# How has Mormonism survived modern scrutiny? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 15, 2010, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841 "2010-07-15T22:23:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2010, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/181 "2010-07-23T14:40:36Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > That is not my recollection. Different how? > > They believe in the Bible and it’s story of Jesus. They believe Jesus is the son of God who came to earth and was crucified and rose again that we might be forgiven of our sins and have eternal life. Isn’t that the point? > > The fact that they believe Jesus also visited the Americans after his resurrection is a detail, but hardly the point of Jesus story. > > When I was a member of the RLDS many years ago we had a little blue book titled Basic Beleifs, that we often passed at to curious people. A Baptist minister read it and said, “There’s very little in there I disagree with.” I agree- the essential mission of Jesus is the same in traditional Christianity & Mormonism. The views of the nature of God the Father & human destiny differ greatly, tho. AFAIK, RLDS views on God the Father & human destiny share more with traditional Christianity than with LDS doctrine. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/182 "2010-07-23T16:05:43Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > [hijack]I’m familiar with a few. From everything I’ve read the real John Nash was- in addition to being mentally ill- a complete horse’s ass. (I’ve known many mentally ill people- worked with them professionally and, well, related to lots of them- and there is _definitely_ a point at which mental illness ends and ‘just being a general horse’s ass’ begins, or vice versa- it’s not all due to the illness.) I’m familiar with the gay restroom scandal, the illegitimate child/deadbeat dad factor that wasn’t included, and the fact that the moving speech at the end never happened because there isn’t one. Any others?[/hijack] Yes, it didn’t mention that Alicia divorced Nash, and that while he was living in her house for a long time when sick, she was having an affair with John Moore, a topologist at IAS, who adored her. It was unclear to me that Alicia ever finished MIT, and when I knew here she was not the clever woman portrayed in the movie. I thought the fact that she supported him even when she wasn’t legally obligated to shows her in an even more positive light than supporting him while still being married to him. OTOH, the resemblance to the real Alicia in the Nobel Prize scene at the end was perfect. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/183 "2010-07-23T16:23:11Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > I agree- the essential mission of Jesus is the same in traditional Christianity & Mormonism. The views of the nature of God the Father & human destiny differ greatly, tho. AFAIK, RLDS views on God the Father & human destiny share more with traditional Christianity than with LDS doctrine. That may be true. I am not familiar with the specific differences, ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2010, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/184 "2010-07-23T16:56:27Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Many of my family and friends are RCC, and I am no longer even surprised to hear them comment on how they simply “don’t believe” something that I perceived as an integral portion of their religion. My mind is such that if I rejected something major, I would leave my religion to find one that better suited my beliefs. But it seems as tho many (most?) folk are more comfortable retaining their belief identity, and either consciously coming up with a way to deal with what they reject, or simply developing blindspots. Mormonism has an edge here - ongoing, personal revelation. What this translates to in practical terms is roll-your-own-religion; I have observed a marked tendency for mormons to read the scriptures, come up with their own answers that feel good to them, and decide that these things _are_ true, with the certainty of God behind them. For an example, I know a woman who has decided that the final judgement…isn’t final. You know how the mormons have three heavens (and a trash pit)? She is of the opinion that after you are placed in your final destination, that by…unclear methods it may be possible for you to continue to climb the ladder at least a _little_ further. Maybe a lot further - she refused to commit to an answer there. Suffice to say this doesn’t much match what I heard in the near-two-decades I attended, and as far as I know there’s not a shred of support for it in _any_ official text that the mormons recognise; quite the opposite in fact. Yet she believes it. Why? Well obviously because it feels better to her than nice people getting eternal imprisonment in a lower kingdom. And thanks to the doctorine of personal revelation and scriptural interpretation, she can be as certain of its truth as she wishes. It appears to me that this phenomenon is accidentally encouraged by fact that mormons don’t have formally educated preachers at the local level. Instead the teacher of the classes are selected from the laity, generally with little regard for their actual knowledge or ability. (Learning to swim by being dropped in the deep end is considered a _good_ thing.) As a result I’ve some surprisingly odd things from the people at the front of the room - nothing that is _directly_ contradictory to the provided lesson plan, just a few opinions being dropped in as fact. So there isn’t really a single strong clear message being exclusively sent down from above. There _are_ official sources, of course, but they don’t completely control the discussion. The above things are why I am personally of the opinion that no two mormons have the same religion. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/185 "2010-07-23T18:53:44Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Mormonism has an edge here - ongoing, personal revelation. What this translates to in practical terms is roll-your-own-religion; I thought the ongoing revelation thing was only for their prophets - the church fathers. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/186 "2010-07-23T18:59:00Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I thought the ongoing revelation thing was only for their prophets - the church fathers. Nope. Anyone can pray and get direct answers. My mom has even claimed to have had visions! ---
**Author:** ![Erdosain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/erdosain/32/7284_2.png) [@Erdosain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erdosain)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2010, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/187 "2010-07-23T21:06:35Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Nope. Anyone can pray and get direct answers. My mom has even claimed to have had visions! Well, I wouldn’t put it quite like that. Members are allowed their own “personal revelation” as long as it doesn’t contradict church norms or teachings. So if Jesus appears to you and tells you it’s okay to drink beer or have sex with your neighbor, it doesn’t count. It was clearly an angel of darkness and you should have asked him to shake hands. If he tells you something more vague or that you’re destined to become the greatest ping-pong player of all time, then sure, it could be personal revelation. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/188 "2010-07-23T21:12:51Z")
> [@Erdosain](#): > > Well, I wouldn’t put it quite like that. Members are allowed their own “personal revelation” as long as it doesn’t contradict church norms or teachings. Yeah, that might be the official word in the rulebook. But if LDS is like most other religions, I’d imagine a lot of “believers” believe any number of things, yet consider themselves good Mormons. And, as a practical matter, most larger religions are happy to tolerate such diversity, even tho it may seem odd to an outsider. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/189 "2010-07-23T21:24:47Z")
> [@Erdosain](#): > > Well, I wouldn’t put it quite like that. Members are allowed their own “personal revelation” as long as it doesn’t contradict church norms or teachings. So if Jesus appears to you and tells you it’s okay to drink beer or have sex with your neighbor, it doesn’t count. It was clearly an angel of darkness and you should have asked him to shake hands. If he tells you something more vague or that you’re destined to become the greatest ping-pong player of all time, then sure, it could be personal revelation. Right - but what the heck is a “church norm”? I personally had thought that the finality of the final judgement and the resulting placement into kingdoms was pretty much a norm of the church, but it turns out my friend disagrees. Not to mention that one colorful old Seventy J. Golden Kimball who was prone to swearing in his sermons, and reportedly at one point when people called for his excommunication for it had the response “They can’t excommunicate me. I repent too damn fast!” (The old coot served as a church leader for 52 years.) In actual practice it boils down to that the people believe whatever they want to believe - with the caveat that most of them aren’t entirely delusional and prefer to have some semblance of sensibility within their understanding of their religion. So if one of them has the fleeting thought, “Hmm, maybe Jesus eats babies”, they’ll dismiss it becuase it conflict with their existing beliefs, in a way that “Hmm, maybe god wants me to keep this dollar I found” might not. ---
**Author:** ![chorpler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chorpler/32/2888_2.png) [@chorpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorpler)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/190 "2010-07-23T22:00:46Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Right - but what the heck is a “church norm”? I personally had thought that the finality of the final judgement and the resulting placement into kingdoms was pretty much a norm of the church, but it turns out my friend disagrees. Basically it means you’re free to believe anything you want for yourself (and your family if you’re a dude) but you better not start preaching anything to other people if it is controversial or contradictory to the LDS scriptures. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2010, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/191 "2010-07-23T22:05:19Z")
> [@chorpler](#): > > Basically it means you’re free to believe anything you want for yourself (and your family if you’re a dude) but you better not start preaching anything to other people if it is controversial or contradictory to the LDS scriptures. In other words, you’re okay unless you disturb your neighbors enough to get them to call in the authorities (so to speak) on you? I think you’ll agree with me that that’s a fair bit of latitude. ---
**Author:** ![Erdosain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/erdosain/32/7284_2.png) [@Erdosain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erdosain)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/192 "2010-07-23T23:16:55Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > In other words, you’re okay unless you disturb your neighbors enough to get them to call in the authorities (so to speak) on you? I think you’ll agree with me that that’s a fair bit of latitude. Well, considering Mormonism has an extremely controlling set of behavioral norms that aren’t open to interpretation, no, I wouldn’t agree that that’s a fair bit of latitude. And furthermore, your example of your friend is not as _outre_ as you seem to suggest. There are plenty of suggestions in the loose canon of General Authority statements and General Conference talks to suggest that progression between kingdoms may eventually be possible. Hell, there are even cites that say as long as your kid is born in the covenant, righteous parents can basically drag them into the Celestial Kingdom regardless of sinner status. The point is on minor points of unsettled doctrine, sure, you are free to make up your own mind. Anything major, or outwardly visible, you are stuck with the party line. There are maybe two exceptions that I can think of: 1. The Mormon Church leaves it up to married couples to determine whether oral sex is permissible within marriage(!). And the only reason this is true is because there was such a backlash when they tried to prohibit it in the early 1980s. When even your married sex life is open to scrutiny, it’s hard to argue that they are letting members believe whatever they wish. 2. Birth control. In this one area is the Mormon church more progressive than the Catholics. The Mormon leaders say birth control is bad, but they ultimately leave it up to the couples, albeit with a nice helping of guilt. That’s the extent of your latitude. Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice they leave one corner of your life alone, but that’s the only one. Everything else is open to church meddling. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/193 "2010-07-23T23:29:35Z")
> [@Erdosain](#): > > Well, considering Mormonism has an extremely controlling set of behavioral norms that aren’t open to interpretation, no, I wouldn’t agree that that’s a fair bit of latitude. > > And furthermore, your example of your friend is not as _outre_ as you seem to suggest. There are plenty of suggestions in the loose canon of General Authority statements and General Conference talks to suggest that progression between kingdoms may eventually be possible. Hell, there are even cites that say as long as your kid is born in the covenant, righteous parents can basically drag them into the Celestial Kingdom regardless of sinner status. > > The point is on minor points of unsettled doctrine, sure, you are free to make up your own mind. Anything major, or outwardly visible, you are stuck with the party line. > > There are maybe two exceptions that I can think of: > > 1. The Mormon Church leaves it up to married couples to determine whether oral sex is permissible within marriage(!). And the only reason this is true is because there was such a backlash when they tried to prohibit it in the early 1980s. When even your married sex life is open to scrutiny, it’s hard to argue that they are letting members believe whatever they wish. > > 2. Birth control. In this one area is the Mormon church more progressive than the Catholics. The Mormon leaders say birth control is bad, but they ultimately leave it up to the couples, albeit with a nice helping of guilt. That’s the extent of your latitude. Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice they leave one corner of your life alone, but that’s the only one. Everything else is open to church meddling. Behavior is fairly rigidly controlled on certain specific subjects. What you can teach is similarly controlled - though I differ with you about how minor the points of unsettled doctorine are. But none of this at all contradicts my statement that members believe that they can have personal revelations about pretty much anything and that they can, and do, believe _all_ kinds of divergent stuff, with the only major sticking point being if they try to _teach_ it, or exercise it behaviorally on one of the rigidly controlled subjects. In my experience this allows rather wide divergences in belief with the believers still thinking they arrived at their conclusions through direct revelation. I will add that many supposed revelations need have nothing to do with doctorine either way - my mother believed she had a vision where an unborn sixth child basically whined at her for not being born. ---
**Author:** ![chorpler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chorpler/32/2888_2.png) [@chorpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorpler)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2010, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/194 "2010-07-23T23:50:08Z")
> [@Erdosain](#): > > 1. The Mormon Church leaves it up to married couples to determine whether oral sex is permissible within marriage(!). And the only reason this is true is because there was such a backlash when they tried to prohibit it in the early 1980s. When even your married sex life is open to scrutiny, it’s hard to argue that they are letting members believe whatever they wish. Hey, you can believe whatever you want, just don’t go mentioning it to anybody! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/195 "2010-07-26T18:08:34Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I don’t recall her having to do that - though her friend’s father was a bishop, so maybe he could do it. The dances were not open to all, which was perfectly reasonable. She was amused that the couples had to dance with a space equal to the size of the Book of Mormon between them. Heh. I recall dancing with a Mormon date at the high school’s homecoming in Utah. A chaperone who was also a Seminary teacher looked at us disapprovingly, and she said “The Book of Mormon is on CD-ROM now.” ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/196 "2010-07-26T18:12:58Z")
> [@Rhodes](#): > > > [@Voyager](#): > > > > I don’t recall her having to do that - though her friend’s father was a bishop, so maybe he could do it. The dances were not open to all, which was perfectly reasonable. She was amused that the couples had to dance with a space equal to the size of the Book of Mormon between them. > > Heh. I recall dancing with a Mormon date at the high school’s homecoming in Utah. A chaperone who was also a Seminary teacher looked at us disapprovingly, and she said “The Book of Mormon is on CD-ROM now.” Catholic kids used to have to leave room for the Holy Spirit between them. Try putting THAT on CD-Rom… ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/197 "2010-07-26T19:41:38Z")
> [@Rhodes](#): > > Heh. I recall dancing with a Mormon date at the high school’s homecoming in Utah. A chaperone who was also a Seminary teacher looked at us disapprovingly, and she said “The Book of Mormon is on CD-ROM now.” 😃 Now, if someone would print it on a condom. ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/198 "2010-07-26T21:51:31Z")
So, are there any Straight Dopers out there who have read a biography of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young and still have a testimony of the LDS Church? I just got back from a week-long trip in Utah. I tried not to mock or offend my Mormon friends and family, but I lack the willpower to resist. It amazes me how few of the faithful know hardly anything about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. They know he was imprisoned repeatedly on “false charges,” but I couldn’t find a single person who knew what the charges were or why the charges were false. They know he died as a martyr, but they don’t know the principle that his martyrdom was defending. They can quote passages from the 1820 First Vison story recorded in 1838, but they know nothing of how Joseph Smith described the First Vision closer to the time when it actually occurred. My wife persuaded her sister to read Richard Bushman’s _Rough Stone Rolling_, which is probably the most LDS-friendly biography ever written (disclaimer: if a story about Joseph Smith doesn’t answer the simple questions above, then it’s not really a biography IMHO). It’s not that we’re trying to convert my sister-in-law to ex-mormonism; we just want our friends and family to understand why it is impossible to believe when we know the full story. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/199 "2010-07-27T00:39:52Z")
> [@Erdosain](#): > > 1. The Mormon Church leaves it up to married couples to determine whether oral sex is permissible within marriage(!). And the only reason this is true is because there was such a backlash when they tried to prohibit it in the early 1980s. When even your married sex life is open to scrutiny, it’s hard to argue that they are letting members believe whatever they wish. Please produce proof that “they tried to prohibit it in the early 1980s”. ---
**Author:** ![Ionizer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5daacb/32.png) [@Ionizer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ionizer)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841/200 "2010-07-27T01:46:14Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > > [@Erdosain](#): > > > > 1. The Mormon Church leaves it up to married couples to determine whether oral sex is permissible within marriage(!). And the only reason this is true is because there was such a backlash when they tried to prohibit it in the early 1980s. When even your married sex life is open to scrutiny, it’s hard to argue that they are letting members believe whatever they wish. > > Please produce proof that “they tried to prohibit it in the early 1980s”. Is [this](http://www.i4m.com/think/sexuality/mormon_oral_sex.htm) credible? Jan 5, '82 anyways. May not be the best cite, though. It was the first result when I Googled [Mormon Oral Sex Prohibition](http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=Mormon+oral+sex+prohibition&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CbTbUhjlOTKVHlaAy96jcpAQAAACqBAVP0FfgLA&pbx=1&fp=15c13a1fcf1fb74c) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-mormonism-survived-modern-scrutiny/546841.md?page=11)