02:02:19 AM Aug 5th 2017
Interesting read. But does anyone else think the ideology of being permanently assigned to a level of heaven is very depressing/human-centric, and not divine? If you were judged not good enough, you'd basically be advocating you'd never see your own creator, which is the opposite of paradise. This image always pops into my head when someone describes it: https://stephenliddell.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/social-classes.jpg?w=640
05:22:02 PM Jun 9th 2017
edited by LDSTroper1
edited by LDSTroper1
Where it says "The Quorum of the Twelve Apostels" could a moderator correct the spelling to read "Apostles" please?
09:33:29 PM Jun 9th 2017
Ask for it in this thread
12:16:33 AM Nov 11th 2015
edited by Kupiakos
edited by Kupiakos
Since there is technically no penalty for a young male not going on a mission, I feel this should be noted around "Young women members are not commanded, but sometimes encouraged, to serve an 18-month mission beginning at age 19." Also, in terms of statistics, there are currently 85,000 missionaries as of 2015. Could someone with edit privileges please note these?
02:04:07 AM Nov 12th 2015
The place to ask is here.
11:48:48 PM Mar 11th 2014
Could somebody with edit privileges change the stated minimum age for female missionaries to 19? The age limit was lowered within the past year and a few months.
10:06:32 PM Mar 25th 2014
edited by LDSTroper1
edited by LDSTroper1
I have a grammar question about a line in the article: "Soon, it was assaulted by a mob, and Smith was shot and killed, along with his brother Hyrum." Shouldn't the grammar be "Soon, it was assaulted by a mob, and Smith and his brother Hyrum were shot and killed" to make the article flow better? Could someone with edit privileges grammar fix or check that line?
10:03:33 PM Jun 26th 2016
I have a spelling correction: Where it says "The Quorum of the Twelve Apostels" could someone change that to read "Apostles" please?
11:31:35 AM Dec 29th 2013
Polygamy There have been a number of recent efforts to edit the page to show that the LDS Church or its membership is embarrassed about its past practice of polygamy, or is trying to hide facts about the practice. The Church's primary mission is to teach current doctrines, so polygamy is understandably not a primary topic, but it hasn't tried to actively suppress anything. The scriptures about plural marriage are still canonized scripture, the records of polygamous marriages are still available to any who ask, and the Church has several web pages addressing the subject. http://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng is the latest version that you can find by simply going to the Church's website and typing in "polygamy" in the search window. I recommend that anyone who has questions about how the Church addresses the issue go there first. Certainly there is no tone of embarrassment on that page.
02:59:44 AM Feb 15th 2012
So, why is there no mention of the Mormon mistreatment of LGBT teens?
01:52:21 PM Mar 11th 2012
edited by TJohnson
edited by TJohnson
may I ask why you believe the Church mistreats LGBT teens.
02:40:49 PM May 2nd 2012
edited by YellowApple
edited by YellowApple
Perhaps because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints routinely makes statements condemning homosexual behaviour as sin and abomination, and thus is one of the motivators for Mormon teens to harass their non-heterosexual peers? However, as noted in the article itself, the CJCLDS is not the only Mormon denomination; in fact, there exists the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ, which split off from the CJCLDS specifically to be a pro-LGBT alternative. Other notable differences are that women may hold the priesthood, the Heavenly Mother (God's wife in Mormonism) is equal to God/Christ/The Holy Ghost, and the Word of Wisdom (from the Doctrine and Covenants) is not absolute, though still considered good advice. Also worth noting is that Mormonism doesn't condemn homosexual attraction in and of itself, so long as the homosexual does not act upon his/her desires. More precisely, the CJCLDS condemns the sexual behaviors, not the orientation itself, since they regard sexual relationships between one man and one woman who are married as the only method of achieving sex without sinning. Individuals within the Mormon faith will on occasion take this way too far and pursue homosexuals regardless of whether they practice homosexual intimacy, making the assumption that all homosexuals perform homosexual behaviors.
01:13:03 PM Apr 10th 2013
Yes the Church condemns homosexual acts, but it doesn't do so in a way to incite violence against those that engage in them. If anything the Church is striving mightily to let these people know that it's their behavior, not them, that is unacceptable, and that the Church is willing to help them overcome that behavior if asked.
08:52:55 PM Jun 22nd 2013
The fact the Church not only states such behaviors are unacceptable but implies, through saying it will help homosexuals "overcome" them, presupposes that such behaviors are choices and can be changed, and also works to make gay teens feel shame, self-hatred, and suicidal depression for their orientation. However much you consider that to be hating the sin and not the sinner, it can't be denied that such teachings are bad for the teens regardless of whether they specifically incite violence against them. Assuming their behaviors are wrong is the height of arrogance, and working to try and change them only damages people in the long run; anyone who claims to have been changed or 'saved' by ex-gay ministry is a liar or fooling themselves. And the fact there are denominations of Mormons which have rejected these views while still holding to most other tenets of the faith suggests it is not something intrinsic to it, and that by perpetuating such views the main LDS is indeed mistreating gay teens.
04:48:58 AM Jul 11th 2013
"presupposes that such behaviors are choices and can be changed" - Every behavior is a choice. Not always an active choice at the moment of action, as anyone with a habit can tell you, but it's always some kind of choice. And it is our choices that determine who we are, both now and eternally. I'm afraid I don't buy your last sentence. You can disregard the Word of Wisdom in much the same way; that doesn't mean it's not intrinsic. In a more secular example, cops in the US can and do violate the Fourth Amendment while trying to uphold the rest of the law. (They shouldn't, but "shouldn't" almost never means "don't" on large scales.) Does that mean the Fourth Amendment is tacked on? And, while I'm here, what exactly is unusual about a religion declaring that a given behavior is wrong? That's kind of one of the things they do.
01:49:05 PM Dec 19th 2013
If it's the "height of arrogance" to assume that a certain behavior is wrong, how is it not the "height of arrogance" to claim "anyone who claims to have [avoided this behavior] is a liar or fooling themselves"? It looks like exactly the same attitude to me - just opposite polarity.
05:04:36 PM Dec 10th 2011
Could someone address race-related (for lack of a better word) concerns? IE: Isn't white skin considered perfect and coloured skin imperfect? I half remember something about people being made white in heaven?
10:24:39 AM Feb 28th 2012
You may be thinking of the former restriction on certain groups, most notably blacks, receiving the Priesthood. There have been many attempted justifications of the Church's position, some of them involving descent from Cain (the son of Adam). As far as I know there has been no official statement of why; only that until 1978, some categories of men were not allowed to receive the priesthood, and after that it was available to all worthy men. You may also be thinking of certain statements in the Book of Mormon, where the Lamanites' skin was darkened after they turned away from the Lord, and in some cases lightened when they repented. This was a visual indication to the Nephites that they shouldn't intermarry with them, on the grounds that associating very much with wicked people might erode their own righteousness.
02:42:08 PM May 2nd 2012
The idea that dark skin = wicked people sounds like Unfortunate Implications to me.
04:43:47 PM Nov 27th 2012
edited by ATC
edited by ATC
As far as the "white skin = perfect; coloured skin = imperfect" thing goes, I've been a Mormon for 17 straight years and I've never heard anything like that at church. I've heard that people will have perfect bodies in heaven, but skin colour was never mentioned. In my experience, race appears to be about as important in Mormonism as the size of one's ears. My mom, however, remembers when race was considered relevant in Mormonism. An old church book from the 60's or such taught that miscegenation was a sin; but that's been excised since 1978. Bruce R. Mc Conkie said a lot of racist things in his "Mormon Doctrine", but that has been officially repudiated as an embarrassment to the church. So, to be short, yes, Mormonism was officially racist, but it isn't any more and hasn't been for decades. Unofficially, in my experience, race hasn't even been an issue.
02:17:39 PM Dec 10th 2012
The confusion most likely stems from an event in First Nephi where, after Laman and Lemuel separated from Nephi with their group of followers, Heavenly Father turned their skin a darker color to separate them from Nephi and his followers more easily. The color was lifted later on somewhere in Third or Fourth Nephi, if I remember correctly.
01:15:23 PM Apr 10th 2013
The Lamanites in the Book of Mormon are never viewed as being evil because of the color of their skin. Rather it is the incorrect traditions of their fathers that made them "evil". Indeed, Jacob condemns those Nephites who use the color of the Lamanite's skin as a reason to hate them, and says that the Lamantes are in fact more righteous than many of the Nephites.
09:54:22 PM Sep 11th 2013
I've been raised LDS, but yeah, one of the most iterated lessons in the mormon church is that, "God loves all his children." I mean, Jesus outright says, "Love thy neighbor (psst, that's everyone)" as the second greatest commandment of all, with the whole Good Samaritan parable to enforce that. We don't even bother preaching against racism, as it is such a given with our beliefs, at least in this day and age. It would be comparable to giving a preschool lesson about "why murder is not okay." Both will involve napping, and in both cases the lesson is practically a Fantastic Aesop. The thing about the church not giving the priesthood to "blacks" was unfair, but it sorta makes sense from mormon culture. That sounds terrible, but for a long time, Mormons were hated pretty badly themselves, and at the beginning many of which were killed for their beliefs and driven across America, including those who actually had to get TO America first. This was sort of the world's first impression for mormon culture, and we tend to expect grief from others. Even close to modern times, bigotry towards the church was still common enough, though obviously not as intensely as it was to blacks. This is why the church leadership was hesitant to throw in their two bits. If they did, it would make the church a legitimate target for anti-black hate groups, which would be bad for the safety of the members from the hate groups, and converting people to the gospel could be seen as endangering them in this case. Of course, there were racist mormons, despite church teachings, and had to leave the church when it eventually let the black men have the priesthood. Just like there are doubtlessly many members today who don't actually follow our teachings.
03:23:24 PM Nov 5th 2011
Why do Mormons think all R or X rated movies and many PG-13 rated movies, and well as any mature tv show, music or video game is satanic and not even adults should be exposed to immoral content and that it perverts people's minds? While I can understand them keeping their children from seeing and listening to inappropriate media or ones filled with negative messages, they think anything that could corrupt children of any age is harmful to adults too, not just because they feel it is irresponsible for a parent to watch things they don't want their kids to see(which I disagree with because my parents would watch lots of adult programing and I always steered clear of anything inappropriate even if they tried to get me to see it because it made me uncomfortable and still does to watch things with sexual or super violent content or even mild swearing, even though I am willing to listen to some inappropriate music these days because it's harder for me to ignore my mom playing Lady Gaga music through the house but not hard for me to avoid hearing the R rated movies my parents watch even if I'm in the same room on the computer which I don't like to do anymore), but apparently they think much immoral content can corrupt adults by getting into their minds and harming them, now lots of adults keep kids away from immoral and adult content in media because they think it corrupts them and are too stupid to teach the kid the right way and don't even let them see shows with bratty or whiny kids even if they are older than the bratty kid because they don't even want to risk putting up with a kid who might imitate what is clearing fake on tv at any age, and some parents don't want to watch anything they don't want their kids seeing even when the kids are around, now i personally think this corrupts kids much worse than exposing them to this stuff ever will I hate the idea of a religion that isn't some 50 member local soy worshiping literally underground cult founded in 2005 forbidding anyone of any age from watching or listening to any media with mature content or bad messages because when I was little I thought everything on tv must be fake because I didn't see how anything coming out of a metal box could be relatable to real life even if it had live actors, and I didn't believe in Santa Claus at all until I was 11 because anytime I saw him he looked different and fake, and he was on tv all the time, I know he is real now and only started after my parents tried to tell me he was fake. And I never tried to watch non kids channels or adult movies even to this day and even assumed the live action tween sitcoms were strictly for teens and up. The thing about the tween sitcoms is the only one my parents are responsible for, and the origin of it is dumb. It bothers me that a religion would be all about Moral Guardian ism for everyone when it isn't even listed on that page. I don't hate them, I just thing they need to learn to be fair, as should all over protective parents.
05:50:21 PM Nov 22nd 2011
edited by CorvoSol
edited by CorvoSol
I can field this one. Tackling the largest object first, X-rated films, the church has strong policies regarding pornography, which can be traced back to statements made by Christ, about looking on a woman, coveting, and thereby committing adultery in your heart. This could sound like a stretch, but the idea is that X-rated materials can have an impact on the fidelity of a person, young or old. R-rated materials are not treated, however, with quite the same level of strictness as X. Viewing pornography is treated as a sin. You're not in as much hot water for watching an R-rated action thriller with lots of explosions and gore. One is a commandment, the other is a caution. The caution coming from the fact that there are, in fact, a number of R-rated films with what is deemed inappropriate content. The church does not forbid the viewing of content aside from pornography. It strongly cautions you against it. Never have I been penalized for watching an R-rated film, and, after a certain age, my parents left it up to my own choice. No one asks you about it at church, and I've never seen anyone really harp on it. The ideas you've expressed are for the most part what goes down: Kids don't watch it because it's R-rated, the rating system in and of itself existing as a tool for helping parents and guardians make the decision on what their children should watch. Grown ups make their own choices as to what they are and aren't comfortable looking at. The exception, again, being pornographic materials. I don't know what your Santa Claus experience is about. The moral guardian stance varies from household to household. The Church advises "Hey, these movies are R-Rated, your kids shouldn't be watching them." And the parents say "Hey, you're right" or "Hey, I'ma do it anyway" or "Hey, maybe I shouldn't watch it either," or "NO R RATED MOVIES FOREVER." It depends greatly on the individual. So, for a very quick recap- Pornography/X-rated materials are bad, because they lead to unclean thoughts/actions. R-rated materials are advised against because they can do the same, depending on the film. X-rated is breaking a commandment, R-rated is just choosing not to follow advice. -Corvo Sol
12:45:36 AM Oct 26th 2010
edited by 22.214.171.124
edited by 126.96.36.199
The standard works neither explicitly nor implicitly support the notion that Lucifer would have rendered all without free will; rather, it appears on its face that he offered to save everyone, regardless of their choices, that being the defeater to agency, which requires alternatives. Maybe the article could be updated to reflect that?
01:32:12 PM Jan 28th 2011
edited by 188.8.131.52
edited by 184.108.40.206
But that is the thing. For Lucifer to 'save' everyone it would require him to force us to be good. There would be no other choice but his, and we would simply be puppets under his control. This would then break down the whole point of the plan of salvation. Not only that but he tried showing understanding of a subject the God had more experience in, and that he should get all the praise, power, and glory. It would be like a supervisor in a single branch telling a CEO of the whole company he knows a better way to run the company, and that he should be CEO as well. Lucifer was showing the greatest pride and arrogance in giving such a plan, and then starting a war when that plan was rejected. Known Troper: Fellmoon
05:52:33 PM Nov 22nd 2011
Lucifer's attack on free agency is mentioned frequently by various prophets outside of the Standard Works, so even if it is not mentioned in them, it's still canon to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as the words of Prophets are considered modern scripture.
08:04:36 PM May 22nd 2010
I thought these pages were called "Useful NOTES". I was raised in the LDS church, served and am still active, but 16 pages for less than two hundred years of existence seems a bit much when two THOUSAND years of Christianity as a whole is summarized in 26 (or 27—curse my Dory-like memory!), especially when Mormonism gets a paragraph there, as well. Would everyone be okay if we cut the essays down to summary sentences, especially since with links to the Salt Lake church's site(s)? The unknown troper at 220.127.116.11 probably should have started a new thread, but here we are.
10:42:22 PM Oct 31st 2010
Well, I'd actually disagree. Mormonism is smaller than Christianity (as a consequence of the basic laws of set theory), and is more often misunderstood, so it may warrant more in-depth explanation. Besides, it's easier to go in-depth when there's less history to work with.
05:54:59 PM Nov 22nd 2011
I agree that there are a lot of people with misconceptions about Christianity as a whole. Can't say how often I see people claiming "all Christians believe X." when that only applies to one particular denomination. That said, I'll go on the record as saying 1) I think Mormons are still more misunderstood, given the prolifity of misconceptions I've heard in my life and 2) I could very well be biased in that opinion, having never been of another faith.
08:37:07 PM Apr 5th 2010
edited by Zordauch
edited by Zordauch
The more accurate term would be "sacred". The garments serve as a reminder of promises made to God in the temples. Any supernatural protection is comparable to that offered by a cross/crucifix or a pocket Bible.
05:30:42 AM Apr 27th 2010
09:04:39 AM May 6th 2010
The article does read like some parts were copied direct from LDS publicity websites, but at least that ensures it represents what Mormons believe. Also, there is a massive difference between "friendly" and "biased". The pages on Christianity for example, makes no claims about the truth or fiction of the material, but simply presents christian viewpoints -as christians see them-. This article is no different. It simply presents what Mormons believe (in an admittedly press-release fashion), and leaves the controversy to other more dedicated sources (namely scholars).
10:07:49 PM Jun 12th 2010
Is there any chance of actually explaining what the magic/sacred underwear thing is about in more detail, maybe in the article itself? The joke has been cracked so often (especially since Mitt Romney's rise to prominence) that it would seem to make sense to explain what it's all about.
08:56:44 PM Nov 8th 2010
Shouldn't the article mention at some point the rather tumultuous history of the LDS movement in the United States? Or the massive amount of criticism levied at the LDS movement, much of it based on the validity of its source material or historical claims, but some of it based on the blatant racism directed at Native Americans in the sacred texts?
09:04:02 AM Jan 7th 2011
I added a small paragraph explaining the Garments in the article, under "Temples". As a practicing Mormon, I can say that's probably the most that needs to be explained about them.
01:41:22 PM Feb 4th 2011
Hey, just 'cause it sounds like Mormon publicity doesn't make it a bad thing. We have really good publicity material. And we could be condemned for not trying to spread the gospel.
06:52:36 PM Jul 6th 2011
Agreed that this reads like an ad. The use of 'we' doesn't help either. This isn't the site to go converting people to any religion. This should probably be revised to read as less of a tropified version of the pr site, and more of a tropified encyclopedia article.
06:49:16 PM Sep 17th 2012
The garment is a thin undershirt that serves as a physical reminder of the covenants the wearer has made with God. It's no different than muslims and headscarves or sikhs and turbans.