TokyoPlayer, just want to say “thanks” for the PDF links and the guidance on where I can find more information, that you put in your most recent post. A quick look tells me that they are the sort of thing I’ve been looking for in order to learn more, especially as regards local Mormon history. Thanks again!
In my experience, there are two factors, one more innocuous than the other.
First: because of the nature of the religion (lots of commitments and duties and meetings compared to a generic church) Mormons have a very tight-knit community where they know everyone else quite well and know the gossip on anyone they don’t know. And even if it’s someone you don’t actually know anything about, the high peer pressure alluded to in this thread means that you have a fairly good idea a priori how other Mormons will act even if you know nothing else about them as opposed to non-Mormons (who have a much larger spectrum of typical behavior). And it is human nature to prefer people you know, or know about, to people you don’t.
I will confess that all the babysitters/nanny we have gotten for our daughter have been Mormons that I personally knew, because it was much more palatable for me to leave my child with someone who I knew (and whose standards I knew – I didn’t have to call any references to know our nanny won’t be stealing things from us, and if she did, well, gosh, I know her bishop! – whereas for a random non-Mormon I didn’t know, I’d feel more like I had to be hyperactive about the references, and if something did go wrong I’d basically have no other recourse than to fire her or bring the law into it).
For apartments, as well, the a priori assumption is that Mormons will be quiet and law-abiding and not drink or smoke or have large destructive parties – heck, I know several non-Mormons who would rather have Mormons rent from them! Again, this is not to say that there aren’t Mormons who do these things (people in the thread have provided plenty of examples), but your chances are better given the incomplete information you have.
Second: because of the LDS history of persecution (let us lay aside for now the question of whether such persecution was or was not justified in regards to Joseph Smith and polygamy and such like, because it’s not relevant to the point I’m trying to make, which is simply that LDS perceive themselves as a persecuted race, whether justified or not) it is really hard to convince them, when they’re in the majority, that they are beating up on the minority. I have actually seen this a couple of times, particularly among Utah Mormons and non-Mormons (since I live in the US), where Utah Mormons will insist that the non-Mormons are making a big fuss over nothing because of course they can’t be facing any discrimination because LDS are the ones discriminated against, right? and meanwhile, the non-Mormons are having a really tough time. When you say that were you to pursue this avenue the local Mormons would make sure you never worked again, this is the mindset that’s coming into play, I imagine: they’re probably saying to themselves, “What an evil lawyer for picking on the poor defenseless Mormons!” not realizing that they are, at this time and place, not really in that category anymore.
(Not that this is a mindset at ALL unique to LDS; I tend to see it in any minority powerless population that becomes a majority with power. But regardless, it’s something that I think is not a good thing and does damage the LDS reputation in these areas.)
Of the three, the book I linked to is the most comprehensive. Try googling it from the title? Maybe you can open it that way. It does seem to be written by a Mormon, but seems good.
raspberry hunter, I think you hit the nail on your post on both reasons gave and are very perceptive. Mormonism is a close knit society with a strong sense of having been persecuted. It’s also interesting that you used the term “race” to describe the Mormon’s perception of themselves, (“that LDS perceive themselves as a persecuted race”) because their self identity as a separate people is that strong.
Mormons see themselves as the successors to the ancient Israelites as God’s people, and find parallels under each bush. Like the Israelites, the traditional view of was only as being persecuted, but being surrounded by enemies bend on their destruction. You can read the accounts of the early Mormons, especially in Missouri and see the biblical terms the leaders used to describe their neighbors as evil, and that God’s wrath would destroy them. A notable quote from one of the apostle is
After only getting a one-sided history of Mormonism, where the Mormons were always in the right, and unjustly persecuted by people who were inspired by the devil, I was quite surprised to read more scholarly accounts of what actually occurred. The early Mormon church was a cult, (some say it’s still one now, but I don’t know if I would go that far) and the actions of the surrounding communities was often in reaction to what the Mormons were doing themselves. The people also saw themselves as being persecuted for doing God’s work, so the work of the federal agents to arrest practitioners of polygamy was described as “persecution.”
Sorry, really not to hijack this thread, but I am too tired/ill to start new thread and/or write anything analytical , but has anyone been following the whole story unfolding in Bountiful, BC?
A recent story on CBC website can be found here. I do realize that this is the FLDS who have broken away from the mainstream and do not represent Mormonism as a whole. I am interested to hear former and current LDS members comment on this.
I haven’t heard of this group of Mormon fundamentalists, but there are many in Utah. Offshoots of the faith, they continue to practice polygamy, and see the many problems associated with that practice, such as child brides, a major problem anytime polygamy is practiced within a religious setting.
Not long ago, there was a case of one of these cult leaders who married young girls. From the account of a 14-year-old who was pressured into marrying the cult leader by her own father, who was told that it would assure his and his family’s salvation,
I’m lying, of course. It didn’t happen recently, this was the case of Helen Kimball, daughter of Herber C. Kimball, one of Joseph Smith’s close associates and a leader in the early church.
The talking points you will get from active Mormons is that the church doesn’t practice polygamy, and will quote the Manifesto which supposedly ends the practice, but what they will fail to mention is that numerous plural marriages occurred after the Manifesto was issued, and that it only suspends without denouncing the practice. The events surrounding the Manifesto are intriguing, and show how the church was forced by congress into taking this step by jailing and disenfranchising polygamists, and confiscating church properties, finally upping the ante by threatening to confiscate the most sacred buildings, the temples.
Although the president blinked, and gave an equivocal direction to stop, it was not completely supported or followed. There is evidence that Wilford Woodruff, the church presided who issued the manifesto, took another plural wife after it was issued. It is well-established that he and the church authorized further plural marriages.
Without a clear renunciation, it is no wonder that many of the members continued to follow the teachings which had been so unequivocally stated so many times: God has decreed that a man with only one wife cannot gain the highest degree of glory in the afterlife.
I’m reading a fascinating account now about this period, written by the well-known Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn, a former professor at BYU. Very well documented, and it’s worth reading the footnotes if nothing else for the titles of the works cited. “Inside information accounting for the animus of ex-senator Frank. J. Cannon towards President Joseph F. Smith, also exposing the absolute falsehood and flagrant hypocrisy on his part in regard to new cases of polygamy.” Just once, I’d like to publish a paper with “absolute falsehood” or “flagrant hypocrisy” in the title. Bonus points if you can work both in.
The more you read about polygamy practiced by early Mormons, the more you realize how screwed up it was. Cases of blatant abuse of power by people in position of authority and trust who preyed upon the vulnerable, invoking God’s name for personal satisfaction. If the LDS church were to be founded now, in the era of twenty-four hour news coverage, it would never have gotten far enough to hide the dirty past.
Ok so I’m not mormon, but one of my best friends is. Yes I have been to the lds church once and no neither him nor his family (who I consider my family aswell) have tried to convert me. But I have a question. Me and my friend are bolth 16 and he smokes pot and also drinks alcohol as do I ( don’t judge me I don’t do it often). His stepmom and his dad occasionally drink coffe from Starbucks or the equivalent chain coffe shop. Also I have never heard him talk about any “special underwear” and we have had many long discussions about the lds church (that I started because I want to be able to understand his religion and not say something to offend him). Soak I was basically wondering why they do it? Are they not completely morman? I mean they have the local missionaries come over to the house once a week to eat with them. As far as I know the missionaries don’t know about any of this stuff. So what is with them that they do this? Is it just there way of looking at the lds church? Or are all mormons different in thier beliefes?
Thanks
Jarod
I had a friend who was LDS in college.
She was also a member of a sorority, believe it or not.
But she didn’t drink, do drugs, have soda, etc. She got married after graduation in a very ugly wedding dress with poofed sleeves and lots of lace. She has a kid now.
…that’s all I know. I teased her about special underwear once, but then I realized she probably got that on a lot.
Just to be clear, Mormon kids and teenagers don’t wear the special underwear. You only start wearing it after a special ceremony, which happens around 19 years old for guys who go on missions.
Some Mormons have a casual attitude towards some of the major requirements like your friend’s family. I’d say it’s pretty rare to actually make the effort to go to church AND drink coffee, but some people do it.
Do they were Garments under both their street clothes and their gym clothes or only under the street clothes?
I think they also have a role in the guidelines for modest dress. I used to know an ex-Mormon who told me the idea was that the Garments should never be visible and you were supposed to dress in such a way that nobody could tell whether you were wereing them or not.
Mormons don’t wear the garments while exercising. In fact, exercising is one of the few times you are allowed to take them off.
And your second paragraph is 100% correct. Part of it is about wearing around these Masonic symbols that represent covenants and part of it is about enforcing their standard of modesty. But every Mormon has heard speculation about which women in the congregation are secretly pinning their garments so as to be able to wear slightly shorter skirts. (The garment is suppose to reach your kneecap, so all skirts shorter than knee-length are off-limits for garment wearers.)
General Conference, April 1986, President Ezra Taft Benson:
“We counsel you, young men, not to pollute your minds with such degrading matter, for the mind through which this filth passes is never the same afterwards. Don’t see R-rated movies or vulgar videos or participate in any entertainment that is immoral, suggestive, or pornographic. Don’t listen to music that is degrading.”
The whole Conference talk can be seen here (May 1986 Ensign Magazine):
Many will say, “This was directed to young men so I think it does not apply to me.”
I say, “Think again”.
Women dominate religious populations in general. Surprising to me since so many women criticize organized religions of being sexist.
“Religious groups with female membership out numbering male membership include: evangelical churches (53%), mainline churches (54%), historically black churches (60%), Catholics (54%), Mormons (56%), Orthodox (54%), Jehovah’s Witnesses (60%), and other Christians (54%). Groups with male membership out numbering female membership include: Jews (52%), Muslims (54%), Buddhists (53%), Hindus (61%), other faiths (54%), and “unaffiliated” (59%).”
Source link here:http://www.ibcsr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74:religion-more-important-for-women-and-older-americans&catid=53:in-focus&Itemid=72
I think there are some holes in that theory. Or in the garments.
Well, they do have flaps (like y-front briefs or long underwear) so you could do it if you really wanted to. Maybe the husband was exceptionally ugly or hirsute.
It’s not that strange. Throughout most of history, Christianity was actually less misogynist than society itself. In my opinion, other than at a increasingly few [sup][see spoiler][/sup] fundamentalist churches, it still pretty much is.
And those fundamentalist churches only hang on to people because they are socially conservative, and thus hold on to the older way of thinking. There are women who have no problem with being submissive to their husbands because that’s what they’ve been taught is the norm from grandma. They actually feel they are inferior, so why shouldn’t they be treated that way?
[spoiler]The trend I’m seeing in most fundamentalist churches is to interpret the misogynistic parts of the Bible differently, with the idea that women and men are different but equal, and that certain scriptures were specific to a certain situation. For example: the command that women should not speak in church was referring to women who were noisy, asking their educated husbands to explain things to them, thus distracting others.
It’s really not that different to how some people are interpreting the scriptures about homosexuality as specifically dealing with a religious practice that was to be forbidden or to Greek-style pederasty.[/spoiler]
I remember reading something that said that converts to the LDS faith in Japan were hugely demographically disproportionate, and that most converts were young girls, and that was a problem because of the LDS teachings on Temple Marriage, and that there were simply not enough Temple-worthly LDS guys to marry all of them.