbians, hurting the friends and families of gays and lesbians, and setting back the course of civil rights. And anybody who says it’s just about marriage is either being disingenuous, ignorant, or blatantly lying. And that’s the one thing that really, really makes me angry.
The claim I saw over and over (in utah and elsewhere) was that the LDS Church was “afraid” that if gay marriages were legalized, they would have to perform them in their Temples. Of course, the the LDS Church does not recognize civil marriages as fulfilling the requirements of the marriage sacrament, and that is why it’s critical to be sealed in the Temple for “time and all eternity.” Civil marriages are only “til death do you part.”
So, fact one, gay marriages would not be recognized in Heaven, even if they are recognized on earth.
In 1967, Loving v Virginia made anti-miscegenation laws illegal. At the time, the vast, vast majority of the country did not support inter-racial marriages. In fact, it was at least as unpopular then as gay marriages are now. The courts decided it was a violation of civil rights, except in a few states where inter-racial marriage was already legal. Also at this time, in the LDS Church Blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood in 1967, and thus, could not be married in the Temple. Of course, as dangermom points out, marriage is the cornerstone of the church and heavily emphasized. Marriage, in fact, is necessary to reach the highest orders of Heaven. You can’t get there unless you’re sealed. The black members of the LDS Church could only be married civilly, “til death” and you would think the leadership would raise a stink because surely, if black men were allowed to marry white women civilly, the country would force the LDS Church to allow black men to marry white women in the Temples, too, right? Only, there wasn’t. In fact, in Utah the anti-miscegenation law was repealed in 1963. And Mormons had an even tighter hold of the state legislature then than they do now.
Black men were not allowed to hold the priesthood, and thus, not allowed to marry for “time and all eternity” until 1978. Even though they could marry white members of the Church, and presumably have children with them.
Yes, I know the two aren’t exact parallels, but I think they’re pretty damned close, and I think it holds up an interesting light to the discussion. The LDS Church is fighting a battle out of bigotry and hate, and there are no other motives for it, period. You can find a million justifications for it, but when it comes down to it, civil marriages have nothing to do with the Temple marriages, which is the real cornerstone of the Church’s focus on marriage.
Fact two, there was considerably less resistance to the notion of allowing other marriages that could not be performed in the temple.
The Church has a series of 13 statements of belief, called The Articles of Faith. For those of you who don’t know, these are the fundamental beliefs of the Church
So, not only are they lying about how civil marriages will affect the church, not only are they ignoring their own past, the leadership is also giving a big “Fuck you” to their own Articles of Faith! Or maybe they can see an extra bit I can’t? “…and sustaining the law, unless it gets in the way of our hateful bigotry, in which case, we reserve the right to actively change the law and wipe our collective asses with state constitutions.” Remember that gay marriage was the law in California, and Prop 8 interfered with that. It’s one thing to stop it from happening, it’s quite another to interfere with an already existing law.
Not all LDS members are homophobic bigots. But at long as they continue to support the leadership on this one, they’re going to be painted with the same brush.
The people in my life hate Catholics almost as much as they hate atheists.
Eh. On the one hand, missionaries are NOT universally young and naive. In fact, I knew quite a few who were not virgins, who liked to party, smoke pot, get drunk, etc. It’s likely that they were aware of the charade. It’s also likely that they just liked going to a nice guy’s house to sit and talk for a bit.
Constantly accosted? Um…no. I’m guessing your friend has a very active imagination or she just thinks it would make for a funny story. I don’t even think there’s a kernel of truth here.
I grew up with a certain vision of what the LDS Church meant. I truly believed that men with the priesthood received guidance and support from God the Father. I believed that the Church followed Christ’s example of loving everybody, of helping everybody, of doing good works and charity. I believed that to be devout was to be a good person, not hateful, not a bigot, not somebody who would shame God. I think there are a few LDS men in politics right now who fit that description, and I would not have a problem if they were president. Unfortunately, it seems like to many Mormons have forgotten the bits about good works, charity, and God loving everybody, every one of his children. So, if he was a hateful bigot, like the leadership of his church, I’d be pretty horrified if he became president.
In 1997, there was an internal memo outlining the strategy to stop gay marriage. The key part was the plan to unite with the Catholic Church, so that when the bans happened, the LDS Church wouldn’t be blamed. Because, of course, the LDS Church is extremely aware of public perception and wants to be considered more mainstream.
But there’s something else happening in the memo, as well. The pages are posted here. There’s the warning that “proposed domestic partnerships need to be watched carefully” because they aren’t alternatives, they’ll just become “H.L.M” by “another name.”
The memo also acknowledges that certain “legal rights” will have to be granted in order to “win the struggle.” The memo specifies that they should be willing to lose the battle on hospital visits in order to win the war.
So, the LDS Church strategy, that Gordon B. Hinkley signed off on, is to fight “H.L.M” as well as fight civil unions that are really just “H.L.M” by another name, but to make this easier for them, allow things like “hospital visits.”
The LDS Church doesn’t want “domestic partnerships.” The LDS Church doesn’t want to protect the word “marriage” like it has any special meaning to them. They want homosexuals to be second-class citizens.
Or the new generation of Osmond Brothers and Cousins:
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
That family’s Y chromosome needs to be studied; they have the highest ratio of sons to daughters of any family I’ve ever known. Donny & Marie’s parents had 9 sons and 1 girl. Brother Alan has 8 sons (0 daughters), Donny has 5 sons (0 daughters), and most of the other brothers have more sons than daughters as do several of the grandsons. There’s testosterone in the water in Provo.
The reason I’m not happy about mormons participating in this discussion is because each individual has their own spin on things and nobody is actually quoting scripture. Go back and re-read Dangermom’s explanation about why mormons abstain.
If you read this carefully – and it is canon – then it is clear that Joseph Smith says it’s okay to take wine as your sacrament in your church services, as long as you make it yourself. It also says nothing about caffeine vs. decaffeinated drinks. It specifically prohibits hot drinks, which means herbal tea and hot chocolate and soup drunk from a mug are right out. Yet, every mormon I know reads this scripture and starts babbling on about caffeine… while sipping from their hot cocoa. Call up any mormon bishop and ask about this and you will get a different answer from each guy.
Every mormon I know also eats meat, which is specifically forbidden in verses 12 and 13, except during times of famine, or in winter. According to this scripture, mormons should be mostly vegetarian. But you’ll never hear word one about those verses in Sunday School or in Seminary.
Furthermore, I included verse 17 because it clearly implies that beer is okay! Can you think of any other “mild drinks made from barley”? I cannot. Yet, any mormon who confesses to drinking beer could have his or her temple recommend(ation) revoked, or any number of other sanctions, depending on that person’s position and the asshat-level of the presiding bishop at that time.
To me, the mormon doctrine makes no sense and if you ask 12 faithful mormons about it, you will get 12 different answers depending on whether their parents were doubters or stake presidents, or if they grew up in Utah or someplace else (anything that isn’t Utah is referred to as “the mission field.”). It would be more productive to attempt nailing jello to a wall.
Preferably green jello with bits of carrot suspended in it. :: shudder ::
shrug The question was asked, and current Mormons were specifically included. I don’t plan to post unless I’m asked to. I’ll ignore the whole thread if everyone promises not to ask current Mormons questions.
You’re correct about the scripture, but current Church interpretation is ‘hot drinks’ = ‘coffee and tea.’ And as we know, a fundamental tenet of LDS belief is modern revelation. Same goes for homemade wine and mild drinks (btw, how’bout barley water, the popular 19th century health drink?). As for meat, I agree with you, which is why we don’t eat much meat at our house (though because my daughter is allergic to all legumes, we eat more than we would otherwise).
Joseph Smith clarified “hot drinks” within a week after the scripture was presented (see footnote 1 here: Word of Wisdom, Caffeine and Hypocrisy - FAIR ). The membership of the church agreed in 1851 about alcohol, etc.
The thing that I most wonder about Mormons, and there’s no way to say this without it sounding insulting though it’s honestly not meant to be, is how intelligent people- and there are many intelligent Mormons*- can believe the teachings of the Book of Mormon. While I know that it’s no stranger IN SOME WAYS than believing virgin born carpenter-rabbis get resurrected and 90 year old women give birth and God can strike every first born dead and or rain fire and pestilence and flood on people who pisseth him (but He loves you), a difference is that this is believed IN ADDITION TO the loopier teachings of the Bible. Also- as mentioned- you’re talking about 175 years of history rather than several thousand years- so recently there are photographs and autographs and personal effects and- most importantly- alternative accounts of the people involved, as well as vast amounts of evidence against the American prehistory claims of the BoM and no evidence by non-Mormons in support of it. Then there are the matters of Blood Atonement, polygamy (actually one of the more boring aspects of the 19th century Mormons- less harem abasically Little House on the Prairie with extra Ma’s), convenient revelations, the obvious Masonic borrowing, etc…
Now again, I honestly don’t mean offense, and I know that there are intelligent Mormons and in fact BYU has several internationally ranked departments, but I don’t understand how an intelligent person can have anything remotely resembling a critical thinking function and accept as granted that there were horses in the ancient Americas or that the rejection of polygamy was divine rather than a matter of political expedience, etc… I used to assume that many if not most intelligent Mormons were perhaps like many [if not most] intelligent Christians in that they liked the notion of the religion and the family importance and the heritage, etc., but took Smith’s revelations with a serious dose of salt and a “maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not, but right or wrong I like the core of the church itself” attitude. This doesn’t seem to be the attitude however, and the church in fact heavily discourages if not outright forbids a revisionist or selective or allegorical interpretations of the teachings.
I don’t know how anyone would give insight on this, but any attempts are welcome.
And in purposes of diplomacy let me add again:
1- I don’t think Mormons are intrinsically stupid
2- I think Mormon history is fascinating
3- I think in many ways Mormonism is one of the most admirable of religions
*During my Brigham Young fixation when I was a teenager I used to correspond with a Mormon historian named Leonard Arrington who was super nice, super intelligent, and extremely well regarded by his peers both inside and outside the faith, save for his lack of objectivity in writing on the religion itself. He didn’t realize I was a non-Mormon for some while [how many 18 year olds are fascinated with Brigham Young, after all?] until in asking me about my mission I volunteered it, assuming he’d never write again; instead he began writing all the more frequently, asking what I found so fascinating and seeming legitimately interested in my answers, and never once trying to dispatch missionaries to my house or in any way convert me. He even had a sense of humor about the religion and Fawn Brodie [actually compared dropping her name in a room full of Mormon professors to the Baby Ruth in the pool- I remember being stunned that a 70-something Mormon historian could make a Caddy Shack reference!] and seemed to be genuinely happy to discuss things such as Amelia Folsom [Brigham’s shrew of a wife who made him little short of a monogamist for his last 15 years] with a young Gentile. At the time I was more interested in pursuing a role as a writer of serious scholarly historical non-fiction and I mentioned wanting to write the definitive non-Mormon bio of Young but from an objective non-judgmental framework, and I think this seriously appealed to him. He even offered to see about making sleeping arrangements in the BYU dorms and arranging interviews with other historians and experts should I ever have the chance to come to Provo or Utah. Life happened and I had to drop the project and I hadn’t corresponded with him for years over the last decade of his life, but I remember feeling sad upon learning he had died; I seriously wish I still had those letters but they’re long gone many moves ago.
I lived in SLC for a year, and I can remember only a few times when the missionaries came to my door. I lived in an apartment complex, you would think that the proximity of so many potential converts would be enticing. But then again, being a missionary in SLC - wow, that has to be a tough gig. So many people already playing on the same team. I guess my question is (and I apologize if this was already covered) do they save the best “salespeople” or the worst for a mission in SLC? Is it a put-down, like they already expect you to fail because most of the people are already Mo’s? Or is it a challenge given to the best and brightest?
I worked with many Mormons, mostly women who encouraged me to have a baby. This was weird because at the time I was 44 years old and not married. I guess since I was not a mother, then I was considered “damaged” in some way. All I wanted to do was find a few friends to go skiing or hiking, and everyone around me was scrapbooking and playing with their many grandchildren. Sigh.
Thanks for the thread, very interesting stuff here. Is Snelgrove’s still called “Mormon foreplay”?
Professor colleagues I’ve known who’ve worked at universities in Utah and the “Mormitorium” colleges in Idaho, Arizona, Nevada and elsewhere state that it’s unusual how many traditional age college students (early 20s or so) are married with children. They also all agree that they juggle family and school better than any students they’ve ever had.
This is a good catch, pepperlandgirl. The Mormon church is NOT in favor of civil unions or any type of gay rights, and the fact they claimed to be in the wake of Proposition 8 was a breathtakingly shameless bit of political theater. In fact, after the church said they were okay with civil union-type rights for gays, just not gay marriage, Equality Utah, a LGBT-rights group, asked them to support a bill in the Utah legislature to grant hospital visitation, probate rights, and medical care. Of course, the Mormon church has not responded and in fact will never support any type of gay rights legislation in Utah, even the watered-down hospital visitation stuff.
Well, the reason that no one was quoting scripture is that the scripture doesn’t explain current Mormon practice. I think people are more interested in how modern Mormons live and believe and not the tortured history of the Word of Wisdom. As you noted, the Word of Wisdom only bears a distant relation to current Mormon practice of no coffee, tea, alcohol, and tobacco. In fact, Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, John Taylor, and Willard Richards drank wine and smoked tobacco in Carthage jail on the very day of Joseph’s murder. It’s clear that Joseph Smith didn’t have quite the same idea about the Word of Wisdom as the modern Mormon church.
I think this is a totally legitimate and fascinating sociological question. I don’t know that believing Mormons can bring much to THAT discussion, because they reject the whole premise of the question, which is that Mormonism is clearly and demonstrably false. I think it’s only former believers who can answer this question, as well as people familiar with other mass delusions, like Scientology or Holocaust denial. I think it boils down to (and I’m stealing this from a book): smart people believe dumb things because they are attached to these things for non-smart reasons. Basically, you have a population of people who are raised from infancy believing these things with a great deal of pressure from their families and communities to also believe and stay in the community. Any independent or outside sources about the religion are strongly discouraged and demonized as “anti-Mormon propaganda.”
Let’s think about what you are asking of believing Mormons, Sampiro, i.e. that they realize their religion is an obvious fraud. For many believing smart Mormons, you, Sampiro, are asking them to believe that their parents, friends, spouse, neighbors have all been deceived, are too stupid to see that they venerate a con-man. You, Sampiro, are asking them to believe that their great-grandparents died in vain for a false religion that was created to cover for one man’s sexual appetites. Mormonism requires massive amounts of time, energy, and money from its adherents. You are asking them to believe that the last 40 years of service to the church (tens of thousands of hours of their life) and the hundreds of thousands of dollars they’ve given to the Mormon church, and the ridicule and embarassing questions they’ve had to put up with, you’re telling them it was all for nothing. A sham. A scam. Can you see why that is so hard for people to do? It’s so much easier to believe. It’s comfortable. It’s known. It makes them feel good.
It is my conviction that smart Mormons (of which there are many) simply turn off their brains and critical thinking when it comes to religion. They can make scientific discoveries during the week, but they will never take the same approach to their faith, because they think the same rules don’t apply. Something doesn’t make sense at church? You just don’t have enough faith. Abraham didn’t understand why he was supposed to kill Isaac. He just had to go on faith, even though it was a stupid commandment from God.
By the way, that is a really cool story about Leonard Arrington. The man is still a legend in Mormon history circles, and he is known as the last church historian with a modicum of objectivity.
Another great question! The rule for missionaries is that they are never sent to their own home town. I would guess this is to eliminate distractions, like family members or friends who would live nearby. Therefore, the missionaries who are sent to Utah and Salt Lake City are invariably from other U.S. states or foreign countries (the aforementioned Temple Square female missionaries are often foreigners, so they can speak the language of almost any vistor). Generally speaking, getting sent to Salt Lake City (not Temple Square) is considered a hardship post. However, since there are so many Mormons there, they get fed lunch every day, and they even baptize a fair amount of people because Mormons are always bringing their friends to hear the discussions.
When you submit your application to go on a mission, they ask if you would be willing to learn a foreign language, and you have to submit your grades from high school and college (if any), plus any foreign language experience. Based on this, they decide who to send out of the country. I would have been extremely disappointed had I been sent to anywhere in the United States or Canada.
It is my impression that they tend to send the smarter missionaries out of the country, on the assumption that it’s hard to pick up a new language, but if they need to fill a spot in Topeka, KS, they’ll throw a valedictorian in there too. It’s really based mostly on what they need to fill and when. I think it would be a smarter policy to consistently send the smartest missionaries to Japan, which surely has to be the most difficult language to pick up, but I don’t think that’s the case. We should ask TokyoPlayer about the relative intelligence level of his co-missionaries (since it’s obvious that he is one of the best and brightest!).
Assuming no one has beaten me to this question, I should explain that Snelgrove’s is a local ice-cream parlor. That is too funny, beckwall, but I hadn’t heard that one before. Maybe moving away at 15 shielded me from all that ice-cream depravity.
You corresponded with Leonard Arrington??? Wow. Is there an “I am not worthy” smilie?
Yep, all you say is true, Sampiro. Not only are the vast majority of Mormons literal believers in their religion, we are oddballs in that faithfulness tends to increase with education; the more highly educated, the more devout (as a correlation thing).
The only reason I can offer for this completely strange fact is that Mormons also–on the whole, and each individually–truly believe that the Holy Spirit has influenced them personally. They believe that God has acted in their lives. For the most part, a Mormon who does not believe in a personal experience of God is not going to stay a practicing Mormon; it’s not that hard to slip out and indeed many do. Now, there are undoubtedly quite a few ‘cultural’ Mormons who go only because everyone expects them to, and they don’t care. I suppose they mostly live in Utah, but I wouldn’t know.
Obviously all this personal experience stuff is completely subjective; it can’t be proven and isn’t meant to be. But there it is.
Also, I would say that all the evidence one way and another can be interpreted in different ways; many people seem to think that a mention of horses isn’t an insurmountable problem and may have a reasonable explanation.
Of course erdosain’s explanation may also be the correct one. I suppose I’ll find out when I die. But it doesn’t really explain why many people convert to the LDS Church, who were not raised from infancy to believe, who do it in opposition to their families and friends.
Mormitorium, heh, I’ve never heard that one. I went to Berkeley.
I respect and appreciate dangermom’s contributions to this thread (I think it’s always best to get both sides of a story) but I would strenously disagree with the bolded portion above. Perhaps this is her personal experience, but it doesn’t jibe with mine. This is not to say the opposite is true, either. It’s just my experience (again, unverifiable and unquantifiable) that just as many highly educated people leave the church as less-educated. It’s a curious assertion, especially in light of the strong anti-intellectual strain in the Mormon church (but not anti-educational, somehow). Intellectuals are a frequent target of derision and warning, and this attitude springs directly from the Book of Mormon, in my opinion:
It’s okay to be smart and educated, but don’t bring those talents to bear on your religion! We need look no further than the September Six for examples of the Mormon church’s hostility towards intellectuals plying their trade in Mormon topics.
Again, I think this needs to be qualified. It’s “not that hard to slip out” as long as you don’t have any family members or a spouse who is Mormon. If you do, you’re going to have some grief. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve met online whose marriage is in serious trouble because one person believes and the other person doesn’t. In Mormonism, both spouses have to be equally diligent and faithful to reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom (heaven) and become gods. If one person suddenly doesn’t believe, it introduces a huge strain into the marriage because suddenly your spouse is the one messing up the afterlife for you.
Well it’s my assertion that you won’t find out anything when you die.
As for the question of why people convert to Mormonism (~250,000 per year), I question the quality of these converts. Not what quality of people they are, but rather the quality of their “conversion.” Retention rates of converts are extremely low. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, there is huge pressure to baptize as many people as possible, without regard to their level of conversion or even their mental capacity. I personally baptized at least one person who probably wasn’t all there mentally, but we did it anyway. And, as I also previously mentioned on the thread, most of these people (at least those outside the United States) are baptized without any knowledge of polygamy or the priesthood ban or any real church history. Very few converts (although there are undoubtedly some) go into this with their eyes open. Usually, we just baptize them in ignorance and hope they accept all the troubling stuff and outlandish stuff once they’re already part of the community.
They have a test that is supposed to measure the ability to learn languages、which you need to do well on the be sent to Japan and other missions with difficult languages. However, one of my friends from high did extremely well and got a State-side post. I think it’s more just the luck of the draw.
I’ve had this discussion with my sister, who also no longer believes, and we remark on my uncle, who was a well-renown engineering professor in a top school. It’s obvious that he has not given the same critical thinking to Mormonism, its history and the BoM which he gives to his academic subjects.
I went to high school with a really bright friend, who graduated from Stanford with a PhD in electrical engineering and has worked for 20 years in research. I asked him a couple of years ago about some of the conflicts and it was again obvious that he was willfully not questioning if the contrary evidence had merit or not. In fact, he mentioned some supposed research by someone, that supposedly found a place in the Middle East which matched a description in the BoM.
So what believers do is to disregard or discount the mountains of evidence to say something like
I find this fascinating, because I think this is the heart of the matter.
It was official Mormon doctrine for more than a century that Indians were the direct descendants of people from ancient Israel and that the BoM described events on both North and South America until DNA evidence proved otherwise. Now the unofficial take is a “limited geography” with the events supposedly happening only is a small area.
Then you show the next evidence and they claim that it can be interpreted in different ways, unless it becomes irrefutable. Then the official doctrine is quietly changed and life goes merrily one.
Meanwhile no one asks themselves why men with a direct phone line to God were so wrong on some basic facts. If they were wrong on that, what else were they wrong about? Oh, but that gets washed away with the line that the modern prophets and apostles only speak for God when at times and at other times they speak for themselves. But the Church and the members treat everything which comes from their mouths as scripture, so this line is only used for pronouncements which are provably false.
It may be a great method of maintaining belief, but this reasoning is intellectually dishonest.
It’s not so much personal experience as the statistical result of studies; while most denominations have a reverse correlation with education, the LDS Church has the opposite. I read about it a few years ago; that was an older study, but here’s a more recent one for you: Albrecht, Stan L. and Tim B. Heaton. “Secularization, higher education, and religiosity.” Published in Review of Religious Research, 26:43-58; reprinted in Latter-day Saint Social Life: Social Research on the LDS Church and Its Members (James T. Duke, ed.), Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 1998, pp. 293-314.
True, but that goes both ways; I’ve known about equal numbers of people whose marriages were strained or broken because the person who left pressured the faithful spouse to leave too.
Fair enough.
While the retention rate is low, I was more thinking about the many people I know personally who are converts. Like my SIL, who joined up despite her family’s anger, made them even madder by serving a mission (it took her months to work up the courage to tell them she wanted to go), committed the final awfulness of marrying an American, and now their favorite past-time is to lecture her on what an undutiful daughter she is. Or my parents, who joined before they met each other, both having been raised in non-religious homes. Probably half of my ward is made up of converts, so there’s no shortage. Oh, and my best friend; I won’t tell you her story, too long, but suffice that you would not have expected her to stick around.
Anyway. I think I’ll go watch Glenn Beck. (OK, I kid. I have to go finish The Graveyard Book.)
(OK, I kid. I have to go finish The Graveyard Book.)