Support NeoGAF

[SillyEskimo]

Not sure if it's still true today, but Utah led the nation in prozac use.

...and online pornography consumption. However, I blame that on the fact that they are the only state full of people that actually do not steal it and so easily traceable!

 

[Spottty]

I'm a member as well and I have met quite a few return missionaries that left the church after they got back. They all had their own reasons and I think that's fine. Some came back, some didn't.
I also know guys that never went on a mission and they stayed in the church after a leave in their teens.
I even married a female missionary. Got set upon a date with her the day after I was baptized. That was 5 and a 1/2 years and 2 kids ago. She has her days that she isnt into it but over all we feel blessed that the church is in our lives. We are kinda more sunday mormons.

What I dont get about non members is the hostility towards members.I'm the only Mormon in my Union local and I get ragged on all the time. I just ask them why they care. So what if I go to church on the weekend, how does that affect them? They never have a response.

I may be a mormon but im am a huge believer in agency.
Believe what you want, I dont care, just dont question what I believe in.

 

[ronito]

Not sure if it's still true today, but Utah led the nation in prozac use.

I did my biomedical minor thesis on Prozac when I was at BYU (late 90s) and back then it definitely was. As to the female thing.

As to female depression, I have a friend that is a sex therapist and she told me that LDS/former LDS women have inordinately high numbers of sexual dysfunction. Of course, that's anecdotal but it seems that it'd be likely.

 

[Barrett2]

http://universe2.byu.edu/node/953

Not sure if troll, or just one of "those" BYU students. Pretty sure it's a troll but still have met plenty of people like this when I was at BYU.

Must be a troll. Last paragraph was too over the top, even by Provo standards... I hope.

 

[Alucrid]

Not sure if it's still true today, but Utah led the nation in prozac use.

Doesn't Utah also have a disproportionately high number of young, white male suicides?

I'm a member as well and I have met quite a few return missionaries that left the church after they got back. They all had their own reasons and I think that's fine. Some came back, some didn't.
I also know guys that never went on a mission and they stayed in the church after a leave in their teens.
I even married a female missionary. Got set upon a date with her the day after I was baptized. That was 5 and a 1/2 years and 2 kids ago. She has her days that she isnt into it but over all we feel blessed that the church is in our lives. We are kinda more sunday mormons.

What I dont get about non members is the hostility towards members.I'm the only Mormon in my Union local and I get ragged on all the time. I just ask them why they care. So what if I go to church on the weekend, how does that affect them? They never have a response.

I may be a mormon but im am a huge believer in agency.
Believe what you want, I dont care, just dont question what I believe in.

My guess is that they feel that by supporting the church you're also supporting certain distasteful views that they feel they have.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

by whom, about what?

I read an article that referred to a poll of a 1000 people sampled that almost half had unfavourable views of the faith. I remember there was some controversy regarding Romney's faith as well when he was running for the Presidency.

 

[genjiZERO]

Just my observation, but I think Americans have a problem with Mormonism because it doesn't fit nicely into the Catholic/Protestant paradigm. Americans like things to be either/or concepts. Nor is Mormonism an in-between (Episcopal/Anglican Church), nor "other but aligned" (Greek Orthodox).

 

[ronito]

I know no one will take the time to actually listen but I really found this interesting.

Two skeptics decide to go and investigate the church and eventually get baptized and podcast their experience.

I guess they do this with a bunch of different religions so they're actually pretty fair about things.

If you're bored it's sorta interesting:
Ep1:
http://www.ohnopodcast.com/investig...rie-go-mormon-part-1-and-it-came-to-pass.html

Ep2:
http://www.ohnopodcast.com/investig...arrie-go-mormon-part-2-what-no-underwear.html

 

[ronito]

http://ldsmag.com/church/article/8500?ac=1

Discussing Pornography with Your Future Son-in-Law

I clearly remember the lunch appointment with my future father-in-law to ask for his daughter’s hand in marriage. I was a bundle of nerves, but I loved his daughter more than I was afraid to talk with him. I had no idea what questions he might have in store for me. As the lunch progressed, our small talk turned into serious talk as he asked me questions about my family, my thoughts on parenting, and how I planned to support my future family.

I had only met him one previous time when I ate dinner at their house. However, I felt his love and protection for his daughter and wanted to do everything I could to win his confidence and trust. Thankfully, he gave me his full blessing and asked me only one favor: “Will you please stop by her mother’s house on your way home and show her the engagement ring?” I obliged his request and spent some time with her mother before going to propose to my wife.

After nearly fifteen years of marriage, I reflect back on that interview with gratitude for his loving protection for his daughter’s emotional, financial, and relational safety. His paternal protectiveness was certainly in the best interest of his daughter and their entire family.

I have no doubt that if I were to go through that same interview today, her father would more than likely include one more line of questioning. I imagine it would sound something like this:

“Pornography is such a common struggle for so many young men these days. Naturally, I worry that this is something you have struggled with as a teenager or young adult. Will you please describe your experience with pornography and how you’ve handled it?”

Since my interview happened in 1996 when most homes were barely getting their first dial-up modems to access this new thing called the Internet, this question was never discussed in my engagement interview.

My hope is that today’s parents, especially fathers, plan to bring up this important subject when they speak with the young man who will take their daughter’s hand in marriage.

Granted, social media, texting, and cell phones, have virtually erased the parental hurdle young suitors traditionally had to jump before moving forward with a romantic engagement. However, even though the tradition of asking a father for his daughter’s hand in marriage is becoming more passé, I believe that it’s still a father’s responsibility to protect and ask questions regardless if he is formally petitioned.

In “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”, fathers are instructed to preside, provide, and protect their families. A father’s presence and protection at this critical crossroad in his daughter’s life most certainly fulfills this divine mandate and will be a blessing to her and her future family.

And, I believe it’s equally important for fathers to prepare their own sons for potential questioning about their pornography use from a future father-in-law. Even though young people are more insulated in their telecommunication bubble, parents, especially fathers, can help build strong marriages by respectfully introducing this sensitive topic.

If there isn’t a father in the home, then I still think it’s a good idea for the mother to have this conversation with the boyfriend. As awkward as it may seem to bring up this topic, I believe it’s even more awkward to deal with the potential aftermath if this issue surfaces later in marriage.

Please note that if you are personally struggling with an unresolved pornography problem, it will make it difficult, if not impossible, to counsel a future son-in-law about your concerns. You will feel like a phony and will either avoid the conversation all together, or minimize the seriousness of it as a way to protect yourself from the reality of your own struggles. If you have struggled with pornography and haven’t fully repented and recovered from the impact on your life, make sure that you’re actively working the same recovery process you would expect from this young man.

When considering how to begin this conversation, it’s helpful to view this as something more than a “yes” or “no” question. I believe it’s safe to assume that the young man has already been exposed to pornography. One recent study showed that 86% of college-aged men had viewed online pornography in the past year. Forty-eight percent of those same men viewed it weekly.[ii] Even though he may not be currently viewing pornography, it’s likely he’s been exposed to it somewhere in his past.

I also recognize that a young man could lie to his future father-in-law and deny that he’s ever seen pornography. Obviously, there is no way to prevent someone from lying (unless, perhaps, you’re Robert DeNiro and have access to a lie-detector in your basement a la “Meet the Parents”).

In reality, it will simply require a good, honest conversation about his experiences with pornography. What should you ask? What should you look for? Here are a few questions you can ask along with some warning signs that might indicate that the young man either has or will have a significant problem with pornography in the future:

Discussion Points:

Tell me about your experience with pornography over your lifetime.

Is there a history of pornography use in your immediate or extended family?

How do you define pornography?

How have you healed from the impact of pornography on your life?

Who helped you overcome your problems with pornography?

How do you currently protect yourself from pornography?

Have you ever wanted to stop viewing pornography, but couldn’t?

Red Flags:

He admits that he used to look at pornography, but says that he stopped doing it, but fails to explain how he was able to stop.

He claims he overcame the problem on his own without any help from others.

He’s not said anything to his girlfriend/fiancé about his history or current problems with pornography.

He is vague about how he keeps himself from viewing pornography.

He admits he used to have a problem with it, but doesn’t define what exactly that problem was. He appears defensive and doesn’t want to discuss it.

He insists that he’s never even seen pornography and appears “too perfect” in his responses. Recognize that even though he may not have seen hardcore pornography, we live in a culture saturated with pornographic images. If he acts like he doesn’t notice or isn’t affected by those, you need to be concerned. Every man should acknowledge the occasional pull from images that are designed to draw our attention and entice us.

In my experience, a man who has healed from a pornography problem isn’t afraid to talk honestly about it with those who need to know. He is remorseful about the impact on himself and others. He recognizes his need for ongoing healing and recovery. He understands that he’s going to have this vulnerability for the rest of his life and he accepts the need to always be on guard with his thoughts and actions. Most importantly, he is fiercely protective of the feelings and emotions of his romantic partner and how this issue might concern her.

Remember your purpose in asking these questions. You’re there to offer a layer of protection for your daughter and family. If there are any questions or concerns about the young man’s involvement in pornography, it’s better to encourage these to be addressed now instead of later.

You don’t need to be an expert on treating pornography issues to be helpful and protective. There are ample resources available to help him overcome this problem. Make it clear, however, that if he doesn’t get help for this problem, it will have a significant impact on the way he views and treats his future wife.

I strongly recommend postponing the engagement for at least one year to allow him adequate time to build a strong recovery. This may seem extreme, but please recognize that it often takes least two to three times that long for trust to be restored in a marriage that has been betrayed by pornography. It’s better to make sure that he’s serious about getting well before committing to something as far-reaching as starting a marriage and family.

Unfortunately, it’s common practice to push the couple quickly toward marriage hoping that will solve the pornography problem. In reality, marriage only adds more pressure and secrecy to an existing pornography problem and ultimately makes the problem worse. Pornography problems aren’t about sex, and, therefore, aren’t solved through sex. The roots of pornography addiction are complex and intertwined with emotions, beliefs, relationships, physiology, and family patterns. It’s important to respect and honor the complexity of this problem, recognizing that it was formed slowly over time and will heal slowly over time.

Furthermore, Dr. Patrick Carnes, a pioneer in addiction treatment, noted that it’s common for individuals in recovery from pornography and sexual addiction to be at risk for relapse at the six-month and twelve-month marks. Learning to live without the addiction takes time and practice. A healthy recovery should include sobriety from the acting out behaviors, a new view of healthy sexuality, a different view on pornography, and a healthy relationship with themselves. Too many men “white-knuckle” their way through recovery for a year or two and then fall back into old patterns, as they failed to do any substantial internal work on their problem.

If a boyfriend shows that he’s willing to attend group support meetings, meet with a professional trained in treating pornography and sexual addiction, meet regularly with his ecclesiastical leader, read recovery books, and make other important lifestyle changes in the areas of emotional regulation, spirituality, physical self-care, and relationships, then it’s pretty safe to say that he’s going to protect his future marriage and family from the influence of pornography. Every marriage deserves to have these minimum requirements firmly in place.

If the boyfriend insists he doesn’t have a pornography problem, it’s always a good idea to set the stage for future conversations. You might say something like, “I’m grateful that you’re not currently struggling with pornography problems right now. I do know, however, that this is something that is so pervasive and easy to fall into. If you ever find yourself stuck in the trap of pornography use, will you please come to me as a support and a resource? I will be here for you and your family if something like this ever happens. Please don’t hide out in fear. I’ll be here to help you and your family.”

If you’re not a formal interviewer and don’t feel comfortable addressing this with your daughter’s boyfriend, I challenge you to make an exception for this one critical conversation. Pornography problems cause tremendous suffering in relationships and can be potentially avoided and healed when early action is taken. Ask Heavenly Father to give you the courage to initiate this important and life-changing discussion.

The saying is true that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Just start the conversation. Follow the Spirit and do your best to treat the topic with a serious tone so he understands your true intentions. Even if you’re not sure what to say, your love and concern for your family will shine through and offer protection for the next generation.

WHAT THE HELL MERIDIAN? No. This is not OK. You can be against porn all you want but this is just not a conversation your in-laws should be having with you.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

http://ldsmag.com/church/article/8500?ac=1

WHAT THE HELL MERIDIAN? No. This is not OK. You can be against porn all you want but this is just not a conversation your in-laws should be having with you.

Yeah this is WAY out there and nobody in my family or extended family would ever even talk like this.

bizzaro

 

[ronito]

Yeah this is WAY out there and nobody in my family or extended family would ever even talk like this.

bizzaro

I totally agree. Which is why I'm sorta shocked to see it in Meridian mag which is a pretty "not crazy" LDS publication.

 

[Yoritomo]

If my father-in-law asks me this I will kindly explain that we make our own pornography, and I am willing to describe in graphic detail the deplorable things I do with his daughter that we both mutually enjoy and at times record.

 

[Barrett2]

Interesting news story. Openly gay man ends long term relationship, "repents," and three months later is given leadership position in his local ward.

Link

 

[ronito]

I really don't know if the churches new stance of "You can be gay, you can just never love." Is really any better than the prior "You can be gay, you'll just go to hell." stance.

 

[ronito]

Here's an interesting history lesson about the man behind the wilkinson center. Sorta ironic that the "fun building" on campus was named after a Bircher.

http://blogs.standard.net/the-polit...d-thuggish-school-spy-ring-and-lied-about-it/

To see Cal Grondahl’s cartoon that goes with this post, click here. It’s the Ernest L. Wilkinson Student Center, or as BYU students for nearly three generations have called it, “The Wilkinson Center.” Wilkinson, now dead 30-plus years, was a Bircher-type conservative who ruled BYU in the 1960s. He was a man who could get LDS Prophet David O. McKay’s full attention with a phone or a visit. Despite the honor still bestowed the man, Wilkinson was responsible for the most thuggish official act contrary to democracy at the university. And, like a preacher caught in a choir singer’s bed, he tried to lie his way out of the amoral act.

Lest I mislead readers, Wilkinson was no adulterer or fornicator. What he did, as Gary James Bergera recounts in the Spring 2011 issue of the Utah Historical Quarterly, was oversee the development of a spy ring — staffed by ultra-conservative BYU students — to snitch on professors who failed to follow the dogmatic blend of religion and conservatism that Wilkinson advocated. And when he was caught overseeing the snitches, Wilkinson lied about his role. As is the case with these types of unsavory cover ups, parts of the truth dribbled out of the BYU president as his circle of denial diminished.

As Bergera writes, Wilkinson, after an unsuccessful run for U.S. Senate in 1964, returned as president of BYU “convinced that during his year-long absence from the Provo school, a group of ‘liberal’ teachers had decided … to bring it … toward Socialism rather than the traditional conservative view of the Church.” The BYU president argued to McKay that there were BYU professors teaching false doctrine.

It wasn’t difficult for Wilkinson to convince the feeble, 91-year-old McKay to approve a speech Wilkinson would give at the university. “The Changing Nature of American Government from a Constitutional Republic to a Welfare State” would be a firebrand, Bircheresque speech sure to annoy more liberal BYU professors. A theme of the speech, writes Bergera, was that students and faculty at BYU should adhere to a prophet’s political opinion as eagerly as they would his religious counsel.

Known to only a few was that Wilkinson intended to use his fiery speech to draw out professors he disapproved of via student spies who would take notes of any criticism they heard of the BYU president’s speech. Wilkinson recruited BYU’s comptroller, Joseph T. Bentley, to recruit conservative students “who had been complaining about liberal teachers.” Bentley recruited economics major Stephen Hays Russell. A top student as well as a John Birch Society member, Russell recruited several students to infiltrate the classes of professors Wilkinson wanted surveillance on.

The professors to be spied on included Louis C. Midgely, Richard Wirthlin (who would later gain fame as a pollster) and Ray C. Hillam, a political science professor. (According to Bergera, Wilkinson would later claim that the FBI use of surveillance justified similar use at BYU).

Eventually, Russell prepared a summary of his findings to Wilkinson. In his diary, Wilkinson wrote that the information showed “that they (the professors) think much more of their political convictions than they do of following their prophets — a situation which cannot be permitted on this campus.”

Russell’s report was handed over to BYU university counsel and vice president Clyde D. Sandgren. (It was at this point that Wilkinson told his first lie. He called the report voluntary, and omitted its origin.)

As such undercover, “Get Smartish” spying often is, the sinister incompetence of Wilkinson caused the crap to hit the fan. Professor Hillam, a lay LDS Church leader, soon discovered he had been spied on and was under investigation. He complained, as did his department chair. At this point, Wilkinson was faced with the headache of both justifying an internal investigation of a professor he disliked and trying to keep himself out of the initial conspiracy. That became more difficult as some of the students-turned spies became remorseful over their snooping and confessed to teachers and administrators. As Bergera writes, Wilkinson told Hillam that students were not organized to spy on the faculty (another whopper).

Things turned farcical at Hillam’s disciplinary hearing (one of his charges, by the way, was that he “reportedly endorsed the entrance of the People’s Republic of China into the United Nations.) At the hearing, where Russell denied “concerted surveillance activities,” another targeted professor, Midgely, called a member of the student spy ring to rebut Russell.

At this point, Russell, feeling the pressure from all sides, rushed to Wilkinson for help. As Bergera writes, “Wilkinson looked at Russell and. ‘with an instructive tone of voice,’ said, ‘You know of course this is the first I’ve heard of this group.”

It must have been a harsh, instructive moment for the flabbergasted Russell, who learned that even a man with a direct pipeline to the LDS prophet was capable of a bald-faced lie if it meant covering his butt.

Indeed, Wilkinson might have skated through the spy mess without embarrassment had he been able to make Russell, as was his intention, the scapegoat. However, BYU comptroller Bentley, who was one of the three who knew the truth, would not play along. He reminded Wilkinson “that Russell ‘had only done what (he) had been asked to do.”

Bentley’s refusal to engage in the smear of Russell and Hillam’s determination to get all the facts into the spy scandal at BYU eventually wore on Wilkinson and the BYU administration. The BYU president used his close relationships to the LDS hierarchy to try to protect himself (at one point Wilkinson badgered the aged McKay to sign a statement of support for his efforts “to see that Atheism, Communism, and Socialism are not to be advocated by BYU teachers.” But even that move was useless. By late winter of 1967, Wilkinson was forced to admit that there was an “organized surveillance of faculty by students.” After the drib, came the drab, and a month later Wilkinson was forced to admit “to having asked Bentley to recruit Russell and other students.” At around the same time, Bentley — living up to his promise to not weasel out of responsibility — released his statement that defended Russell and made it clear that Wilkinson had conceived of a spy ring.

The BYU president’s humiliation was great. The fiasco did not cost him his job, but it effectively cut his power of intimidation at the school. Hillam was vindicated and eventually made chairman of the Department of Political Science.

Most of the principals in the scandal, Hillam, Wilkinson, Sandgren, Bentley, are long dead. Ironically, the participan-turned-scapegoat, Russell, graduated with a degree in economics and pursued an academic career. Now nearing retirement himself, he is part of the faculty at the Goddard School of Business and Economics at Ogden’s Weber State University, writes Bergera.

 

[Laurentius]

http://ldsmag.com/church/article/8500?ac=1

WHAT THE HELL MERIDIAN? No. This is not OK. You can be against porn all you want but this is just not a conversation your in-laws should be having with you.

Wow. With that conversation there would be no way out for that person. Essentially he's saying:

1 - You find out that he's a porn addict, and thus should never marry your daughter (or at least needs to wait at least a year paying for licensed counseling).

2 - He says that he was previously, but isn't anymore. At which point you need to be suspicious and do everything you can to get a forced confession of what he's REALLY done.

3 - He says he's never had anything to do with pornography, at which point you know he's a liar and must further force a confession.

The only way out of that conversation would be to grovel on the floor, saying that you've spent years in recovery with to bishops/counselors/attending 12 step recovery courses, and that you haven't even dared look at pornography or think of sex in the past 3 years.

That sounds like a great husband for your daughter as well.

I'm sure a girl would really appreciate their father having that kind of discussion with their fiancee. Ugh.

 

[06nbarnhill]

Here's an interesting history lesson about the man behind the wilkinson center. Sorta ironic that the "fun building" on campus was named after a Bircher.

http://blogs.standard.net/the-polit...d-thuggish-school-spy-ring-and-lied-about-it/

Wow....just wow.

 

[BakedPigeon]

I was just reading the wikipedia on Las Vegas and I saw that30 missionaries were sent by brigham young to the area in the 1800's and they built a fort and chillaxed for a while. They then left. And I thank god for that because i just got back from vegas and it was amazing like usual. (i live in n. utah btw)

 

[elrechazado]

I was just reading the wikipedia on Las Vegas and I saw that30 missionaries were sent by brigham young to the area in the 1800's and they built a fort and chillaxed for a while. They then left. And I thank god for that because i just got back from vegas and it was amazing like usual.

They did something similar in san diego too if I remember my california history.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

I was just reading the wikipedia on Las Vegas and I saw that30 missionaries were sent by brigham young to the area in the 1800's and they built a fort and chillaxed for a while. They then left. And I thank god for that because i just got back from vegas and it was amazing like usual. (i live in n. utah btw)

Las Vegas is full of LDS people. Many of them actually work in the casinos.

 

[speculawyer]

I really don't know if the churches new stance of "You can be gay, you can just never love." Is really any better than the prior "You can be gay, you'll just go to hell." stance.

There are not many ways to reconcile man-made dogma with biological reality.

 

[elrechazado]

I really don't know if the churches new stance of "You can be gay, you can just never love." Is really any better than the prior "You can be gay, you'll just go to hell." stance.

Doctrinally from their perspective, what is the difference between saying "you have homosexual feelings, but you are fine if you don't act on them" and "you have feelings urging you as, say, a married man, to commit heterosexual adultery, but you are fine if you don't act on them"?

Don't both positions recognize what most religions view as the natural inclination for people to sin, and the virtue or whatever you want to call it in superseding those inclinations? Putting aside of course what you think about the relative "sinfullness" of either behavior.

 

[06nbarnhill]

Mormonism is so much funnier from the outside.

Being a gay man who loves porn was kinda rough back when I cared.

 

[Barrett2]

Doctrinally from their perspective, what is the difference between saying "you have homosexual feelings, but you are fine if you don't act on them" and "you have feelings urging you as, say, a married man, to commit heterosexual adultery, but you are fine if you don't act on them"?

Don't both positions recognize what most religions view as the natural inclination for people to sin, and the virtue or whatever you want to call it in superseding those inclinations? Putting aside of course what you think about the relative "sinfullness" of either behavior.

From my perspective as a former Mormon, at least, nowadays im' simply irritated that the LDS church seemingly wants to have their cake and eat it too with these kinds of issues.

They have Apostles and 'General Authorities' out there saying homosexuality is a choice, AIDS is the plague talked about in scripture, etc., while simultaneously whoever the Prophet is at the time can go on Larry King and play dumb about basic Church beliefs, and print fluff pieces in the Ensign (LDS published mag) taking very fuzzy, equivocal stances on these same issues.

 

[ronito]

Doctrinally from their perspective, what is the difference between saying "you have homosexual feelings, but you are fine if you don't act on them" and "you have feelings urging you as, say, a married man, to commit heterosexual adultery, but you are fine if you don't act on them"?

Don't both positions recognize what most religions view as the natural inclination for people to sin, and the virtue or whatever you want to call it in superseding those inclinations? Putting aside of course what you think about the relative "sinfullness" of either behavior.

The main difference is that a heterosexual can have a committed relationship with someone else. They can kiss the person they love and hold their hand. A gay person could not even do that within the church. Seems a rather large difference if you ask me.

More akin to saying "Here's some food, don't over eat." and saying "Go hungry."

 

[thehillissilent]

My wife has a friend that is Mormon, and she gave us the Book Of Mormon. I read through most of it and compared it with my knowledge of the Bible and noted some major contradictions.

This article sums them up pretty well. Here's some excerpts from what I noticed personally, which this article states really well.
http://www.gospelway.com/religiousgroups/mormonism-bible.php

#1. The Origin of the Church
Mormon Teaching
The Book of Mormon in Mosiah 18:8-30 (note vv 16-18) describes the beginning of the church in America. V17 says "And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward." The footnote says this was "about B.C. 147."

Mosiah 23:16 says "Alma was their high priest, he being the founder of their church."

So the Book of Mormon says the "church of Christ" was founded by Alma in America in 147 BC.

Bible Teaching

The Bible teaches that the church did not exist until after Jesus died, and that Jesus was the founder of the church.
Matthew 16:18 - During His public ministry Jesus promised, "I will build my church." It did not exist then (let alone in 147 BC). But when it did begin, Jesus would be its founder.

Acts 20:28 - Jesus purchased the church with His blood. So, it could not be His church till after He died.

Ephesians 1:20-23 - Christ is the Head of His church, which is His body. But He did not become Head till after His resurrection (v20). Hence, the church could not function before then, else it would have been a headless body.

1 Corinthians 3:11; Ephesians 2:20 - Jesus is the foundation, the chief cornerstone on which the church is built. The church could not exist, and people could not become part of it, until the foundation had been laid (Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Peter 2:4-8). But Christ did not become the chief cornerstone till after He had been rejected and killed (1 Peter 2:4-8; Acts 4:10,11).

So the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible about when the church began and who founded it. If any church existed in America in 147 BC, it could not have been the church of Christ. It would have existed 180 years too early to be Jesus' church. It would have had the wrong founder. It could not have belonged to Jesus because He had not yet paid for it. It would have been a building without a foundation and a body without a head.

#2. The Term "Christian"
Mormon Teaching
The Book of Mormon in Alma 46:13-16 (note v15) says that in America, "all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians, as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come." Obviously, this was supposed to have occurred before Christ came. The footnote says this occurred in B.C. 73.

Bible Teaching
Acts 11:26 says, "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." So, the first use of the term "Christian" occurred in Antioch, many years after Jesus' death. The Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible in both time and place, for it says the term was used over 100 years earlier in America.

Mormon Teaching
The Book of Mormon has people teaching and practicing the gospel steps to salvation in America years before those doctrines were revealed in the Bible.

2 Nephi 9:23,24 - The necessity of belief in Christ, repentance, and baptism in His name was taught. The footnote says this was "Between B.C. 559 and 545."

2 Nephi 30:2 - About the same time it was expressly stated that Gentiles who repent would be God's covenant people, and Jews who do not would be rejected.

2 Nephi 31:5,11-14,17 - Also about the same time is found an express description of baptism in water, in the Holy Spirit, and in fire.

Mosiah 4:2 - Men cried out for the atoning blood of Christ to forgive their sins (about 124 BC). As a result, they received a remission of sins (v3).

Mosiah 18:10-17 - Alma baptized people in water in the name of the Lord, so they were added to the church (about 147 BC).

Alma 39:15-19 - Alma clearly taught the gospel (note vv 15-18). When people "marvel why these things should be known so long beforehand," Alma replied, "Is it not as necessary that the plan of redemption should be made known unto this people as well as unto their children?" We are told that it is as easy for God to reveal these things at that time "as after the time of his coming." (Footnote: About B.C. 73) [Cf. 1 Nephi 10:19]

Hence, the Book of Mormon has the entire plan of salvation, including baptism and forgiveness by Jesus' blood, taught and actively practiced hundreds of years before Jesus died to shed His blood. And using the reasoning of Alma 39, logically the plan should have been known and practiced in every generation since Adam!

Bible Teaching
The Bible states that these doctrines were not clearly revealed before the life of Christ.

Matthew 13:17 - Jesus said that many prophets and righteous men desired to see and hear those things that He taught His disciples, but had not seen nor heard them.

1 Peter 1:10-12 says salvation was not ministered to Old Testament prophets. They predicted it, but did not understand it or participate in it.

Luke 24:47 - After His resurrection, Jesus said repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name beginning at Jerusalem. Yet the Book of Mormon has this being preached long before Jesus said it would begin, and in a completely different place (America).

Ephesians 3:3-6,9,10 - In Paul's day the gospel was revealed to the apostles and prophets, but in other ages it was not made known to the sons of men. This mystery had been hid in Christ. This hidden mystery included the fact that Gentiles would be redeemed by the gospel. Yet the Book of Mormon has all this made known long before the time the Bible says it was revealed. [Note Rom. 16:25,26; 1 Cor. 2:7-10; Col. 1:25,26.]

Romans 6:3 - As many as are baptized into Christ are baptized into His death. It would therefore have been impossible to practice gospel baptism prior to Jesus' death.

Hebrews 9:16,17 - A testament is of force only after the death of the testator. But baptism, the church, and forgiveness by Jesus' death are all part of His New Testament. Therefore, none of them could have been in effect before He died.

Again the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible, because it has many aspects of salvation being practiced long before they were truly in effect. Of course, it would be easy for Joseph Smith to include these things in the Book of Mormon, if in fact it was first written in his own day, rather than many centuries earlier as he claimed it had been.

I personally feel like I was reading an old testament rip off when reading the Book of Mormon. It even tries to sound like the King James Version. I don't buy that Native Americans were descendants from Israelites. There is no proof. I had other issues about the priesthood as well as far as the Old Testament was concerned. Also, don't get me started on Joseph Smith and the plates. Reformed Egyptian? Where are they?, etc

Also, I used to be a member of the ICOC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Churches_of_Christ), which was a cult so I understand how cults work and how information is suppressed and denied.

 

[ronito]

I don't get it. Your main gripe with the Book of Mormon is that it contradicts the Bible? So, but you do realize that's like saying "Spidey couldn't have existed yet in #62 because Hulk doesn't mention him until #132!"

Even the most apologetic mormon will admit the BoM has discrepancies with the bible. The LDS church believes in the "apostasy" where some "plain and precious truths" were removed from the bible. And if you really press them Mormons will admit they believe the bible "as long as its translated correctly."

Sorry but of all the reasons to reject the BoM this one strikes me as a little silly. If the people that reject the BoM for this reason gave the BoM the same leeway they give the Bible they'd believe it.

As to the native americans being ancient israelites, that's largely been proven false. So I can understand that. Joseph Smith being a shady guy? Very valid. Reformed Egyptian? Good point. But I just don't buy the whole "But it doesn't jive with the bible!" If you happened to be mormon first you'd be saying "The bible doesn't jive with the BoM!"

 

[gutter_trash]

I was in the Metro (subway) in Montreal and some Latterday Saints Mormons came up to me trying to convert me

I told them that I am Catholic (even if I don't care) and that is that

but they still wanted to talk to me about Christ and if I know him and blabla

then I repeated to them; look, I am already Catholic and that is that

and they persisted wanting to converse with me


WTF, are they always this pushy?

 

[thehillissilent]

I don't get it. Your main gripe with the Book of Mormon is that it contradicts the Bible? So, but you do realize that's like saying "Spidey couldn't have existed yet in #62 because Hulk doesn't mention him until #132!"

Even the most apologetic mormon will admit the BoM has discrepancies with the bible. The LDS church believes in the "apostasy" where some "plain and precious truths" were removed from the bible. And if you really press them Mormons will admit they believe the bible "as long as its translated correctly."

Sorry but of all the reasons to reject the BoM this one strikes me as a little silly. If the people that reject the BoM for this reason gave the BoM the same leeway they give the Bible they'd believe it.

As to the native americans being ancient israelites, that's largely been proven false. So I can understand that. Joseph Smith being a shady guy? Very valid. Reformed Egyptian? Good point. But I just don't buy the whole "But it doesn't jive with the bible!" If you happened to be mormon first you'd be saying "The bible doesn't jive with the BoM!"

I'm speaking from a mainstream Chirstian perspective who beileves in the Bible first and foremost. My wife's friend was trying to convert my wife, who was also Christian to Mormonism. I was trying to be fair in comparing the two.

EDIT: A lof of the Christian cults always has the Bible + something else, were the "something else" ends up contradicting the Bible.

 

[Barrett2]

Even the most apologetic mormon will admit the BoM has discrepancies with the bible. The LDS church believes in the "apostasy" where some "plain and precious truths" were removed from the bible. And if you really press them Mormons will admit they believe the bible "as long as its translated correctly."

Interesting thought experiment for Mormons. LDS Church believes the Bible had things changed and removed over time, and the Joseph Smith Translation reflects this. Only, there's a few problems with this. (i) Dead Sea Scrolls were buried prior to any formal Christian apostasy from the "pure" truth of Christ, yet they are basically in-line with the contemporary Bible, yet not a single Old Testament Joseph Smith "translation" interjection is found in them. (ii) The Joseph Smith Translation isn't even consistent with the Book of Mormon. There are passages of the Old Testament Joseph changed to conform with their "true" meaning, but in the Book of Mormon itself when it quotes these passages word for word, it quotes the direct King James Bible. This in and of itself is funny, because every instance of the Old Testament quotation in the BOM is word-for-word identical with the early 1800s printing of the King James Bible translation; meaning, the only logical conclusion is that when Joseph or whoever wrote the BOM, they literally copied from their local Bibles the passages that were being "quoted" in the BOM, but Joseph later forgot to correct this discrepancy in subsequent printings of the BOM after his mid 1830s Biblical "Joseph Smith Translation" adventures.

But again, both of those above points are things I guarantee 99.5% of active Mormons have never heard, or if they did, they immediately drowned out with the mental siren of ANTI-MORMON LITERATURE!

/end rant

WTF, are they always this pushy?

LDS proselytizing is based on US-style in-home sales tactics. I was an LDS missionary. It's not much different than selling brooms door to door. If you aren't aggressive, you don't get any sales. Though, in my experience the vast majority of missionaries are also ridiculously friendly, so it's hard to get mad at them for doing their job, IMO.

 

[thehillissilent]

Interesting thought experiment for Mormons. LDS Church believes the Bible had things changed and removed over time, and the Joseph Smith Translation reflects this. Only, there's a few problems with this. (i) Dead Sea Scrolls were buried prior to any formal Christian apostasy from the "pure" truth of Christ, yet they are basically in-line with the contemporary Bible, yet not a single Old Testament Joseph Smith "translation" interjection is found in them. (ii) The Joseph Smith Translation isn't even consistent with the Book of Mormon. There are passages of the Old Testament Joseph changed to conform with their "true" meaning, but in the Book of Mormon itself when it quotes these passages word for word, it quotes the direct King James Bible. This in and of itself is funny, because every instance of the Old Testament quotation in the BOM is word-for-word identical with the early 1800s printing of the King James Bible translation; meaning, the only logical conclusion is that when Joseph or whoever wrote the BOM, they literally copied from their local Bibles the passages that were being "quoted" in the BOM, but Joseph later forgot to correct this discrepancy in subsequent printings of the BOM after his mid 1830s Biblical "Joseph Smith Translation" adventures.

But again, both of those above points are things I guarantee 99.5% of active Mormons have never heard, or if they did, they immediately drowned out with the mental siren of ANTI-MORMON LITERATURE!/end rant




LDS proselytizing is based on US-style in-home sales tactics. I was an LDS missionary. It's not much different than selling brooms door to door. If you aren't aggressive, you don't get any sales. Though, in my experience the vast majority of missionaries are also ridiculously friendly, so it's hard to get mad at them for doing their job, IMO.

I would have to agree. i noticed this as well, which is why I stated the the BOM felt like a Old Testament rip off using the Kings James Version. It seemed like Joseph Smith was trying hard for the BOM to sound authentic.

Also, having been in a Christian cult prior, you are basically taught not to think for yourself and that criticism against the "church" is heretical. It's basically MLM (multi-level-marketing) form of religion. Also, if you try to leave the cult, you will told that you have "fallen away" and warned that you will "go to hell" if you do leave. There is a lot of control and manipulation behind the scenes that people don't know about. Cult members can put on fake fronts and smile to get you to join. Once you do, they make sure they have you hooked and they make it difficult for you to leave.

 

[Barrett2]

I would have to agree. i noticed this as well, which is why I stated the the BOM felt like a Old Testament rip off using the Kings James Version. It seemed like Joseph Smith was trying hard for the BOM to sound auhentic.

Also, having been in a Christian cult prior, you are basically taught not to think for yourself and that criticism against the "church" is heretical. It's basically MLM (multi-level-marketing) form of religion. Also, if you try to leave the cult, you will told that you have "fallen away" and warned that you will "go to hell" if you do leave. There is a lot of control and manipulation behind the scenes that people don't know about. Cult members can put on fake fronts and smile to get you to join. Once you do, they make sure they have you hooked and they make it difficult for you to leave.

This is a good point because it is only years after leaving the LDS church that I came to realize how true this was.

It's funny, within the LDS Church there is this mantra that Mormons are encouraged to "find out for themselves" whether the Church is "true," and to be learned and well-read. Problem is, you are supposed to become well-read about the Church by essentially only reading books published by the Church owned and operated book publisher and retailer, or at least books sanctioned by the Church. Not only that, but even discussing certain topics contained within books actually SOLD at Church owned bookstores would get you labeled a heretic, and potentially disfellowshipped if you refused to stop talking about them to other members. For example, Richard Bushman's books are all sold at Deseret Books, but if you attempted to engage an LDS Sunday School class on some of the topics in those books, you would basically be asked to leave and those topics would never be allowed to be part of a Sunday School lesson or congregational "talk" i.e.: sermon.

IMO, the Church has gone so overboard in tabooing basic elements of it's history that they end up doing more harm than good. Most LDS people are raised to have such a childish and simplistic notion of Church history, when many of them are confronted with the harsher elements of LDS Church history in adulthood, the natural reaction is anger that you have been lied to your entire life.... at least I was.

The entire way Mormons are supposed to have their spiritual moment is also so heavily prescribed that it seems comical in retrospect. From the time you are a kid, you are taught that you will grow up feeling that the Church is true, but in order to "know" it is true, you are supposed to read a particular passage in the BOM, in 'Moroni,' and then pray to ask God if it's true. God will tell you the Church is true by "causing your heart to burn," or some other similarly equivocal, vague physiological phenomena. In retrospect, it's just classical conditioning. When you are taught to believe from the age of 18 months that the exact manner in which you will receive your "knowledge" of the truth of the Church will come via such a tightly defined set of parameters, thats no different than conditioning a dog to immediately shake at the sight of a carrot, or some nonsense.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I was in the Metro (subway) in Montreal and some Latterday Saints Mormons came up to me trying to convert me

I told them that I am Catholic (even if I don't care) and that is that

but they still wanted to talk to me about Christ and if I know him and blabla

then I repeated to them; look, I am already Catholic and that is that

and they persisted wanting to converse with me


WTF, are they always this pushy?

LDS are no more pushy than evangelicals, JW's, etc. Although I'd much rather converse with an LDS than an evangelical who is pushing his beliefs on you or a JW.

 

[soldat7]

The entire way Mormons are supposed to have their spiritual moment is also so heavily prescribed that it seems comical in retrospect. From the time you are a kid, you are taught that you will grow up feeling that the Church is true, but in order to "know" it is true, you are supposed to read a particular passage in the BOM, in 'Moroni,' and then pray to ask God if it's true. God will tell you the Church is true by "causing your heart to burn," or some other similarly equivocal, vague physiological phenomena. In retrospect, it's just classical conditioning. When you are taught to believe from the age of 18 months that the exact manner in which you will receive your "knowledge" of the truth of the Church will come via such a tightly defined set of parameters, thats no different than conditioning a dog to immediately shake at the sight of a carrot, or some nonsense.

And that same formula is prescribed to adult 'non-member' individuals as well. This doctrine is no different from standard, non-Mormon Christian doctrine relating to conversion and experiences with the Holy Spirit. Your commentary implying 'brainwashing' applies to most, if not all, Christian denominations and organized religion. This is not a unique aspect of Mormonism.

 

[ctrayne]

Inactive Mormon here. I respect members of the church, but I want out, for many reasons.
I'll post later, but I wanted to "check in."

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Had a couple LDS elders come to my door today. Ended up inviting them in and we had an hour conversation. Really nice guys. I let them know where I stood on matters but it was extremely interesting nevertheless. When I told them that years ago I had asked God whether or not the BOM was true and Joseph Smith was their prophet and received a negative they were flabbergasted.

 

[ronito]

Are there any outside reports on if the church really is growing? I know they say it is, but I am under the assumption that they count even the most inactive as members. I am having a hard time believing it is with the acceptance of atheism in our culture, and especially the wide-spread use of the internet. I can remember being a member 7ish years ago and doing research about the church on wikipedia alone; it was definitely a turning point for me. I imagine a lot are doing the same.

And then there are families these days that have 2 or 3 kids instead of the usual 5-8.

Maybe it's just my area (in Utah), but they seem to be shrinking in numbers here. I went to sacrament after a baptism a few months ago and I was shocked that my old ward was nearly empty. There were only a few families left.

The church claims big growth numbers but even the staunchest mormon apologists call those numbers into serious question. A few pages back I made a post about membership numbers. The general consensus is that the church is adding more members yearly, but when you take out the inactivity rate (the church keeps you on their records if you were ever baptized until your 110th birthday even if you're dead) the church is at best keeping up with the "organic growth" (IE: children of active parents)

 

[Hitokage]

I find it amusing how one can implore people to think for themselves while judging faiths based primarily on their agreement with the Bible.

 

[ronito]

I posted this in the PoliGAF thread but I think it's more relevant here:

Religion dispatches having some fun with Romney.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/5103/how_mormon_is_mitt_romney/

Earlier this week, Florida evangelical Christian leader John Stemberger endorsed Rick Perry’s campaign for GOP presidential nominee. According to Stemberger, Perry was more “trustworthy” on social conservation issues like abortion rights.

On Romney, Stemberger said: “The issue not that he is a Mormon. The issue is that he wasn’t Mormon enough. If he had been consistent with traditional Mormon values his whole career, that would make me feel a lot more comfortable about where he’s coming from.”

Mitt Romney. Not Mormon enough. Yeah. Right.

Stemberger’s ludicrous assessment of Mitt Romney’s Mormonism inspired an eighteen-hour-stream of “Mitt Romney is so Mormon jokes” on Twitter at @askmormongirl. I’m reprinting the best here, with thanks to the comic geniuses of the Mormon Twitternacle, especially Matt Workman--@matthewworkman--and Jerilyn Pool--@auntmarvel."

(Just a note: for some of these, you may have to be Mormon to understand.)

So, how Mormon is Mitt Romney?

Mitt is so Mormon he’s related to the other Mormon presidential candidate and half of his own campaign volunteers as well.

Mitt is so Mormon his campaign bus is a pioneer handcart.

Mitt is so Mormon he’d call 19-year-old boys to serve as US ambassadors.

Mitt is so Mormon his Israel policy will be centered on Jackson County, Missouri.

Mitt is so Mormon he’ll make the income tax a flat 10% and collect fast offerings to fund Medicaid.

Mitt is so Mormon he’ll ask the Senate to “sustain” his appointees by manifesting with an upraised hand.

Mitt is so Mormon he doesn’t do Pilates, he does golden Pilates.

Mitt is so Mormon that his campaign “oppo” team has done all the other candidates’ genealogy.

Mitt is so Mormon he’s organizing his precinct walkers in pairs to knock doors with a very special message.

Mitt is so Mormon he’d make the Book of Mormon required reading at the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Mitt is so Mormon, that if he’s elected the “First Lady” will be known as the “First Wife.”

Mitt is so Mormon he’ll choke up and weep during his inaugural address. And then say, “I told myself I wasn’t going to cry.”

Mitt is so Mormon he’d commission a presidential motorcade built entirely of 10-passenger family vans.

Mitt is so Mormon, he will actually hang the Constitution up by a thread, just so he can save it.

Mitt Romney is so Mormon that he’s afraid to join the Tea Party because of Doctrine & Covenants 89.

Mitt is so Mormon he’ll start the State of the Union with the words: “I wasn’t going to get up, but the Spirit just carried me up here.”

Mitt is so Mormon his campaign biography begins, “I, Willard, having been born of goodly parents.”

Mitt is so Mormon, he will ask members of Congress to go home and pray about his economic plan.

Mitt is so Mormon he’d ask the Elders Quorum to move him into the White House.

Mitt Romney is so Mormon that his first act will be to make July 24 a national holiday.

Mitt is so Mormon, he asks donors to stack chairs after fundraising dinners.

Mitt is so Mormon he’ll award Ty Detmer, Steve Young, and Jimmer Fredette Congressional Medal of Honor.

Mitt is so Mormon he refers to expatriates as “apostates” and non-US citizens as “Gentiles.”

Mitt is so Mormon that his campaign slogan is “What do you know about Mitt Romney? Would you like to know more?”

Mitt is so Mormon he’ll reroute the Freedom Trail through Palmyra, New York, Nauvoo, Illinois, and Winter Quarters, Iowa.

Mitt is so Mormon he’ll rename the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms the Word of Wisdom squad.

Mitt is so Mormon he’d do an ad for the LDS Church: “I’m a husband, father, and leader of the free world. And I’m a Mormon.”

Mitt is so Mormon he isn’t as concerned about getting American youth jobs as he is about getting them married.

Mitt Romney is so Mormon he tried to convince CNN to let him bring a visual aid to the debate so he could turn it into an object lesson.

Mitt is so Mormon that he refers to Congress as “The Great and Spacious Building.”

Mitt is so Mormon that out of “concern for the one” he’ll invite Kim Jong-Il to join the fold.

Mitt is so Mormon he’ll end every address with “hope you all get home without any harm or accidents.”

Mitt is so Mormon he’ll assign a friend to every new member of Congress.

Mitt is so Mormon he’s already picked out a room in the White House for his year’s supply of wheat and beans, and he’ll require the White House Chef to rotate the food storage.

Mitt is so Mormon he’ll replace the Secret Service with the Danites.

Mitt is so Mormon his Secret Service codename will be Mahonri Moriancumr.

Mitt is so Mormon he thinks Harvard is the BYU of the east.

Mitt is so Mormon he thought the debt ceiling was something that could only happen in a temple.

Mitt is so Mormon, he doesn’t campaign: he “fellowships.”

Mitt is so Mormon that he’s installing two basketball hoops at the inaugural ball so there’s a place to hang decorations.

Mitt is so Mormon that he’ll change the name of “Cabinet Meeting” to “Correlation Meeting.”

Mitt is so Mormon that if he got elected all of the White House Pyrex 9x13 pans would have a piece of masking tape on them with his name written in Sharpie.

Mitt is so Mormon, he has four cats named 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, 3 Nephi and 4 Nephi. (4 Nephi is the small one.)

Mitt is so Mormon that late last night he snuck out to put 5000 plastic forks in the lawn of Jon Huntsman. And after that, he heart attacked Rick Perry.

Mitt is so Mormon that he’s going to rename the 101st Airborne as “The Stripling Warriors.”

Mitt is so Mormon, he won’t deport illegal aliens, he’ll just disfellowship them.

Mitt is so Mormon, he’ll rename FEMA the Federal Relief Society.

Mitt is so Mormon he’ll start his acceptance speech with “I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it.”

Mitt is so Mormon that if elected he’ll require every state to have an Official Casserole.

Mitt is so Mormon that the Marine Band will play “Praise to the Man” when he enters a room.

Mitt is so Mormon that he’ll appoint Lavell Edwards head of the Department of Defense.

Mitt is so Mormon he won’t allow advisers wearing non-white dress shirts to participate in cabinet meetings.

Mitt is so Mormon that he’ll rename the weekly presidential address “Politics and the Spoken Word.”

Mitt is so Mormon that his cabinet would consist entirely of unqualified volunteers.

Mitt is so Mormon he’d outsource the department of education to the Boy Scouts.

Mitt is so Mormon he’d convene a linger-longer after cabinet meetings.

Mitt is so Mormon he’d hang a copy of the Proclamation on the Family and a picture of the Washington, D.C. LDS temple in the White House.

Mitt is so Mormon he has volunteers combing through old GOP voter rolls for less actives he can reactivate.

Mitt is so Mormon he’d commission a Mod Bod undershirt to be engraved under the sleeveless dress of the Statue of Liberty.

Mitt is so Mormon he’d put everyone in his stake on the inauguration invite list. Just because.

Mitt is so Mormon he’d ask the Chief Justice to use a quad at his inauguration.

Mitt is so Mormon, he will add the phrases “every fiber of my being” and “beyond a shadow of a doubt” to the presidential oath of office.

Mitt Romney is so Mormon he’d plan a youth dance festival for his first 4th of July in office.

Some of those might actually happen like the "every fiber of my being" the crying one and the unqualified volunteers one is sure to happen.

 

[Trent Strong]

I really don't know if the churches new stance of "You can be gay, you can just never love." Is really any better than the prior "You can be gay, you'll just go to hell." stance.

Uh, the Telestial Kingdom is not exactly "hell". Not even close really.

 

[ronito]

Uh, the Telestial Kingdom is not exactly "hell". Not even close really.

Yeah don't make me an offender for a word.
You know what I mean. You can be gay but never be exalted. You can be gay but you'll never get the special cake.

 

[Trent Strong]

Yeah don't make me an offender for a word.
You know what I mean. You can be gay but never be exalted. You can be gay but you'll never get the special cake.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Still, I think it's an important distinction.

 

[Barrett2]

I posted this in the PoliGAF thread but I think it's more relevant here:

Religion dispatches having some fun with Romney.

Some of those might actually happen like the "every fiber of my being" the crying one and the unqualified volunteers one is sure to happen.

That actually seems like a pretty smart approach for evangelicals to use if they don't trust Romney for religious reasons. "He's not Mormon enough" is such a perfect diss.

 

[ronito]

That actually seems like a pretty smart approach for evangelicals to use if they don't trust Romney for religious reasons. "He's not Mormon enough" is such a perfect diss.

Which I find funny because right now Mittens is almost as Mormon as you can get.

 

[ronito]

Very interesting question and answer with a former Distribution center employee (the guys that sell you the garments)

I used to work for the Church. Now, before you start imagining anything, it wasn’t a very important job. I worked retail at one of the Church’s now-defunct Distribution Centers; our purpose was to sell items produced by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric. We sold Sunday School manuals, scripture sets, Church videos and audio media, hymnals, pictures, and a host of other publications.

We also sold garments. The garment is an article of clothing given to endowed members of the Church upon their first time through the Temple rituals. The garment is produced by another branch of the CPB, Beehive Clothing, and was sold through Distribution Services.

Working a job with garments really gave me a new perspective on them and how to treat them. Before working at the Center, I enjoyed using the full name of the garment, the Garments of the Holy Priesthood, whenever it seemed appropriate. However, after only a few months of stocking garments, selling garments, dealing with irate customers trying to return used underwear, and (most fun of all) throwing dozens upon dozens of boxes of garments around the back room (go long!) it became difficult to mentally treat them with such a separate respect. My respect for garments became far more personal; they were part of the purpose of my employment. Though inanimate pieces of clothing, we had a relationship, an understanding between us. Using the full title became like calling a close friend by their family name: it felt wrong. Today, every time I hear someone using the full title I can’t help but smile: I suppose it’s good that they have respect for something their view as sacred, but for them the garments are still something “other” and “distinct” from their lives. Which isn’t always a bad thing: many people view the garment as a constant reminder of promises they’ve made with God in the Temple. Perhaps too much familiarity with the garment would diminish their effectiveness as such a reminder. I don’t know: I can only judge myself.

However, for an article of clothing that is related to the Temple, there is a certain paradox surrounding the garment. Most aspects of the Temple are easy to not talk about, because they stay in the Temple. Special clothing, ritual langauge, and other aspects don’t ever have to leave the Temple, and thus are relatively easy to avoid in conversation outside. But this is not so with the garment: you bring it with you from the Temple and devout members wear it daily. It becomes part of daily life, and yet it still carries with it the sense that conversation about it should be avoided. Thus, it becomes the subject of quiet conversations between members. Their presence is openly acknowledged and simultaneously avoided.

One of the benefits of working at the Center where the garments are so central to our operations, is that this wall of paradoxical avoidance/interest quickly breaks down. And it’s not just a question of employee culture: we receive training on how sell the garments, how to talk about the garments with customers, how to answer questions, and so forth. For us, avoiding the topic simply isn’t possible: the topic of garments is part of our purpose as a Center.

There were a number of interesting things I learned while working at the Center. Because everyone seems to always have the same questions, let me approach it in the form of a question-answer session.

Can I try the garments on before hand? Can I see what the garments look like?

No, you can’t try them on beforehand. The garments are a type of underwear and you cannot try them on without purchasing them first. Nobody else wants to wear used underwear. For this reason it’s very difficult to return opened packages of garments. If you have garments you don’t want/need, get in touch with the local Bishop or Relief Society president; perhaps someone in your ward ahs a need. Deseret Industries will also refuse to accept underwear of any kind, so don’t bother.

As for seeing the garments beforehand, it used to be the practice of Distribution Services to have a garment without the marks that people could look at. They took this away a long time ago. My personal opinion: if you’re really that curious and haven’t been through yet, Google will probably be your friend. I’m not saying that I support the existence of such images, but the LDS Church can’t do anything about them. The garment may be sacred, but it ceased to be secret a long time ago.

The sizing for women seems messed up. Why?

Obviously if you can’t try them on beforehand, you need to rely on the sizing information. Men have sizes that are correlated to standard American belt sizes and shirt sizes, so for us it’s easy.

Women, unfortunately, have it much worse. The sizing chart was updated at least three times while I was employed at Distribution. There are a number of problems in assembling the sizing charts.

One of the biggest problems, apart from the typical problems for women’s clothing (dealing with waist and hips, various bust sizes, etc) is that there exists a very clear generational difference in how the garment is worn. Older members of the Church enjoy wearing garments a bit more on the larger size of the sizing charts. They like having loose, flowing garments. Younger members enjoy having a tighter fit for their garments and tend to wear a bit smaller on the sizing charts. The problem comes to the forefront when you realize that Beehive Clothing, who runs the surveys to determine correct sizing, favors the older generation style, so the sizing chart tends to run very large when members purchase according to what the charts tell them to buy.

Until Beehive Clothing begins to acknowledge more the younger style of wearing a tighter fit (which is beginning to happen, especially with the popularity of stretchy fabrics), the sizing chart will remain problematic.

Do they need to go down to my knees?

This is a very common question. Both men and women have asked me, very concerned, if there is something wrong with them because their garments don’t come down to their knees. In trying to be respectful to the subject matter, I’ll just say that one of the marks on the garment is called the “knee mark”. The plain fact is that the short style of garments in use today are not designed to extend down to the actual knee. Those who are truly concerned could wear the ankle-length garments that the Church produces, but those are meant for cold weather and would probably be unbearable during the non-winter parts of the year. The simple answer is: no, the garment does not need to extend to your actual knee.

A similar issue that came up often for us employees was the issue of tall people purchasing the shorter “petite” cut. Every few months we had to be told again that members of the Church are allowed to purchase whichever garments they want to purchase. If a tall individual was purchasing petites, even if for his or her own use, we were not the gatekeepers of the garments and there was nothing wrong with such an individual purchasing and wearing their garments. Still, we’d occasionally get some of our older employees telling customers that they “shouldn’t” buy the smaller garment bottoms, and eventually Salt Lake would tell us again that everyone is allowed to purchase and wear what they want.

The only rule is that members are not allowed to physically alter the garments by hemming or trimming them.

I don’t like the crew necks because they peek up over my collar, but I don’t like the scoop-style necklines. Do I have to hide my garments?

This is a question that is more often asked by women, but some men are concerned about it, as well. It comes from the popular belief that in order to treat the garment with respect and to not defile it that the garment must be protected and hidden from the world. Yet, male endowed members quite often can be seen with some of the garment showing above their collar.

The better answer can be found in the new military garments, however. As the American military has spent the past several years in active duty in the Middle East and Afghanistan, it became very burdensome for LDS servicemen and women to have to wear an additional layer of clothing. In the mid-2000′s, a new garment arrived in the store. Tan now, instead of white, to match the BDUs of the American Army, the garment tops did not have any marks sewn into them, but instead had the marks silkscreened on the inside of the fabric. When worn, the garment tops appeared the same as any other military T-shirt and could be worn without anything else on top. In fact, that’s all that the new military top is: a military T-shirt. The only difference is the marks that have been applied inside. In fact, other branches of the armed forces, as well as police and fire, can send in their official uniform T-shirts to have them silk-screened (this can be especially useful for the Navy uniform, which has a V-neck that no garments are produced in and often was difficult to wear with garments).

The end result is that endowed military now have garment tops that they can wear publicly without anything covering them up. Only the marks are obscured by their placement on the inside (this also marks a change from the marks on other garments which are made by tearing the fabric and then sewing the tears back up).

So the long and short of it is: if the military can honorably wear their garments completely in the open as long as the marks are obscured, why would there be a change for civilian garments as long as their identity as garments is similarly difficult to detect? For this reason, Distribution Center employees have received explicit instructions to never counsel anyone about the propriety or impropriety of wearing the garment as a “layer” in clothing styles.

I think I’d like one of the styles carried for the other gender. Can I wear garments that are not my gender?

Yes you can. There are no rules that garments marketed towards one gender can only be worn by that gender.

I like one fabric as a bottom, but I like another fabric as a top. Can I purchase and wear different kinds together?

There is no requirement that garments must be purchased or worn together. Purchase the fabrics you want to purchase and feel free to mix and match to find the fabric combination that best suits you.

My garments are starting to turn yellow. I tried bleaching them, but the problem just got worse. How non-white can they be before I have to replace them?

The color of the garment is actually not important. Chances are if this issue (yellowing garments) has occurred to you, it’s because the artificial fibers have been dyed white (they’re naturally yellow) and bleaching them tends to remove the dyes and actually makes them more yellow. *However,* there is no reference anywhere to the garment having to be bleached white in color. In fact, a hundred years ago the garments would have been made of fabrics that would have seemed off-white to us today. The color is not important. Don’t replace your garments until you want to replace them.

The following is my own opinion that I developed while working for Distribution. I think that much of the cultural assumptions related to garments have been picked up in the Church by well-meaning members who’ve looked to the US Flag Code about how best to treat fabric items (flags or garments) with respect. Flags, according to the flag code, need to be retired when their colors start to fade, when the fabric starts to fray, or when dirtied; they should not be placed on the ground, etc. Most of the “rules” members follow in how they treat their garments come from the flag code and while those rules certainly impart a great deal of respect to the garments, they originally appear in LDS church culture during the 1950s and the Cold War. Pioneer descriptions of how to treat the garment do not match how we treat them today, but instead show them being treated as an article of clothing. Still treated with respect, of course, but not anything on a level like how most members today treat their garments. In Distribution we never tried to offend people, but we didn’t tend to follow most of these “rules” in our back rooms. Boxes of garments often rest on the floor, and throwing boxes of garments like footballs while unloading trucks is common.

The eternal debate for women: does the bra go on top, or does the bra go underneath?

Again, you won’t find anything about this officially. It come from the popular belief that the garment must touch your skin, but this belief is not official. Those who are truly concerned about this can call their local Temple matron and ask her (it’s her responsibility to manage the temple workers who will be explaining how to wear the garment to members going through for the first time). While she’ll probably try to impress upon you the idea that there’s a “recommended” way, she’ll have to agree that there is no way to wear a bra or panties with your garments that is somehow “dishonorable” to your covenants. Wear them how you want, but understand that changes occur slowly in the Church and while it’s perfectly fine now to wear them how you want, the local culture still thinks that you need to wear the garment underneath everything.

Again, the best example for this would be female servicemen wearing the military top: do they wear their other undergarments over their garments? Nope, they wear them under. If you want to do the same, feel free to do so. You will not experience any negative official response.

I’m inactive and haven’t been to Church for a while; my garments are starting to get nasty. What do I have to do before I can get new garments?

Actually, as long as you’re still a member and have not yet resigned, you are allowed to purchase garments. A current Temple Recommend is required to purchase other Temple clothing, but garments can be purchased by anyone who has received their endowments no matter how long it’s been since they’ve been to Church.

If you don’t have a recommend and don’t plan on getting one there is a computerized system in place at the Distribution Centers and on the Distribution web site that will look up your endowed status by your name and birthdate. The cashier will not see any other information except for the date when you were endowed.

I always loved it when “non-typical” Mormons came through the line to purchase garments. Multiple piercings, colored hair, off-color T-shirts: they made me happy to see such a variety of people who still wanted a bit of Mormonism in their lives. Just as there is nothing you can wear that will keep you out of the Temple (which by the way, if you thought they’d ever turn you away for what you were wearing, they won’t; they only care that you have a valid recommend), there is nothing you can wear that will keep you from being able to purchase garments.

If you want to buy them, go ahead and do so.

I have some old garments that I hadn’t opened until now and they’re smaller than the same size garments I purchased recently. Do the sizes change? Have the garments gotten longer?

I have no proof of it, but it was an open secret in the Center among employees and management that garment sizes were not constant through time or around the world. Different areas of the world produce different sizes of garments, and the styles themselves do undergo changes every few year. Women’s garments seem to have gained an extra inch or two in the past decade among the same size., both on the bottoms as well as on the sleeves. We had members come in more than once asking about this problem who brought in their garments so that we could compare.

Again, there’s no proof of it, but even members of management at our Center were not quiet about their assumption that these changes were introduced purposefully by Beehive Clothing in an attempt to try to influence clothing styles among US members. European garments tend to be a little shorter, but there was no real explanation as to why that would be.

All of this was the case during the mid-2000′s. If things have changed now so that worldwide styles and sizes are now the exact same, I can’t say. Some of the new tops introduced in the past year for women have extremely large sleeves, so it seems that the process is continuing.

But the answer is yes: the garments have gotten longer, but there’s no official explanation as to why.

I have a need for a style or fabric of garments that don’t exist. Can I get them made for me?

You can… but it’ll cost you. Garments are subsidized by the Church in an attempt to make them more affordable. They’ll be able to help you at any store that sells garments (most of the Distribution Centers are gone now, merged with Deseret Book). It’ll take a while to get them, and it’ll cost a lot, but it it possible. If you have a genuine need for custom garments, such as a medicinal needs, the added costs might be waived, but that’ll have to be dealt with on a more individual basis.

Can I purchase the military-style garments?

Only if you’re currently in the military. If you’re a hunter, a private contractor like Xe, or if you just like the idea of wearing combat fatigues, you can’t purchase them.

Best advice I have for you: get a military friend to hook you up if you really want them, because you’re not gonna get them otherwise.

What’s the best type of garment for (insert activity/location here)?

This is by far the most popular question asked of us in the Center. We received a lot of training on how to answer this question without actually answering it because Distribution Services felt that it was very important that the employees not limit the options available to customers. If there was a style or fabric that would work best for an individual they didn’t want that individual to not find it because of something an employee said.

All that aside, I don’t work there anymore, so let me give my honest opinion on all of this “wicking” nonsense: some of the garments suck. There’s no other way to say it: some of them simply stink and will literally make you stink. The nylon blends are horrible in terms of holding onto sweat: I’d recommend avoiding them. Cotton is a good choice, and the expensive blends also tend to operate well. Anything that is 100% nylon may seem like it’ll feel nice (since they feel like silk underwear), but they’ll probably be nasty after a while. The garments don’t really look very appealing anyways, so don’t shop based on how shiny the fabric is. Find the fabrics that are functional and keep you dry and not stinking (and these tend to be the cottons and the expensive blends).

 

[ronito]

This will just feed the Boy Scout/LDS church conspiracy theory

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52619808-78/scouting-thomas-friends-stake.html.csp

Kenny Thomas says he could not in good conscience lead the annual Friends of Scouting fund drive in his LDS ward in Herriman without first sending an email to members to tell them that the money helps pay high salaries for Boy Scout executives, and doesn’t stay with their local scout units.

He says that upset his stake president, who persuaded his bishop to release him after only four short months as president of the ward Young Men organization. The stake president sent him an email saying he was “appalled” at “misinformation” Thomas spread, and suggested he did not “follow the prophet.”

David C. Roth, president of the LDS Herriman South Stake, told the Tribune that Thomas was “released because of his unwillingness to support scouting in general,” which is an activity arm of young men in the church, “and not just because of what he did with Friends of Scouting.”

Thomas says, meanwhile, “It’s pretty clear I was released because of what I did with Friends of Scouting,” and says he only distributed what he feels is truthful information from such sources as The Tribune. “I don’t think any member of the church should be afraid of standing up for the truth.”

The episode comes after The Tribune last month reported about how the LDS Church locally uses higher pressure methods for its Friends of Scouting drives than do other groups nationally, including having stake presidents and bishops ask members for $50 to $100 each, and sending armies of Scouts to knock on every door in their boundaries (including people who are not LDS) to seek money.

The story also noted that money from the drives helps pay big salaries. Local scout councils declined to give the current salaries of executives. But past tax forms showed, for example, that former Great Salt Lake Council executive Paul Moore made $228,000 annually before leaving to head a council in Los Angeles where he is paid $383,500.

Thomas said he had already been looking into — and was upset by — how the Boy Scouts spent Friends of Scouting money and other funds. He said that started a year ago when he saw his ward was paying far more for what he calls “ramshackle” scout camps than it was for higher-quality girls camps run by the church.

“Facilities were awful, and the latrines were literally unusable,” he said. “Friends of Scouting money was supposedly going to help fund the camps, too, but it didn’t appear to be percolating down. And anytime a boy wanted to do something there — like shooting or rappelling — they charged an extra fee.”

 

[elrechazado]

This will just feed the Boy Scout/LDS church conspiracy theory

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52619808-78/scouting-thomas-friends-stake.html.csp

What's this supposed conspiracy? Doesn't everyone in scouting know that mormons are huge in the national boy scout apparatus?

 

[ronito]

What's this supposed conspiracy? Doesn't everyone in scouting know that mormons are huge in the national boy scout apparatus?

The theory is that the Mormons are more than a major customer but are in charge of the BSA.

 

[elrechazado]

The theory is that the Mormons are more than a major customer but are in charge of the BSA.

I thought they were, don't they have a ton of dudes on the board of directors or something?

 

[ronito]

I thought they were, don't they have a ton of dudes on the board of directors or something?

Not that I know of.
But the LDS church is by and large the main reason scouting has survived. So it could be, and is, argued that they are in charge de facto.