Genie,
Does that mean that if a woman or man in the religion never marries, or gets divorced, they cannot get into Heaven?
Its my understanding that if they stay single, they cannot get to the highest level of Heaven, which is supoosedly better than the lower 2.
I may be wrong, correct me if so.
Hence, everyone really wants to get married, at least temple married.
It was always my understanding that righteous unmarried people who didn’t have the opportunity to find a spouse and have children in this life would be able to in the afterlife. Those that let an opportunity pass would become “ministering angels” in the Celestial Kingdom. Understandably, temple marriage and having children in this life is a primary goal for Mormons.
OP:
Jodi highlighted one of my biggest problems with Mormon theology: it is ever-changing and personal folklore/theories are common (like any other religion). One example would be the increasingly limited role given to female members (speaking in tongues and giving blessings were common for women in early church history; not so now). Other examples would be the apocalyptic orientation of past Mormon doctrine, polygamy, the Adam-God theory, and withholding the priesthood from those of African descent. Since Mormon doctrine is based on recieving revelation, the various theories Mormon leadership has offered over the years can be rejected by current leadership. Combined with the examples given by Gobear, the inconsistencies and changeability of Mormon doctrine led me to question my faith and leave the LDS church. That said, most of my family and many friends are Mormons and they actively and genuinely strive to be good church members and good human beings.
Hope this answers your question, Stccrd.
On the contrary, my friend. Xenu, thetans, and engrams are most certainly falsifiable. The former is falsifiable in the clear historical innacuracies of the Co$ description of Incident II by comparing what we know of geology with those volcanoes listed in the OTIII text and supplements (as well as a host of other reasons.) Thetans are “spirits”, but at the very least the attributes given them are falsifiable because they relate to actual behaviour patterns. An early study on Dianetics in 1952, the only psychological study done, shows that Hubbard’s tech regarding auditing the reactive mind doesn’t work, and I think we know enough about the mind to falsify engrams either now, or in the future. www.xenu.net
Sorry for the brief hijack, I couldn’t let that one slip by my radar.
Anyways, as for the LDS, I’ve had some friends who were members, every one of them was a genuinely nice person (though they tended to be rather shy, that might just have been their own personalities and not an offshoot of their church’s practices.) Frankly, their beliefs strike me as no more ridiculous than most other religions.
…and before you go too deep into whether Smith’s claims are falsifiable, remember that lots of religions have historical claims. It might be harder now to falsify Christian and Jewish historical claims because they’re so old. In principle, all the events of the Bible are every bit as falsifiable as Smith’s claims. I don’t say false, just falsifiable. The claims of both could, in theory, be empirically tested.
Every time I see or hear someone make a comment like this, I have to ask:
Sillier than a man who claims to be the Son of God, dies and comes back to life?
I mean, there are a lot of claims that various religions make, but surely this is the big one, isn’t it?
If you don’t consider that silly or crazy, why then specific clothing or other items?
Do you mock the clothing that Jews wear (orthodox or otherwise)?
To answer the “get into heaven” questions…
In LDS theology, there are three degrees of glory in the afterlife, the Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial.
In the Celestial, there are three degrees, and to enter into the highest (male or female) you must additionally be married in the temple.
I think the biggest problem we LDS run into is willful disinformation about the church, followed by bizarre rumors. My primary goal when posting to LDS-related threads on SD is to correct misconceptions (fighting ignorance, ya know?).
I think there may be a problem here is the distinction between doctrine and church policy, as well as common convention. I think all hierarchical groups have the same issues. Doctrine is expanded only by revelation, policy is set or changed by church leaders, and convention can occur in any group, small or large.
Speaking in tongues is quite common now, but the spontaneous sort is less so, probably due to a number of reasons, but it there is no difference between men and women in this respect (and no, I’m not talking about glossalia). As for blessings, while it may have been more common than today for women to lay hands, the authority of the priesthood was never given to women AFAIK the way it is to men today.
Polygamy: no doctrine has changed. We have been told not to practice it currently, but the practice has not been condemned. Adam-God: our detractors have tried to make a mountain out of a molehill, and I don’t think Brigham Young ever meant what people try to suggest he meant. A good analysis of the issue (that I agree with) can be found here.
Not so. Policy can be changed, but the pricinples of the Gospel are eternal. It’s not the case that when one becomes Prophet, he ignores all that came before him.
Oh yes, and did I mention that gobear and others with objections about the Book of Abraham should read this analysis? These same arguments have been addressed over and over again, and yet our detractors seem to ignore them. Sigh.
I don’t believe this is correct. This book says they had that authority, as does this book. (The former I have read, the latter I have not.)
Moreover, this link seems to indicate that Joseph Smith contemplated women in the priesthood:
Note that this is a very pro-LDS site, the author of which (who seems to be an honest and earnest lay person, not a scholar) is says women were not in the priesthood. But then, she also says that Joseph Smith merely meant that women would be “connected to” the priesthood, not in it, when he spoke of them “coming in possession of the privileges, blessings, and gifts of the Priesthood[.]” I leave it to the reader to decide if that sounds like a reasonable interpretation of what he said or not.
Let me say, however, that I think this is a historical point, not a religious one – meaning women either used to be allowed the priesthood, or they didn’t. The evidence I have seen indicates they were allowed the priesthood – but when those privileges were taken away, the reason given was that they had never really had that authority at all. To me, this sounds a lot like historical revisionism. (“We’ve decided you never could have had it, so therefore you didn’t have it.”) YMMV.
No one posted asking what I thought of other religions. The strangest thing about the resurrection is that Jesus came back in the form of someone else and Mary Magdalane did not recognize him at first. It really makes the story less compelling.
Thanks for your comments everyone. I was merely curious to see what people think. See, i am planning to serve a mission when i turn 19, and i was just curious to see what kind of things i may encounter. I am encouraged, because most of you have been rather civil about a very sensitive subject in the world… its nice to see a bit of tolerance when we look at our newspapers everyday and see the exact opposite…
Isn’t that pretty much what I said? Changing doctrine, policy, and individual folklore happen in every religion. Since this thread is about the Mormon religion specifically, I offered my perceptions on LDS church doctrine and policy; LDS church policy reflects doctrine, which has been interpreted in different ways over the years.
I didn’t say women were given the priesthood; I said woman were allowed to minister (mostly to other women and children) by giving blessings (i.e. laying on of hands). This custom was quashed.
Mormon women would also engage in speaking in tongues in their private ministering groups. As their role in the church shifted, this custom has been neglected.
Not rejected, certainly, but LDS leadership has worked hard to distance the church from fundamentalists who choose to disregard the 1890 Manifesto (which imo, stemmed from political need) and generally from it’s polygamist past, including the fact that polygamy didn’t end after the 1890 Manifesto. Not fully rejecting polygamy as a core spiritual belief but not working for it’s legalization, either, while claiming that revelation has rescinded the need for polygamy at this time, conveniently allows the church to appear more mainstream to the general public (and possible converts).
I won’t dispute your personal interpretation of the Adam-God theory; however, evidence exists from Brigham Young’s sermons (whether you believe these sermons were revelations or not) that he did believe God came to Earth in the role of Adam to become the father of mankind. I believe Young’s innovations are simply symptomatic of the doctrinal and scriptural change that had been happening in the Church since the 1830’s.
Mormon doctrine and church policy is not static and current policy clearly reflects changes in leadership and what I consider to be the whitewashing of undesirable facets of church doctrine, as evidenced by the rejection of the doctrines of “Blood Atonement," the “mark of Cain,” of polygamy always being necessary for entrance into the highest kingdom of heaven, and of Native Americans being of Lamanite descent who’s skin would lighten if they accepted the Gospel. I believe the rejection of these beliefs stem from the need for church history and doctrine to be more palatable to current members and potential converts. I did not come into this thread to be a “detractor;” these are simply my personal observations, which I doubt will be moving to you.
Several people in this thread have noted something to the effect of, “I know only a few Mormons, but they are all nice,” or “They would have been annoying if they weren’t so darned nice.”
OK, I’m not Mormon, and I’ve known only a few Mormons, and I was a good friend with one (and still would be if I ever saw him again, I suppose)…and darned if they all weren’t some of the nicest people I’ve ever met.
Are there any Mormon jackasses out there? Or is that entire religion made up of the nicest people you’d ever want to meet?
Do they get training on being nice to non-Mormons for conversion purposes? Just curious.
If you’re planning on serving a mission, you can find out some of what you’ll be facing by watching God’s Army. Mind you, I never served a mission as I converted as an adult. But from what I’ve seen and heard from many missionaries over the years before that movie came out, it seems to me the movie does a good job of telling it.
Where are the gold plates now? are they (or photographs of them) available for independent evaluation?
Heaven, last I heard. No. BTW, where’s Sodom?
You know, I’m pretty disgusted at how much this seems to have moved from the original topic and become a sort of Mormon-bashing post.
Having shared office space with an LDS guy for several years (and going to Ward dances, and being best man at his wedding), then spending several years in Salt Lake City, here are my impressions:
1.) Mormons are incredible volunteers in the service of groups. My officemate gave lots of hours to the LDS community farm and bookkeeping. Another example – in 1983 they had tremendous flooding down City Creek Canyon in SLC that threatened downtown Salt Lake. Volunteer labor (organized around the Stakes and Wards) put up two dikes to form an artificial river down Main Street, several miles long. There were even pedestrian crossover bridges built over this to let you get from one side to the other. This diverted the flow to drains where it could be safely taken out of town. By the time I arrived, a month later (and after the floods had subsided), this was gone. Not a sandbag was left.
The next year, they did it all over again.
I can’t imagine anywhere else in the country (heck, anywhere else in the world) where you could get that all done with volunteer labor, and have such a good job done.
2.) Young Mormon women are gorgeous. I don’t know why this is, but it seemed to be true. (This, despite a local tradition of “BYU Coed” jokes that stereotypically has them as fat. Doesn’t square with my observations.)
3.) The Mormon folks I’ve known have been friendly and outgoing. It’s not a recruitment ploy.
4.) Because of the Word of Wisdom (discussed in earlier threads), Mormons don’t socialize around coffee or alcohol. Going to a Private Club ( = Bar, for practical purposes) or a coffeehouse like the Salt Lake Roasting company makes you feel positivelt decadent. I’ve been to LDS dance xclubs – no cigarette smoke, and non-caffeinated soft drinks. There are jokes about “green punch” served at get-togethers. A lot of socializing takes place at ice cream parlors, I think.
5.) I didn’t find the atmosphere of SLC oppressive, but the many restrictions do seem restrictive. It’s like living at home with your folks-- you have the feeling thast they’re so protective they’re not letting you be an adult. KBYU, the public TV station run by the Church School, would regularly censor the content of its shows, while KUED, the public TV station run by the State School (the University of Utah) would not, and it was interesting to note the differences. KBYU actually cut bits from Sherlock Holmes.
It might have been right here.
Dang! pldennison beat me to it!
Anyway, I have no bigger issues with the LDS than I do with any other Christian denomination.
IMO, denying women the priesthood is a sexist practice, but the LDS is certainly not alone in gender-based exclusion. (cf. the Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Southern Baptists et al.)
NOTE: This is not a condemnation of any of these faiths, just an observaton of an aspect of them that goes against my own personal beliefs. As long as none of them wants to see me burned at the stake, I have no problem with any of them.
In my life, I’ve only met one Mormon. She was dishonest, overbearing, and generally unpleasant to be around. (I don’t blame it on her being Mormon though.)
Sure, there are jerky Mormons. There are jerks everywhere, and we ain’t exempt.
I’m thinking about my response on feminism, so that may be forthcoming. That looks like a great essay, Jodi, and I’ll be reading it. There was no time last night, since my brother arrived home from his mission! He was in Korea–and he is probably the only missionary ever to arrive at his hometown airport and find no one waiting for him. His flight was early, and we were running a little late. 
Monty, thanks for your explanation.