Yes, but times have changed in a lot of ways. I don’t believe there’s anyplace where Catholics are legally torturing non-Catholics today.
That’s certainly true, these days it’s much more probable for a Catholic to be tortured and killed for their religion in some parts of the world than the Catholic Church torturing anyone for their beliefs. Times change indeed.
I wasn’t attempting to convert anyone except maybe myself (I was considering converting to mainstream Christianity, particularly Lutheranism, at the time, as my now-husband is Lutheran), which is why I really wanted to know what people thought who were members of the religion. I totally agree that the true answer is probably “I’m not sure and don’t really care.” But… if that’s the answer, then does it really matter whether you believe in the Nicene Trinity or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints quasi-Arian “trinity”?
Thanks @TokyoBayer , yes, you are absolutely right. And up to the present day there’s a strain of knowing how the religion differs from other Christian churches – so, most members would be able to tell you that we believe God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings.
This is a really interesting parallel and one I hadn’t quite thought of before. (I only have direct experience of your latter case for kid sports, but I definitely know families who are “all in” with more like your former case. I do have a bit more experience with academic competitions and commitment to them, but they aren’t nearly as family-all-consuming as sports can be and generally don’t have the same kind of family social aspect as I am given to understand the committed sports teams have.)
I would say that those Pew Research findings are probably still more-or-less valid.
Thanks, I appreciate it.
Yeah, that’s who I was thinking of when I mentioned ‘breaking upon the wheel’ earlier.
Their story is the subject of the first Hardcore History podcast episode I listened to, quite a few years ago now:
Not seeing how this relates to Mormonism.
Mormonism thrived in the modern era (modern here including the early 1800s) because unlike medieval examples of non-Nicene Christians, they weren’t tortured and murdered en masse by Nicene Christians.
If Joseph Smith had been born in Europe in 1505 instead of America in 1805 and he tried to preach the same message (or honestly any time in the preceding thousand years), he would very likely have shared Jan Matthys’ fate.
The Mormons were driven out of several states. They didn’t choose the Utah desert because it’s pretty. And they survived because of a miracle, a swarm of edible “Mormon crickets” that appeared at an opportune time.
Sure, and there were even bloody massacres involved. Compare that to what happened to the Anabaptists in Munster. Getting driven off to a backwater part of Europe to build their own community would have been a mercy in comparison to what actually happened:
Of course. I’m quite familiar with the Mormon history and as a ex/Mormon, I’m certain I know a lot more about the secrets in Mormon history than most people here. I also have much stronger feelings about them.
However, the idea of this thread is to discuss Mormon theology from the perspective of current members, former members and outsiders.
While there is no reason to whitewash the past, there are better forums for debating the negative aspects.
If people wish to get into a larger debate about what happened in Christianity in medieval Europe, then we end the conversation about Mormonism and let you’ll take it in that direction.
@Monty and @raspberry_hunter how much are current members aware of polygamy?
I’ve heard that the history of polygamy has slowly been removed from discussion, that the official position is the while it happened historically, it’s no longer a doctrine.
Growing up in the 60s and 70s, we were taught the the practice was suspended but the doctrine was still there.
Their bodies were exhibited in cages which hung from the steeple of St. Lambert’s Church. The bones were removed later, but the cages hang there still.
Indeed they do. And there are ample pictures if you search for them, but for some reason I am unable to link to any this morning.
That’s interesting. I thought there’d been a revelation to end it.
I mentioned that at least one of my ancestors practiced polygamy. I am the result of a second wife, so I guess if it wasn’t for polygamy I wouldn’t exist.
My belief was that it was revelation to start and to stop it. I heard (but probably not official teaching) that the reason was there were a lot more women than men and this was a way to grow the church by multiplying the number of children. And I was taught that the reason to end it was because it was illegal in the United States (Utah wasn’t a state yet) and they stopped to obey the laws of the land.
And there were (and probably still are) groups that still practice it. I guess they felt the Mormon church was wrong for stopping it.
Does that fit current teaching?
Some years ago, a pair of LDS missionaries came to the door. The wife and I invited them in for some pleasant conversation. No hard sell. They made an appointment to come back with the Bishop. At that meeting they made a glossy presentation from a large folder. The Bishop filled in the fine points. One of the things he covered was that an accountant would meet with us once a year and go over our IRS filing to determine the tithe. I have been told by other LDS that is not true. So, I am curious, how is the tithe determined? We were making good bucks at the time, so would I have had to shell out twenty five thousand cash to get a membership card?
Much of what happens in the local congregation is indeed determined by how much of a hard-ass the Bishop is. I think the phrase “Bishop Roulette” has already been mentioned in this thread?
Regardless, yes, you would have to promise to keep “The Law of Tithing” before they let you join. Whether you make financial offerings after baptism is up to you; they’d apply pressure but wouldn’t kick you out. The annual meeting was called “Tithing Settlement” back when I was a financial clerk but I believe has been renamed since. There you go in and they give you a printout of everything you’ve given to the church, and then you go in to talk to the Bishop and state whether that represents a “full tithe” or not. If you refuse to participate in the meeting then he uses his “power of discernment” to declare your status for you. Once declarations have been made for the entire congregation then the report is submitted to the Stake and electronically to the church HQ.
The only consequence of not tithing is that you won’t be eligible for certain callings, nor will you be able to attend the temple. Depending on your Bishop they may tell you that you can’t give blessings for the sick without a recommend, but this (to me) is a form of “unrighteous dominion”. (You wouldn’t be ordained an Elder without paying tithes, however; telling you to stop exercising the “priesthood” would only happen if you paid at first and then lapsed, and only if you have a hard-liner Pharisee Bishop rather than a chill one.)
I have no doubt that some Bishops would require you to bring in financial statements if they think you are lying. Some might tell you to just because they are anal-openings, or if you are seeking financial assistance from the church. But in no way is it standard practice to have to prove you are being honest.
So, yes, 25K to join and then 25K (or whatever 10% is) every year afterwards. Compared to eternity, isn’t that a truly awesome deal?
What did it mean to “exercise the priesthood”?
My finances are a lot different now then they were when I was a Mormon. If I were to join (I wouldn’t) I would ask if I could do “deductions”, like what is available for federal taxes. Would there be cases that it’s not gross on income. What if a significant amount of my income is going to elder-care or something like that?
Yeah, sorry… there’s a whole new vocabulary to learn to be in this church 
Once you are ordained as an Elder (adult men) or Priest (typically teenage boys, though maybe an adult man right after being baptised (men usually have to wait several months before becoming an Elder to make sure they toe the line)) you can give blessings on the sacrament / communion, baptise other people, and (as an Elder) give healing or comfort blessings, as well as dedicate graves, give new members the Gift of the Holy Ghost, or ordain other people to the Priesthood.
Giving a blessing is sometimes used with consecrated olive oil (for healing, but not usually for comfort/counsel) but involves laying your hands on the person’s head, opening in prayer to God and then stating your authority for being able to speak in his name. That’s followed by whatever words come to you… yeah, it’s a lot of pressure if you have to give someone a “healing” blessing after a cancer diagnosis because they put a lot of faith into what’s said to see if they live or not. The idea is you are telling them the words God wants them to hear at that time.
Anyway, all that stuff is referred to as “exercising the priesthood”, and some Bishops feel like they have the authority to say that you aren’t worthy to bless your kids just because you aren’t paying tithes. (They are wrong.)
To my knowledge there isn’t anything that officially says one way or another. Again, it’s Bishop roulette, where you may get one bishop who says it’s ok to include donations to the Red Cross in your tithing amount and others who say “You’re being very generous with the Lord’s money!” and disallow it. You’d then have to make a top-up payment during tithing settlement in order to keep your temple recommend.
In the specific case of elder care, I’d argue that you are paying your parents and it’s up to them if they want to count that as “income” (and subject to tithing) or not, just like a business owner would deduct wages to employees and not be taxed/tithed on that income.
So deduct it and tithe what’s left over. If you go into the settlement meeting and basically tell the bishop “I prayed about it and this is what the Lord want’s me to do” how’s he going to argue with that?
Uhhhhh okay up until today when I read your post I thought it was still a doctrine, but sure enough on the LDS site it says that “The standard doctrine of the Church is monogamy, as it always has been, as indicated in the Book of Mormon… In other words, the standard of the Lord’s people is monogamy unless the Lord reveals otherwise. Latter-day Saints believe the season the Church practiced polygamy was one of these exceptions.” Wow! That’s a marked change from, like… the last time I taught this class, which would have been eight years ago. (And may even be a change from four years ago, although I wasn’t paying as much attention that time around for various reasons.) How about that. (And many apologies @Author_Balk , when I replied to you before about this topic, I had thought polygamy was still a doctrine.)
Current members are still aware of polygamy. I mean, let’s face it, current non-members are aware of polygamy. We still do study the D&C section and polygamy is explicitly mentioned in the manual (I checked). But yeah, definitely an absolute sea change, this one not just in emphasis but actual theology. Eight years ago it was still along the lines of, polygamy/”celestial marriage” is the doctrine of the Lord and still in effect, and it just happens that we aren’t asked to live it in that particular way right now (like you say, practice suspended, doctrine still there), and I remember having a whole discussion in my class about how people were glad we weren’t asked to live it in these particular days.
Guess I would have figured all of this out next month when I’m slated to teach exactly this section!
It is still the case that a man whose (sealed) wife dies can get re-sealed to a second wife in this life, but a woman whose (sealed) husband dies cannot be re-sealed to another man in this life. (I think this is lame!)
There was a revelation to end the practice, but up until, uh, apparently this decade, it was taught that (as @TokyoBayer said) the practice was suspended but the doctrine was still there, and it was understood that in the eternities (afterlife) plural marriage was a thing.
Your first and last sentences are considered actual revealed scripture, so yep, still how it is taught. The middle sentence is how a lot of people understand it, yeah, but not revelation.