Not sure. You may be thinking of Scientology, but I’m not 100 percent sure that some of the crazy Mormon stuff isn’t also only told to higher-ups.
Who wouldn’t be? That shit was gold ya’ll!
The Doctrine of Plural Marriage was “revealed” to and practiced by Joseph Smith (and possibly a few other Apostles) in the early 1830’s, but it wasn’t until The Mormons migrated from Nauvoo to Deseret that Brigham revealed the Doctrine to all Mormons during a stopover in Iowa.
One thing I observe, living in a town with a larger Mormon population, is that there is a lot of social pressure to not leave. My daughter had a lot of Mormon friends in junior high and high school, and even had a card that let her get into Mormon dances. They seem to be very good at having social events to encourage LDs members to meet and date each other. She drifted away from her friends since they pretty much all went away to various BYUs, which gave another opportunity to marry people in the church. Unlike most young women, who seem to have some pressure to not marry until after school, they seemed very determined to marry as early as possible. Drifting away from the church, or even not doing a mission if you are a boy, has more impact than just sleeping late on Sunday.
BTW, nearly all her Mormon friends come from big families, where the kids married early for the most part. Anyone not being married at 25 was more or less considered an old maid. This is just anecdotal, of course.
I think you need to make a distinction between crazy stuff that is currently believed and crazy stuff that the Mormons have conveniently stopped believing when it became politically unviable or otherwise hurt the brand, as it were. I would imagine that most of the beliefs currently embraced are pretty available to all members from the canonical sources, and that the now-repudiated ones just don’t get discussed. But other than the secret ceremonies of whatever goes on in the Temple (which I guess you’d find out once you entered into full priesthood), I’m not aware of any high-OT-level type beliefs that are current doctrine but that you have to wait/qualify to hear.
That’s pretty different from Scientology, where AFAIK they’ve never repudiated any of the craziness, but do make you wait/pay to hear the high-level, still-believed, crazy stuff.
Oh, absolutely. They raise the kooky bar to commendable heights. The Russian judge gives them an 8.6, needs more UFOs.
My point was that just because the kooky of more mainstream religions is, ah, denser rather than lathered all about, doesn’t make them any less nonsensical. A crunchy layer of historicity around a delicious core of absurdity does not a sensible mental construct make.
I have no idea why I veered right into Yodaspeak, there.
I don’t defend Mormon beliefs, but couldn’t the same argument be made for the Mormon stories? There really was a place called America, and there really were indigenous people living there. So didn’t they get the “broad strokes” right? I mean, yeah, if you want to be sufficiently broad, and say, for example, that there was an ancient Egyptian civilization, and ignore the fact that the central tenet of the story, that they had Hebrew slaves, is false, and therefore the Bible is correct, then you could say it “agreed with reality”, but then that is such a low standard, it also applies to Morman tenets.
I’m not seeing the difference. I think Christians “feel” that their beliefs are more tenable because they have been indoctrinated into the religion, but they really aren’t.
Really? I don’t see that having real characters in the story necessarily lends any credence at all. Bambi is a fictional character, and Conan O’Brien is a real person, yet I find it easier to believe that deer prance in the woods than to believe that talk-show hosts can magically make their desk turn into a car and drive around outside the studio.
you’re confusing beliefs (which are not intended to be logical) with the factual, historical parts of the book, which are intended to be logical.
Unlike the Book of Mormon,…in the Bible, every plant and animal mentioned actually existed in Palestine 2000 years ago.The names of the kings and neighboring tribes are verifiable, the weapons described are known to be accurate, etc.
(other than the creation myth in Genesis, which is not necessarily intended to be historically accurate…it mentions no dates, for example.)
So there is some logic to the Bible, which a believer can use to strengthen his belief. The Book of Mormon is the opposite—its basic facts are wrong.
(it’s as if the Bible , instead of saying that Jesus ate bread or rode into Jersualem on a mule, said he ate sushi or rode on a llama)
Leviathan swims though thread and eats chappachula.
Not all that accurate - it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the Davidic empire actually existed - though there is evidence for David as a ruler. And there is at least some evidence that the things built by Solomon were actually built later. And the Exodus story and the stories in Judges are kind of iffy also.
But contemporary history, sure, absent the legend or two like the Hanukkah story, and remembering that the authors of the Bible certainly had political and religious goals in what they put down.
I checked and found conflicting stories. How sure are we that Smith taught and practiced plural marriage? The church eventually led by his son blamed that on Young.
//How has Mormonism survived modern scrutiny?//
I don’t think it has in the intelligent parts of the world.
Yea, but deer=/= Bambi. A story involving a real person may have happened or it may not have happened. A story that happened to a fictional being or in a fictional place is automatically, well, fictional. You don’t really need to consider the possibility that a hunter really shot Bambi’s mother. Its not true because there never was a real Bambi. A story involving Conan O’Brian may or may not be true, his desk didn’t turn into a car, but there is some subset of Conan O’Brian stories that are true, I can’t dismiss them all as false purely because they involve O’Brian
I don’t think this really works. The truth is that scholars can point to things in the NT that they know aren’t true (like the problem of the “Jews gunning for Jesus” storyline), but the average schmoe doesn’t know it. The average schmoe might know about horses not being in North America, though. That doesn’t mean the one is counterfactual and the other isn’t, just that one is longer ago and therefore requires more specialized knowledge.
I don’t know whether this counts as a meaningless nitpick or just a bit beside the point, but I find it interesting.
It’s weirder than that!
Jesus was **100% human **and 100% divine.
At least, according to Catholic and Orthodox sources.
I’ll have to get back to you for a cite. The library has just closed.
- Jack
First of all, you cannot automatically dismiss something that happened to a fictional character. Hawkeye Pierce is a fictional character who operated on wounded soldiers in a MASH unit during the Korean War. There really was a Korean War, and they really did have MASH units. True stories are told through fictional characters all the time.
Second, even if you could dismiss stories because they involve fictional characters (which you can’t, but if you could…) that still doesn’t mean a story that has a real character is true. To use my MASH example again, General MacArthur, who was a real person, figured prominently in one of the episodes. But the real General MacArthur never did any of the things that occurred in that episode.
These are the kind of questions that keep me awake at night.
I would love to hear an answer from an adult westerner convert. And really put him against the wall with this clearly fraudulent belief.
Id put him in the same box as any scientologist.
Its harder with old-school christians since they could always play the “well-this-happened-thousands-of-years-ago-card” which I dont really respect, but somehow seem less embarrassing.
When I say Westerner, Im referring to missionaries going into some third world country converting,meeting people in some dismay, just been hit by a catastrophe. where they might not have the luxury of information slash education.
This is such a bold face scam regardless if it in some cases have positive benefits or not. Hell, scientology might in some ways be more convincing…and thats saying a lot!
How sure are we that Joseph Smith taught and practiced plural marriage? 100%. Seriously, there’s no question. That Joseph’s widow (his first wife) and her son would later deny this while trying to establish their branch of Mormonism shouldn’t be too surprising. I don’t believe that the Community of Christ (the current incarnation of this branch of Mormonism) still bothers denying Joseph’s secret promulgation and propagation of polygamy.
The only thing we don’t know is how many of these relationships he consummated sexually, as some of the “wives” were rather old at the time, and were probably wives in name only. And his first “wife” was probably not a wife at all, but rather just an affair with a 16-year-old girl living in his home named Fanny Alger.
This is a good resource site for the wives of Joseph Smith: http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/
Is it true that Utah has the most aesthetic plastic surgeries in North America?
I think this would be amazing if true (and a reason to move there)
seriously: is this true and if yes, what is the rationale?