To what extent do Mormons today discuss/analyze Joseph Smith and the origin story? To a non-believer, JS and his story just sound like so much nonsense. How do Mormons justify to themselves a belief in this particular hard-to-believe story? Do they compare the “legend” of Mormon to the backstories of other religions?
To what extent does the church’s success influence members’ belief. Is participation viewed as somewhat of a “prosperity gospel”? Is there a significant contrast between how Mormons feel and act in Utah - where temple membership is a vital social lubricant, as opposed to elsewhere, where Mormons might find themselves in the minority?
I periodically think about the effect of time on a religion’s broad acceptance. To a nonbeliever, the Bible story seems pretty nonsensical. Clearly the creation of iron-age traditions and lore. But it benefits from the uncertainty of age. No so The Book of Mormon. Or more recently, Scientology - which seems pretty blatantly to have been created as a scam.
I do not mean this to be disrespectful. I simply wonder why people choose to believe elaborately detailed hard-to-believe things, when there are so many other hard-to-believe stories - or preferably, simple non-belief - available.
Speculation has always been discouraged in recent church history, but the difference is what was allowed to be said out loud.
Acceptance of the pre-existence was so wide spread, it wasn’t seen as speculation.
There were other topics which were taboo to discuss even back in the 70s, such as the nature of Heavenly Mother. Absolutely no speculation allowed.
Historically, the 1850 and 60s were the craziest in terms of speculation, especially led by apostles giving sermons and going off on wild riffs.
Before Joseph Smith was killed in 1844, he had the final say on revelations and interpretations. The Saints were busy surviving and then relocating to the inhospitable deserts of Utah and the surrounding areas.
Brigham Young was the great organizer and saved the movement, but didn’t have the same vision as Smith for changing doctrine. He didn’t seem as curious and his great contribution was later declared heresy. That was the God Adam Doctrine.
I’m ex-Mormon and find the JS story silly as well (sorry @Monty ) but it doesn’t seem any sillier than the son of a carpenter being a god in disguise and rising from the dead three days later.
Modern science has forced some significant changes in theology, though.
When I was growing up, pretty much everyone was a Young Earth Creationist (although that name wasn’t used then), believed that the Book of Mormon was literal history and that the American Indians were descendants of Jews.
While many Mormons still believe that (hi Mom!) I know some who don’t.
Yup. A number of universities have professors of Mormon studies, but because they are BYU and are trying to convert people, but because the rapid changes in a religion’s beliefs and structure, etc. are documented and still available (depending on the mood of the Church ) where the same documentation doesn’t exist for other major religions.
Because of the Internet, a lot more information is available and widespread. There are a lot of people who investigate the history and become disillusioned, and many quit.
It’s my understanding that it’s getting harder to convert people as well. Organized religions in Western countries are all losing members so it’s not just an LSD problem.
Back in the day, I believed the American Indians were decedents of the Jews. They were frequently called Lamanites. I don’t know what the current belief is. I understand that later they found out from DNA that they came from Asia. I’m curious about current beliefs.
My experience. We prayed about the church, the prophet, Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, etc. We got confirmation from the Holy Ghost, that it’s true (yes, this happened to me too). If the Holy Ghost tells you it’s true then who am I to question it? And everyone gave their testimony about how they know it’s true. Everyone else knows it’s true because of a personal revelation from God. They can’t all be wrong.
I don’t think the musical made a big influence on the Mormon community itself in general, in the sense that I don’t think too many believing members watched it. Even I, who do not really count as an orthodox member, took years to watch it. It’s something I probably wouldn’t admit to, either, unless someone else who was at least slightly more orthodox brought it up first (which did happen to me once). Missionaries 100% do not watch it! However, the Church spends a lot of time thinking about PR, and you don’t have to have watched it to know that it does make fun of some of the more oddball beliefs, and I could totally believe that this was a data point that someone up there in the hierarchy used (probably with many others, of course) that we should pivot to a more mainstream-Christian outlook.
Yes, this. And like @TokyoBayer says, it’s not really that much more far-fetched than a guy rising from the dead after three days, though as you say it benefits from a lot of time having passed since then.
(Although this confirmation never really happened to me. I’m not a typical member, although I’ve come to realize I’m not the only one – people who maybe don’t have that testimony but have decided to be in anyway.)
Hmm, this is a hard question. No question about it that LDS folk tend to be very successful, partially because we have a lot of clean-cut white guys, and partially because there is actually a lot of training and support for modes that lead to successful outcomes (hard work and goal setting is something you hear about a lot, and more than that, every freaking week is an exercise in learning socialization and how to talk to others, and if you go on a mission which many of the youth do, you get 18months/2 years worth of practice talking to strangers and trying to convince them of things, getting along with others you might not have a ton in common with, etc. I mean, no wonder that a lot of LDS tend to become powers in the business world!
However, there is a very significant part of the theology and what we get taught at church that adversity, including financial adversity, is part of the plan of salvation and that we all have to go through trials. So you would tend not to find proponents of the kind of “prosperity gospel” that can be seen elsewhere. And there is also a ton of help and support available for people in the ward who need it, both monetary and otherwise, although at the same time there is a definite expectation that everyone in the ward will work hard.
…On the other hand, if you look at who makes up the leadership of the church both locally and globally, it’s generally people who are very successful in their careers. So, you know, there’s that too.
I don’t really know what Utah is like these days. Twenty years ago I know there was a distinct difference between places where Church members were the majority (like Utah) and minority (like California) and extreme minority (like the South). Places where we were the minority tended to be less judgmental, more accepting of different kinds of people, while the members were still very devout. Places where we were the majority tended to be more judgmental but also often a bit more hypocritical, like, you got more people sort of acting the way they knew they were supposed to act in public but not as much in private. Places where we were the extreme minority tended to also be more judgmental because you only really retained the true believers.
Oh, the pre-existence is doctrine. That’s not speculation.
When you start saying things like “My wife and I must have met in the pre-existence and vowed to find each other when we came to Earth” (okay, I’ve never quite heard anyone say exactly that, but it’s not too far off) then that’s speculation, and the kind of thing that isn’t really said these days but the kind of thing where I feel like it wouldn’t have been so off to say in the 1980’s.
I remember being told that we weren’t even able to talk about Her besides very brief mentions. Then my bishop mentioned (this was maybe five-ten years ago now?) that no, we could mention Heavenly Mother, there was nothing that actually prohibited it, which was surprising to me.
Yes, this. And many mainstream Christians don’t actually believe in the Trinity when it comes down to it. I can’t tell you the number of conversations I had, back when I was learning more about Christianity, that went something like,
Me: “So tell me about the Trinity?”
Friend: “The tagline is one God, three distinct Persons.”
Me: “What does that even mean?”
Friend: “Well, I guess it means that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate people who have the same goals.”
Me: “Hey, yeah, that’s what my church believes too!”
This probably describes me, but there are a lot of people who do truly believe because they’ve been told so by the Holy Ghost, as in @Author_Balk ‘s post.
Yes, absolutely. Not sure what you mean by “expanded to everyone”?
Still pretty similar (cover shoulders, etc.), but one thing I’ve noticed is that it’s OK to wear shorts now, like, you don’t have to wear shorts that go all the way to your knees. Possibly because it’s now impossible to find shorts that go to the knees. Also I see more facial hair and fewer suits for the guys, though I think bishoprics, etc. still have to be clean-shaven.
I mean. We’re reading the D&C for Come Follow Me this year, and the early Church is littered with stuff like that (like Independence, MO being the gathering place – oh, the Missourians are driving you out, never mind). I think the miracle might be that anyone did keep following Joseph Smith after how many times this happened.
We still believe that. I don’t think anyone would say you were taught wrong. It’s just not emphasized.
Here’s a quote by C.S. Lewis (who wasn’t even Mormon, lol) that I think sums it up: “It may be possible for each to think too much of his own potential glory hereafter; it is hardly possible for him to think too often or too deeply about that of his neighbour… It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses…”
I don’t think it’s healthy to spend too much time thinking about how we are going to be glorious gods, even if we are, and I think someone realized that, but at the same time it’s healthy to know that we are children of God, and that everyone around us is as well.
My favorite bishop said (in response to the 2015 policy that children of gay relationships could not be baptized): The root of the gospel is love; everything else is policy [and can be changed].
Even if the leaders of the Church are led by revelation from God, I think they must get it wrong sometimes because of their own biases and imperfections. No one is perfect.
I guess the other thing I would say (also in response to your question “How would I have known?”) is that sometimes people pray about things and get answers that don’t fit the dogma of the current Church. I guess it’s up to the individual person how much they trust their relationship with the Holy Ghost. I do have some things that I feel very deeply about where the Church current procedure is different. That 2015 policy was one of them. I felt very, very strongly that the policy was not right and not Christlike and not what God would want for His children. (I almost left the Church over it, and might have had it not been for that bishop.)
In some ways yes, in some ways no. I think it’s always been the case that the religion has said that things might well change as we learn more. I mean certainly a LOT of things changed frequently in the early Church as Joseph Smith got more revelations (and, one might presume, more life experience).
A lot of people, in a lot of religions, live this way. So much so that my personal dividing line between “religion” and “weird cult” is whether non-believers who were both and raised in the group can remain members in good standing and live a productive life. By this test, the Mormon Church falls squarely into “religion”. I like to talk about religion with people, and I’ve met any number of practicing Catholics who think the Church is wrong about major points, practicing Orthodox Jews who don’t believe in God at all, etc.
While the lifestyle promulgated by the Mormon Church doesn’t work for everyone, it’s a pretty healthy lifestyle for an awful lot of people.
I can’t help but think the lack of certain vices, such as alcohol and drugs, also helps keep the believers on a productive path. I’m sure there are Mormons who fall off the straight and narrow but the religion/culture steering them away from those two helps. I see a lot of people pour resources into those vices that could have gone to any number of other things.
Judaism is different from the “get saved” Jesus and Mohammad religions in that what you believe almost never comes up for discussion. There’s a much greater emphasis on how you behave - do you follow the mitzvot or not, as an example - than personal belief.
Eh, all mainstream Christians have followed the nicene creed for more than 1500 years, having driven the non-nicene heretics out of the fold. Wikipedia says:
Nearly all Christian denominations, including Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches (e.g., Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Continental Reformed, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Baptists), regard the Nicene Creed as a foundational and authoritative statement of faith. Thus approximately 98.5%[61] of the world’s Christians are Nicene Christians, adhering to the Nicene Creed’s Trinitarian and Christological doctrines. The remaining 1.5% include non-Trinitarian groups such as the LDS Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Swedenborgians, etc. (see below).
And Mormon theology is weird even compared to other non-nicene groups.
I have literally never heard anyone say this. It’s pretty common for Christians to say, " i don’t understand it" or even, “it’s a mystery”. But I’ve never heard a mainstream Christian describe Jesus and the father as separate people. I agree that it’s not something most Christians spend a lot of time thinking about.
I had a gay friend who converted to the Mormon faith before he realized he was gay. (Although as he described it, having a crush on one of the missionaries played a role in his conversion.) But even after he came out as gay, he never completely left the Mormon Church. We visited Salt Lake City together, (on the occasion of a gay square dance convention) and it was spiritually moving for him to be there, at the center of world Mormonism. He asked me to take his picture with some of the symbols of the religion. And he told me that when a priest (?? I’m not clear on the names of Mormon religious authorities ??) chastised him for being openly gay, he replied that he had prayed, and the Holy Ghost assured him that he was okay. And so the priest dropped the topic, and my friend was never formally removed from the official tally of Mormons. He considered himself a Mormon until his death.
Yeah - I can almost imagine someone making the calculated decision that the history is nonsense, but if I belong to this club, it will help me socially and professionally. Almost like any group like Rotarians…. In my mind, today’s LDS almost seems like some combination of Tony Robbins and the Kiwanis club. A program of lifestyle/economic/financial habits that will make you successful. Oh yeah - and by the way - we’ll give lip service to this nonsensical bit of make believe.
I was raised Catholic, and arrived at my non-belief all by myself while in grade school, when I realized that the “only Catholics go to heaven” was nonsense. Since that decision came so easily to me, I wonder why it does not occur to more of the purported believers in various faiths/cults. Especially when it comes to something as wacky as Joseph Smith. Later, when we were looking into potential churches to join to provide our kids some comparative religion training, we considered the specific teachings of the various denominations. Really struck me as odd that so many folk go to the church nearby out of convenience, or because that is where their parents went, without checking the extent to which they agree with that church’s basic principles.
Thank you all for your thoughtful responses.
If it does not risk running too far afield, could you explain this a tad? Are you saying kids who were raised in some weird commune are likely to be more messed up as adults than, say, Mormons who leave the church? What churches allow non-believers to remain members? During our search I remember thinking Judaism sounded pretty good, but when we asked Rabbi Bob if the whole belief in a God was required, he said “Pretty much.” I’m sure the Catholic church will accept $ from anyone, but can you remain a member if you disavow God and the trinity?
Sure, Nicene Christians were very good (and very very brutal) at stamping our most “heresies” that predated the Nicene Creed or popped up afterwards. The vast majority of such sects are forgotten now, their last members having faded into obscurity or been burned at the stake.
Birds are the only surviving dinosaurs, but that doesn’t mean Brachiosaurus wasn’t a dinosaur. Likewise, most non-Nicene branches of Christianity are extinct, but this doesn’t mean a follower of Jesus who doesn’t hold those beliefs isn’t a Christian.
Isn’t the LDS Church basically the same as Mormons, other than splinter churches that still fall under the category of “Mormon”? Wikipedia specifically mentions them as an example of non-Nicene Christians.
