Do Actual Mormons follow their own rules? If not, what happens?

[raspberry_hunter]

@TokyoPlayer

Nope. Day to day things, such as being kind to others are less important than the appearance of evil. Lest I be challenged on this, I’ll ask which of these come up in the temple recommend interview.

But I’ll certainly be happy to be proved wrong. Let someone provide evidence.

I think sassyfras was more talking about daily things like the WoW than being kind to others.

I don’t deny that Mormons are way, way more image conscious than is quite healthy. In my experience Utah Mormons tend to be even more so than others. I had a friend from Utah who had it quite badly – she had a really hard time admitting any kind of imperfections; you could see her tense up and defenses go up if she had to admit something as innocuous as “Sometimes we aren’t able to have a full half-an-hour family scripture study every day.”

But on the other hand… I’m still in the LDS Church today because people were really, REALLY kind and loving to me on a regular basis (and still are). For some of these people I know, I feel that they’ve internalized the idea of living a Christ-like life so much that they don’t even realize they’re doing it, and yet they are. And some of the rules (like visiting and home teaching, which I hated for years and years) are rules enforced by peer pressure (seriously, there is no WAY you could get VT and HT to work without it) but that facilitate the everyday love and Christlike virtues I see every week in my ward.

I suppose that doesn’t count as evidence, but it’s been my experience, anyway. And I freely admit my ward and stake are exceptionally awesome.

[Rhodes]

@TokyoPlayer

Unfortunately, this is the way it works in Mormondom. Because the world of God is clear, crystal clear, that the WoW is simply advice, they can’t go back to the letter of the law. No one else claimed a revelation to change this, but they tried to modify it on the sly. The Mormon church wants to have it both ways, to claim to be divinely inspired, but also to find a way to excuse its messy theology. So, they give coded messages which the faithful can take one way, but can still be plausibly denied when science or historians proves them wrong. They’ve managed to whitewash a good deal of their history, but you can’t get away with in the the Internet age.

You sound like someone who has been in an argument with a Mormon over what is considered “Doctrine” and “Scripture” versus leaders expressing their personal opinions. It’s really frustrating, because the goalposts are moved every minute.

Before every General Conference as a youth, I would be reminded in church and in seminary that we were about to hear living “scripture” being delivered to us from God via his Prophets. When I was on my mission, on one occasion a General Authority (Vaughn Featherstone) lectured us about what an honor it was going to be to hear new “scripture” directly from the mouth of an Apostle of the Lord (Richard Scott), and on another occasion an Apostle (Jeffrey Holland) came to lecture us about the great honor of hearing new “scripture” directly fom the mouth of LDS president Gordon B Hinkley. When it’s convenient or when they’re trying to impress the kids, Prophet’s voice = Scripture = Doctrine.

Then we go back and see the writings and sermons of Prophets such as Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, and suddenly we are reminded that hardly any of their words are “doctrinal.” Brigham didn’t mean it when he said that the priesthood would disappear if it was ever given to the “African race”. It was only his personal opinion that apostates should be lovingly sliced from ear to ear. It doesn’t matter that Brigham stated that every word he ever spoke from the pulpit was “scripture” as long as he had an opportunity to make corrections before publication. It doesn’t matter that Journal of Discourses is a compilation of Brigham’s sermons from that same pulpit that has been compiled and published by the First Presidency of the LDS church, and therefore is “scripture” and “doctrine”. Faithful LDS disregard any prophetic statements declared “in the name of Jesus Christ” if those statements become embarrasing.

So then it really gets confusing when the published word of God in “scripture” (Doctrine and Covenants section 89) specifically 1) is not a commandment, 2) discourages tobacco, hot drinks, strong drinks, and meat, and 3)endorses mild drinks made from barley, when the current “doctrine” 1) must be obeyed or one can’t receive saving ordinances, 2) is vague on its definition of “hot drinks” and “meat only in famine”, and 3) prohibits mildly alcoholic drinks made from barley.

Which is it, then? Are we to believe the scriptures or the sermons? The doctrines or the traditions?

[Rhodes]

@raspberry_hunter

Actually, now that you mention it, I can’t remember if the R-rated thing was actually said in Conference (in which case it would definitely count as prophet-mandated, even if recanted later), or just in a fireside or something like that, which I’m not quite so sure counts as scripture, and probably does give wiggle room. Does anyone else know what the breakdown is?

“For the Strength of Youth” brochure from the First Presidency. While not “official” scripture, the principles in this brochure were preached in Sunday School every week and in Seminary and Institute every day when I was young. I pretty much had the whole thing memorized, as did all of my LDS friends.

Gordon B Hinkley also told Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes that LDS youth don’t watch R-reated movies or drink caffeinated soda. (Closest thing I ever heard to an official ban on Coca-Cola.)

[Rhodes]

@raspberry_hunter

I think there’s a much, much higher attrition rate for Mormon men born in the church (anecdotally, look at this thread… I think TokyoPlayer and Rhodes are both men, and I’m a woman who had similar issues but chose to remain, while they didn’t… but more generally I think men are more likely to just stop going to church even if they don’t have doctrinal issues) and a higher conversion rate for women as well.

That’s exactly correct.

In a recent informal survey at apostate support group PostMormon.com, it was found that husbands were twice as likely to leave the church compared to their wives. The choices were something like a) wife left first, then husband, b) wife left, husband still active LDS, c) husband left first, then wife, or d) husband left, wife still active. (rocknrhodes and I are “c”.)

[dangermom]

@TokyoPlayer

Dangermom won’t be back in this thread. She spins her little whitewashed、 sanitized version, and then when called on it, claims to be “busy.” We’ve seen it before and we’ll see it again. I’ve directly called her on the BS she’s giving about the dates of the WoW, so we’ll not see her again in this thread. Especially, since the date she claimed is so demonstratively wrong, and does not explain why the Big Four took the influence they did. The theory on the table is that Mormonism took the lead from the Protestants, which is embarrassment to a church which claims to receive direct guidance from the Gods.
I think so, too. As they say, when the going gets tough, it’s best to get going.(my bolding)

Well, hello there. Sorry to disappoint, but I just don’t care enough to do this for the bazillionth time. I like my church, you don’t, whatever. You win; I didn’t read your posts carefully in the first place and shouldn’t have posted at all if I wasn’t going to put any effort into it, which I didn’t. So, there you go.

[TokyoBayer]

@Rhodes

You sound like someone who has been in an argument with a Mormon over what is considered “Doctrine” and “Scripture” versus leaders expressing their personal opinions. It’s really frustrating, because the goalposts are moved every minute.

(. . .)

Which is it, then? Are we to believe the scriptures or the sermons? The doctrines or the traditions?

Tell me about it. I think the most egregious example is the backpedaling on the doctrine of blacks being ineligible for the priesthood because they weren’t valiant in the preexistence. This was a teaching of the church, but once political and social changes make it untenable, suddenly 150 years of teachings were all swept under the rug and those who preached it were only “speaking as a man” and not as the prophets and apostles.

What are the teachings of the church? What is of God and what is of man?

@dangermom

I like my church, you don’t, whatever. You win; I didn’t read your posts carefully in the first place and shouldn’t have posted at all if I wasn’t going to put any effort into it, which I didn’t. So, there you go.

You like your church, which is fine. I have no problem with that. I just don’t accept your whitewashing of the LDS history and teachings.

This is a board which prides itself on fighting ignorance, not spreading it. There are a number of posters who grew up in the church and seem to be as, if not more knowledgeable and we’ll use quotes from your prophets to refute your spins, be they deliberate or naively passed along.

Each person gets to decide which threads to contribute in, so it’s not up to me to say what you should or shouldn’t do. However, since you acknowledge posting while not reading what others say!, then you cannot really complain if you are not given a degree of respect which you are not affording others.

[raspberry_hunter]

@Rhodes

“For the Strength of Youth” brochure from the First Presidency. While not “official” scripture, the principles in this brochure were preached in Sunday School every week and in Seminary and Institute every day when I was young. I pretty much had the whole thing memorized, as did all of my LDS friends.

Okay, thanks. Either it wasn’t emphasized in my ward when I was a teenager (let’s just say… the Sunday School in my home ward could have used some work) or I missed it, being fairly close to inactive at the time anyway. Though of course I know about it now, and probably have a couple of copies somewhere in the house.

[Rhodes]

@raspberry_hunter

Okay, thanks. Either it wasn’t emphasized in my ward when I was a teenager (let’s just say… the Sunday School in my home ward could have used some work) or I missed it, being fairly close to inactive at the time anyway. Though of course I know about it now, and probably have a couple of copies somewhere in the house.

I think it used to specifically prohibit R-rated movies. The linked version prohibits movies with objectionable content regardless of ratings. Most active LDS teens and many active LDS adults don’t watch any R.

[llcoolbj77]

My best friend lived for a time in SLC, Utah. There is actually quite a large greek population there as well. I remember her telling us about the “big four” prohibitions, which I already knew about, and the underwear, which I did not. But then she mentioned something about the afterlife… how like each Mormon gets their own planet in the afterlife? With their family?

I don’t know why but that seems just soo, “scientology-y,” to me. Anyone care to fight my ignorance? Please!

[TokyoBayer]

@llcoolbj77

My best friend lived for a time in SLC, Utah. There is actually quite a large greek population there as well. I remember her telling us about the “big four” prohibitions, which I already knew about, and the underwear, which I did not. But then she mentioned something about the afterlife… how like each Mormon gets their own planet in the afterlife? With their family?

Funny that you would ask this. Some Mormon posters on this board would have you believe that this is a teaching which was in error. The church seems to be less than candid with the general public about this doctrine, and we’ll get back to that in a moment.

You friend is right. Mormons get their own planets in the afterlife. This comes from what is called the doctrine of eternal progression, which Joseph Smith, (the founder of the Mormon church), taught. In particular, there was a sermon he gave called the King Follett discourse which summarized some of his last teachings, shortly before he was killed.

The King Follett discourse is an address delivered in Nauvoo, Illinois by Joseph Smith, Jr., president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, on April 7, 1844, less than three months before Smith’s assassination. The discourse was presented to a congregation of probably more than ten thousand Latter Day Saints at a general conference held shortly after the funeral service of Elder King Follett, who had died on March 9, 1844 of accidental injuries. The sermon is notable for its claim that God was once a man, and that men and women can become gods through salvation and exaltation.

This teaching is a clear differentiation with mainstream Christianity, along with the their radically different view of the Trinity, among other key doctrinal differences.

Mormons believe that only those who receive endowments in the temple, in which they are taught the secret handshakes to allow them to enter heaven and where they receive their garments, or special underwear, are eligible to become gods and goddesses in the afterlife.

The temple ceremony was originally re-purposed from the Mason one by Joseph Smith as a cover to allow himself and a few select associates to secretly take other wives. As Smith’s religious views developed, the concept of mortals becoming gods occurred, and this was also tied into the temple ceremony.

Lately, Mormons are attempting to become more mainstream, but it’s necessary to downplay, controversial teachings such as this.

Richard Abanes attributes an “increasing lack of delineation between (Mormonism and mainstream Christianity)” to three primary causes:

1. the willingness of some Mormon leaders to be less than candid about more controversial aspects of LDS history and theology,
2. a trend among some Mormon scholars to make LDS belief sound more mainstream, and
3. an evolution of Mormon thought toward doctrinal positions nearer those of evangelicals.

[Mona_Lisa_Simpson]

Just wanted to post that I have been sick in bed since Friday and have spent a fair bit of time reading this thread and other LDS themed threads, and some of the links to LDS and non LDS sources. I find it very interesting. I am Christian of an extremely left-leaning Protestant denomination, the United Church of Canada, and have had very little knowledge about LDS/Moromons until now. Fascinating reading, although I am not remotely interested in becoming a member I would like to thank all the Moromons and former Moromons in the thread for the information. I especially went back and read some of the “Ask the” threads, and Rhodes’ thread about his leaving his church.

[Spoons]

@Mona_Lisa_Simpson

Just wanted to post that I have been sick in bed since Friday and have spent a fair bit of time reading this thread and other LDS themed threads, and some of the links to LDS and non LDS sources. I find it very interesting. I am Christian of an extremely left-leaning Protestant denomination, the United Church of Canada, and have had very little knowledge about LDS/Moromons until now. Fascinating reading, although I am not remotely interested in becoming a member I would like to thank all the Moromons and former Moromons in the thread for the information. I especially went back and read some of the “Ask the” threads, and Rhodes’ thread about his leaving his church.

I’ll add my thanks as well; this thread has been very informative. A couple of years ago, I moved to a part of Canada that is heavily Mormon (southern Alberta), and now count Mormons among my friends, neighbours, and co-workers. As someone who came from a place where there were very few Mormons, I found that understanding their attitudes, and why they do and believe the things they do, has been difficult at times, but this thread has helped. Thanks again, folks!

[dhkendall]

@Spoons

I’ll add my thanks as well; this thread has been very informative. A couple of years ago, I moved to a part of Canada that is heavily Mormon (southern Alberta), and now count Mormons among my friends, neighbours, and co-workers. As someone who came from a place where there were very few Mormons, I found that understanding their attitudes, and why they do and believe the things they do, has been difficult at times, but this thread has helped. Thanks again, folks!

I had no idea that S. Alberta (or anywhere in Canada, frankly) was “heavily Mormon” (although, if I think about it, southern Alberta is the closest Canadian spot to the American Mormon focus.) Knowing lots of Albertans, especially through my evangelical church, I always thought that Alberta was the evangelical Christian hub. But, with the above stating how Mormons are finding more in common with Evangelicals, I guess it too shouldn’t surprise me.

(What did surprise me is reading somewhere that one of the most famous Mormons in the world right now, Ken Jennings, is left-wing and a Democrat)

[Spoons]

@dhkendall

I had no idea that S. Alberta (or anywhere in Canada, frankly) was “heavily Mormon” (although, if I think about it, southern Alberta is the closest Canadian spot to the American Mormon focus.) Knowing lots of Albertans, especially through my evangelical church, I always thought that Alberta was the evangelical Christian hub. But, with the above stating how Mormons are finding more in common with Evangelicals, I guess it too shouldn’t surprise me.

When the southern Alberta area was first settled, the early settlers encountered a problem: the land was terrific for agriculture, but there wasn’t reliable-enough rainfall to ensure a good harvest each season. Irrigation was needed. The Mormons had done wonders making the desert grow in Utah; and somebody had the idea to ask for their help. They were glad to, and many Mormons headed north. They succeeded in irrigating southern Alberta, and even today, irrigation canals crisscross the prairie, and reservoirs hold yet more.

Many Mormons opted to stay here; and today, Lethbridge, with a total population of about 90,000, hosts no less than seven Mormon churches. (By contrast, a Google search showed me only five LDS churches in the City of Toronto, population 2.5 million; though there are a few more in the Golden Horseshoe.) Every surrounding little town has at least one Mormon church, and there is a Mormon temple in Cardston–apparently, it is the first LDS temple to be built outside the US. Cardston itself was settled by Mormons, and as per Mormon teaching, it continues to be a dry town: no liquor stores or licensed premises. You cannot even get a beer on Cardston’s golf course–something I found when I played the course, to my dismay.

Southern Alberta does have its share of fundamentalist/evangelical Christians, but they don’t seem to be as numerous as Mormons, and they certainly don’t have as much influence as their American counterparts. There are also Mennonites and Hutterites; and more-mainstream religions (United Church, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Jews, Muslims) that are large enough to have their own buildings, so I would imagine that the fundamentalists/evangelicals are simply one of many. I should add that here in Lethbridge, we have plenty of liquor stores, bars, a strip club or two, adult video stores, a casino, and many coffee shops; all of which thrive, so it’s easy to see that the “anti-sin” aspect of Mormons and fundamentalists/evangelicals, and other religions, has little impact locally.

Still, I’ll add that at a recent comedy night, one guest comedian–a black woman from Toronto–said that southern Alberta was so white, she wondered where the diversity she knew from Toronto was. A heckler in the audience shouted back, “Hey, we’re diverse–we’ve got Mormons and fundies!” That got the biggest laugh of her routine.

[Taomist]

The Mormons I’ve personally knowned DID wear the underwear.
I know this because they’d just come back from missions and were very insistent that any fooling around had to be on top of the underwear.

And at the keg parties, when we had jungle juice, the Mormon girls would make sure just to ‘eat the fruit on top’, and not actually drink any of the booze.
I’m not sure if Jack Mormonism is that rampant or if I just ran into a few dozen unusual ones.

[TokyoBayer]

@Spoons

When the southern Alberta area was first settled, the early settlers encountered a problem: the land was terrific for agriculture, but there wasn’t reliable-enough rainfall to ensure a good harvest each season. Irrigation was needed. The Mormons had done wonders making the desert grow in Utah; and somebody had the idea to ask for their help. They were glad to, and many Mormons headed north. They succeeded in irrigating southern Alberta, and even today, irrigation canals crisscross the prairie, and reservoirs hold yet more.

Many Mormons opted to stay here; and today, Lethbridge, with a total population of about 90,000, hosts no less than seven Mormon churches. (By contrast, a Google search showed me only five LDS churches in the City of Toronto, population 2.5 million; though there are a few more in the Golden Horseshoe.) Every surrounding little town has at least one Mormon church, and there is a Mormon temple in Cardston–apparently, it is the first LDS temple to be built outside the US. Cardston itself was settled by Mormons, and as per Mormon teaching, it continues to be a dry town: no liquor stores or licensed premises. You cannot even get a beer on Cardston’s golf course–something I found when I played the course, to my dismay.

(My bolding)The reason for Mormons going to Alberta was first and foremost to (warning PDF) escape the law in the USconcerning polygamy. Polygamist in Utah in the late 1880s were being arrested and jailed, and [(PDF) some fled to Canada ]](www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/.../sbi/.../Dialogue_V18N03_110.pdf) while others went to Mexico.

To understand Mormonism is to understand polygamy, for the religion would have followed a completely different route without the practice. Rocked by internal disputes, the top leadership was divided over the issue, including Oliver Cowdery, second only the Smith in the hierarchy on the early church. Cowdery, like Smith, was a “money digger” (people who used magic or spiritual methods
to look for hidden treasures. Smith used a peeping stone, later used in the production of the Book of Mormon, and Cowdery used a diving rod.)

The two, with others combined to produce the BoM, published in 1830. Cowdery and other members of original founders broke away over polygamy and struggles between the Mormon and the dissenters directly contributed to the frictions with the neighbors in Missouri. See a history of the Danites for a quick overview of the part of history which got the Mormons driven from their homes. They fled and eventually founded the city Nauvoo, Illinois.

However, Smith’s secret practice of polygamy and polyandry, where he and close associates married the young girls (as young as 14) and the wives of others, lead to the breakaway by other key members, several of who formed a newspaper which exposed the practice. Smith’s order as mayor of the city to destroy the paper lead to the charges which brought him to jail where he was killed by a mob.

The Mormons were driven from Nauvoo, and fled to the deserts of Utah, where they managed to live undisturbed for many years, openly engaging in polygamy.
Eventually, the US government passed a number of laws outlawing the practice, including the Edmunds Act of 1882, which caused the leadership to go into hiding and come to flee to Canada.

[Spoons]

@TokyoPlayer

(My bolding)The reason for Mormons going to Alberta was first and foremost to (warning PDF) escape the law in the USconcerning polygamy. Polygamist in Utah in the late 1880s were being arrested and jailed, and [(PDF) some fled to Canada ]](www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/.../sbi/.../Dialogue_V18N03_110.pdf) while others went to Mexico.

You are correct, and my quick subsequent research after my post above indicated just as you said. However, I’m going on what the local word is, which may or may not be affected by the account that local Mormons themselves tell. Honestly, I do not know the historical truth. Can we at least agree that a side effect of the 1887 Mormon immigration to Alberta was that the Mormons knew how to irrigate dry areas, and that they used those skills here?

I’ll point out that my research also indicated that while the Mormons arrived in Alberta to escape the ban on polygamy that was enacted in the US; the laws in effect in the Northwest Territories (i.e. modern-day Alberta) at the time (pre-Alberta-provincehood, and thus adopted from British law) also restricted polygamy. I would be happy to research this further, if anybody is interested. Again, I’ll admit, in the spirit of SDMB total candor, I don’t know; but I will research if anybody is interested.

[TokyoBayer]

@Spoons

You are correct, and my quick subsequent research after my post above indicated just as you said. However, I’m going on what the local word is, which may or may not be affected by the account that local Mormons themselves tell. Honestly, I do not know the historical truth. Can we at least agree that a side effect of the 1887 Mormon immigration to Alberta was that the Mormons knew how to irrigate dry areas, and that they used those skills here?

You are correct that Mormons were asked for help in setting up irrigation because of their expertise. However, there were already there for the reasons I gave, so I agree that it was a side effect of the immigration due to polygamy.

I’ll point out that my research also indicated that while the Mormons arrived in Alberta to escape the ban on polygamy that was enacted in the US; the laws in effect in the Northwest Territories (i.e. modern-day Alberta) at the time (pre-Alberta-provincehood, and thus adopted from British law) also restricted polygamy. I would be happy to research this further, if anybody is interested. Again, I’ll admit, in the spirit of SDMB total candor, I don’t know; but I will research if anybody is interested.

The Mormons did not openly practice polygamy in Alberta, and the ones who went there only look one wife, but would visit their other wives back in Utah.

I’m not surprised that the Mormons in Alberta are not candid with their history, Mormons aren’t honest with the past in other places either.

I’d recommend this online book Events leading to the settlement of the communities of Cardston, Magrath, Stirling and Raymond, Alberta for a further study of this issue.

[Spoons]

@TokyoPlayer

I’d recommend this online book Events leading to the settlement of the communities of Cardston, Magrath, Stirling and Raymond, Alberta for a further study of this issue.

Do you have a better cite? I can’t seem to turn the page on the cite that you’ve given.

If the Mormons in Alberta are not candid with their history, I’m not surprised. Mormons here are pretty cocky; and many times, I’ve encountered Mormon preferentialism here, in opposition to our Constitution and federal and provincial laws–in other words, if you’re not Mormon, you don’t get a job or apartment, or so on. I don’t think this is right, but it happens. And it happens too frequently to be anything but bias. I would like to see an level playing field for all people locally, regardless of religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, and so on; but local Mormons have such a lock on the way things are that things are unlikely to change. If I (as a lawyer) made waves through the legal and court system, I am sure that the local “Mormon mafia” would make sure I’d never work again. In southern Alberta, anyway.

Just interested–can any practising Mormons who are posting to this thread defend this practice of discrimination? Again, in the spirit of SDMB candor, I’m afraid that I cannot offer anything but anecdotes; but those anecdotes come from my clients (IAAL) whose complaints all boil down to one thing: I didn’t get a job/apartment/something else because I’m not Mormon–in other words, they are being discriminated against on the basis of religion. After investigating, I have to agree; they have a prosecutable case under human rights law, and I thusly direct them to that recourse. As I said above, my friends, neighbours, and co-workers are Mormon, but this is such a heavy question that I haven’t asked it of them. Perhaps anonymous posters on a message board can offer some information. Mormon Dopers? I’m looking for your insight.

[TokyoBayer]

@TokyoPlayer

(My bolding)The reason for Mormons going to Alberta was first and foremost to (warning PDF) escape the law in the USconcerning polygamy. Polygamist in Utah in the late 1880s were being arrested and jailed, and [(PDF) some fled to Canada ]](www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/.../sbi/.../Dialogue_V18N03_110.pdf) while others went to Mexico.

It looks like the links don’t work.

This first link is to and article by John C. Lehr, Polygamy, Patrimony, and Prophecy: The Mormon Colonization of Cardston p 116. The seconds is Jessie L. Embry’s Exiles for the Principle: LDS Polygamy in Canada p. 110. Both are from the magazine Dialogue, published by free-thinking Mormons.

This contrasts with sites such as Mormonthink.com

Mormonthink.com is a site produced by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are concerned about the historical accuracy of our church and how it is being taught to its members and portrayed in the media.

There is a lot of misinformation on the LDS church that is presented by both critics and defenders of the faith - particularly on the Internet. We present both sides fairly and let the reader decide.

which claims to be impartial but is critical of the church. There are also sites which are apologetic to the church, such as F
AIR. The MormonThink website contains links to sites both apologetic and those critical to the church.