This is a thread to give an opportunity for all of you with questions about Mormonism (or 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints') to ask myself and any other former Mormons around here about our experiences and insights.

I ran a similar thread over on RDF a little while ago, and I figure it would be interesting to start another thread here.

Fire away.

Did Jesus zombie really come and live in America?

num1cubfn wrote:Did Jesus zombie really come and live in America?

Apparently, but it was a short visit - a few days at most of preaching and healing.

The concept of that visit is rooted in the New testament scripture John 10:16 where Jesus states:

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

This forms the entire justification for the idea that the Nephites in America were a second 'flock' of followers whom Jesus had to visit.

misanthropic_clown wrote:

num1cubfn wrote:Did Jesus zombie really come and live in America?

Apparently, but it was a short visit - a few days at most of preaching and healing.

The concept of that visit is rooted in the New testament scripture John 10:16 where Jesus states:

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

This forms the entire justification for the idea that the Nephites in America were a second 'flock' of followers whom Jesus had to visit.

That's interesting. To me, I read him as saying that he's gonna try (how does a god "try"?) to get sinners (the "other sheep") into his fold, but I guess that shows just how subjective the bible actually is, certainly would have been nice if god had thought ahead about giving people objective information when inspiring them to write his book.

Of course the second part implies that ALL sheep will come into his fold under one shepherd which would seem to imply that everyone is going to heaven regardless of what they do.

Oh, I just thought of another good question.

In terms of religious belief, how accurate is the show "Big Love" (If you've never seen it, I guess you couldn't answer, but you should cause it's a good show.)

num1cubfn wrote:

misanthropic_clown wrote:

num1cubfn wrote:Did Jesus zombie really come and live in America?

Apparently, but it was a short visit - a few days at most of preaching and healing.

The concept of that visit is rooted in the New testament scripture John 10:16 where Jesus states:

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

This forms the entire justification for the idea that the Nephites in America were a second 'flock' of followers whom Jesus had to visit.

That's interesting. To me, I read him as saying that he's gonna try (how does a god "try"?) to get sinners (the "other sheep") into his fold, but I guess that shows just how subjective the bible actually is, certainly would have been nice if god had thought ahead about giving people objective information when inspiring them to write his book.

Of course the second part implies that ALL sheep will come into his fold under one shepherd which would seem to imply that everyone is going to heaven regardless of what they do.

It's certainly a very tenuous link - I can certainly imagine Joseph Smith (the founding prophet and writer of the Book of Mormon) scouring the Bible for any possible external justification of the concept of a group of ancient American Christians. That he could only find a vague passage to twist is probably quite telling.

What's with the magic underwear? Is it true that one should never wash it for it'd lose its magic?

num1cubfn wrote:Oh, I just thought of another good question.

In terms of religious belief, how accurate is the show "Big Love" (If you've never seen it, I guess you couldn't answer, but you should cause it's a good show.)

I caught a couple of episodes, though I can't particularly comment on the series in its entirety. I believe the premise of the show was that there was a break off sect from the main church that determined to maintain polygamy?

The main church itself does not endorse polygamy as a present practice. There are some splinter sects who do presently maintain polygamy (for example the Fundamentalist LDS church who's former leader Warren Jeffs is now in a jail cell for being an accomplice to rape), though these groups act independently of the main church. The main church ended the practice of polygamy in 1890 with their Official Declaration 1, after being hounded almost to destruction over the issue. However, the main church does maintain that polygamy is sound doctrine (that polygamy is still in theory a valid practice and will be present in the afterlife) even though the current practice of polygamy is forbidden.

From what I saw of the show, I would say it portrays how Mormon polygamy would work pretty accurately.

LIFE wrote:What's with the magic underwear? Is it true that one should never wash it for it'd lose it's magic?

The 'magic underwear' are temple garments, which are worn by members after they have participated in the Endowment ceremony in one of the churches Temples. They act as a reminder of the things taught and the promises (covenants) made in the Endowment ceremony, and some interpret the teachings in the temple to imply that the garments provide physical protection (though arguably the main idea is that by being reminded of your covenants you are less likely to break them, thus acting as a spiritual protection rather than a physical one). Otherwise, there is no real foundation to the idea of the garments being magical or having any other supernatural connotations.

Endowed members are supposed to wear the garments whenever it is practical to do so, and so it is permitted to remove them for washing (both yourself and the garments themselves), sex, sports and so on, though it is up to the individual to decide what is appropriate. The garments can be washed just as any other item of clothing.

6 fucking posts in and we hit magic underwear....


... to be fair I thought it'd take half that time.

Where did you do your mission, and what was your experience of it? Both the actual missionary work, and the church's insistence on no contact with your parents? Assuming you did it, of course.

I'm With Stupid wrote:Where did you do your mission, and what was your experience of it? Both the actual missionary work, and the church's insistence on no contact with your parents? Assuming you did it, of course.

A false assumption, I'm afraid, so I can't speak by personal experience but of the experiences of those I know. My uncle became disillusioned with the church on his mission and left the church shortly afterwards. He found that mission leaders would get 'revelation' about big breakthroughs that never came to fruition. Another uncle and a friend who both have remained in the church said that there were enjoyable periods, but the majority of it was monotonous hard work with a lot of rejection and sometimes ridicule from members of the public. Living sort of independently gave them quite a boost in confidence, though the strict day-to-day routine left them a little disorientated when they got back to real life and had to organise things themselves.

just a point of clarification on the issue of contact - missionaries are allowed to keep in touch as often as they like by letter - sending to and receiving from family and friends. In some instances the missionary will get an email account on which they are allowed to contact just their parents. Phonecalls home are allowed at Christmas and Mother's Day and, depending on the specific policy of the mission president of the area, Father's day. This allows missionaries to keep up to speed with most events going on at home, though obviously they still miss family and friends throughout their mission.

Perhaps the biggest impact on all of them that they have reported is simply the fact that you get back after two years and everybody has moved on with their lives. Friends have moved on to work or studies and have made significant progress ahead of you. Family have moved on, sometimes people have been born without even knowing you. For the uncle who left the church this was (and still remains) a particular blow as he views it as a complete waste of time whereas people who maintain belief will be able to view it as a noble sacrifice.

Why weren't blacks allowed to be members? Is birth control allowed, as, the Mormons I've encountered all seem to have big families.

What's the justification for no family contact, just out of interest? I used to work with a Mormon whose son was doing it, and she came out with some crap about how they can't allow family contact because some people wouldn't be able to do it for whatever reason and it would be unfair to them. Would it be too cynical to guess that it's just good old-fashioned religious control and indoctrination, removing any outside sources of information?

The other thing that would interest me, not so much for people working in London, but perhaps in more obscure areas where there is a greater need of charity work, how missionaries are looked upon by proper charity workers working for organisations like Oxfam. Do they appreciate any extra help they can get, or would they prefer it if they weren't there?

pearlgirl wrote:Why weren't blacks allowed to be members? Is birth control allowed, as, the Mormons I've encountered all seem to have big families.

Birth control is allowed, but members are encouraged to have big families. Church leaders teach that the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth (as given to Adam and Eve in Genesis) is still in force. Thus the general idea is: the more children, the better. People who don't want children are often characterised as being selfish and disobedient.

Blacks were always allowed to be members, but the men were not allowed to hold the priesthood until 1978 when a revelation revealed that race was no longer a consideration in priesthood worthiness. The lifting of the ban is outlined in the church's Official Declaration 2 The ban on holding the priesthood is believed to extend from the doctrine that the seed of Cain (one of the sons of Adam) was cursed by God to have dark skin after murdering his brother, and that all descendants of this line were thus disqualified from holding the priesthood. (Alternatively, this cursed lineage originates from Canaan, one of the grandsons of Noah. This 'curse of ham' pervaded a lot of American society and was used as justification for slavery.). Some church leaders went on to suggest that black people were cursed for not being noble enough in the pre-earth life when there was a war between God and Satan. However, the church has since denied that there was ever any sound doctrinal reason for enforcing a ban, rather that it was just a matter of church policy. The stance is that though the reason for the ban is unknown, the ban itself was correct.

Edited to add information in bold.

I'm With Stupid wrote:What's the justification for no family contact, just out of interest? I used to work with a Mormon whose son was doing it, and she came out with some crap about how they can't allow family contact because some people wouldn't be able to do it for whatever reason and it would be unfair to them. Would it be too cynical to guess that it's just good old-fashioned religious control and indoctrination, removing any outside sources of information?

The other thing that would interest me, not so much for people working in London, but perhaps in more obscure areas where there is a greater need of charity work, how missionaries are looked upon by proper charity workers working for organisations like Oxfam. Do they appreciate any extra help they can get, or would they prefer it if they weren't there?

I would imagine that family visits would simply be viewed as a distraction from the missionary work more than anything else. I suppose there would always be the concern that some missionaries might hitch a ride back home with their parents given half the chance too. You are also probably right to suggest that keeping them in a bubble is simply another measure of control. Missionaries aren't supposed to even watch the news. It all contributes to make it all about the church.

The church actually has a separate humanitarian missionary programme which would be more involved in the projects you describe. These missionaries would not be in the business of selling religion (more just promoting a good image of the church) and so I can only imagine they are seen as a welcome addition to a charitable team. In contrast, proselyting missionaries are generally only permitted to do a few hours of work a week in the community. Their main focus is on recruiting new members.

In the words of all (successful) religions, "Go forth and multiply (my power)."

 
Escape from the FLDS: Getting Rid of Young Men

The young boys that get kicked out as Carolyn mentions, is this all true? Any further stories?

Emo Bear wrote: 
Escape from the FLDS: Getting Rid of Young Men

The young boys that get kicked out as Carolyn mentions, is this all true? Any further stories?

The FLDS group, or the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is a group that splintered off from the main church over the issue of polygamy where the main church discontinued the practise. The FLDS continues to practise polygamy to this day, but obviously due to the illegal nature of their activities they are a very secluded and secretive group. In the system of polygamy, righteous men are 'called' to take up more than one wife - these men are usually senior leaders of the FLDS church. This obviously unbalances the ratio of available women, and young men in the FLDS church will find themselves without anyone to marry, or trying to compete against the senior leaders for these women. In order to eliminate this competition the church leaders will often expel these young men should they start dissenting.

Of course, one of the more distasteful aspects is the young age at which girls are expected to marry senior church figures. These girls could be as young as 14 years old. This activity led to the leader of the FLDS group, Warren Jeffs, to be convicted of being an accomplice to rape for encouraging these marriages.

misanthropic_clown wrote:

Emo Bear wrote: 
Escape from the FLDS: Getting Rid of Young Men

The young boys that get kicked out as Carolyn mentions, is this all true? Any further stories?

The FLDS group, or the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is a group that splintered off from the main church over the issue of polygamy where the main church discontinued the practise. The FLDS continues to practise polygamy to this day, but obviously due to the illegal nature of their activities they are a very secluded and secretive group. In the system of polygamy, righteous men are 'called' to take up more than one wife - these men are usually senior leaders of the FLDS church. This obviously unbalances the ratio of available women, and young men in the FLDS church will find themselves without anyone to marry, or trying to compete against the senior leaders for these women. In order to eliminate this competition the church leaders will often expel these young men should they start dissenting.

Of course, one of the more distasteful aspects is the young age at which girls are expected to marry senior church figures. These girls could be as young as 14 years old. This activity led to the leader of the FLDS group, Warren Jeffs, to be convicted of being an accomplice to rape for encouraging these marriages.

And here you can see the direct way in which multiple marriage leads to underage marriage.
Multiple marriage --->
Decreased supply of available women --->
Tension amongst men over who can marry --->
The only source of new marriage-Eligible women is those comming of age --->
Men don't want the young girls taken before they can marry her --->
They marry the women young to get them first.