Questions about the LDS (Mormon) faith

[MamaSheep]

No, I don't have any references... I was just a kid, and this was taught to us in church. LOL, it never would have occured to me to ask for references. ;) Having read through this thread with great interest, it appears that a LOT of what are now considered Mormon Urban Myths were taught to my generation right alongside scripture. I do not know enough about the scripture itself to separate the two completely.

 

For instance... The becoming gods and inheriting a planet of our own someday? Yep, that was part of what we learned too. I didn't actually know that was considered a myth now until this thread. For us, it was just a part of the eternal plan of salvation. I wasn't going to bring it up because I didn't want to derail the thread with myths that are no longer taught. But the more I think about it, the more it seems that it is probably people like me, who were taught this stuff and then left the church before it evolved into what it is today, that perpetuate these myths. Certainly, we (I) don't do it on purpose to plague current LDS... It's just part of what we/I thought were official church teachings.

 

You don't even want to know what they taught us prior to 1978. (It was mentioned earlier in the thread, which is why I'm referencing it.) It was so troubling to me, it played a great part in my leaving the church. I was there when that teaching changed... But as someone else said, the explanations for it were not enough for me.

 

Edited to add: Just to clarify... I thought the change was a GOOD change. (Most of the changes I'm hearing about in this thread seem like good changes.) Actually, I was at such a young age in '78, I *remember* it, but didn't think about it a lot until I was an older teen. What bothered me was that it was ever taught in the first place. No apologies were issued, and I never got a very satisfactory explanation for why the church used to teach it.

 

That's totally ok. It's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction when I hear something that seems 'off' to want to know where it came from so I can go look it up myself and form my own opinions. I'm sorry if I made you feel put on the spot.

 

I think this is one reason the church puts so much emphasis on personal study, and finding out for yourself what is true and what is not. And one reason there has been so much emphasis over the past several decades on using only the scriptures and the church-provided teaching materials that have been reviewed for accuracy when teaching classes, instead of bringing in whatever personal opinion, or outside source material and teaching it as if it were church doctrine. People sometimes do it anyway, but I find the more I study things out for myself, the more I dig, the more I question, the easier it is for me to distinguish between what is church doctrine, and what is not. And if it is not, then I feel no obligation whatsoever to think I have to believe it in order to be a good little Mormon. I feel perfectly free to roll my eyes and get on with life, or even to contradict the teacher out loud in class (though I do try to be nice about it, and back up my objection with scripture where possible). Sometimes I ask where I could read more about that. And some sources (such as scripture) hold a great deal more weight with me than others (like "that's what I was taught by my seminary teacher, but I'm not sure where it comes from.").

 

For me, it helps to keep in mind that the people at church who are doing the teaching are just regular folks, just like me, who happen to have that assignment at the moment. They're not "experts", and they're certainly not infallable sources of unquestionable revealed truth. They're discussion leaders. And in the discussion it is certainly possible that both the teachers and the participants will make comments that are a bit off base. There can sometimes be a bit of a difference between what "the church teaches" and what "Brother Jones" teaches (that's a totally random name, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone named Jones)--which is okay, because we're all at different stages of our learning journey, and we need to be patient with each other and help each other out. But just because something is taught "at church", that doesn't necessarily mean that it's what the "church teaches". We really do have a responsibility to verify for ourselves that what we think we learned is actually in harmony with scripture and with actual church doctrine, and isn't just some sort of 'urban myth' or personal opinion.

 

A lot of these kinds of things do have some roots in real doctrine, which can make it harder to sort out. Like the ruling your own planet thing. LDS scripture, and church doctrine, do talk about an eternal progression in which people can become increasingly like God, and beings who have progressed waaaay down that path are referred to in some places as gods. But the bit about ruling your own planet is a bit of an extrapolation.

 

I remember what you're talking about with 1978 too--mostly how happy everyone was about the change that was made in that solemn assembly. I didn't think much about it at the time either, as I was also quite young, but I do remember it, and I remember how my dad's eyes teared up as he raised his arm to the square on his feet in front of the tv in the living room, even though nobody at that meeting would ever really know whether or how he voted. It was a big moment for him, and that impressed me even as the little thing I was at the time. I have heard some of the opinions that were expressed prior to that, and I can understand how off-putting they would have been. I did some poking into that as I got older, myself, and was able to find some answers (not the ones you're talking about) that I can live with, but that I don't think I want to get into here. But I am glad for the change as well. One thing that I have pondered (to no grand conclusions) occasionally over the years is the difference in how such a change was received in a community that was just 'itching' for it, as opposed to how some similar changes were received in the larger society where it was forced on people who were reluctant to make that sort of change. Obviously it needed to change, and I'm not saying the change shouldn't have been forced. It's just that I've noticed a difference in tone. But my take on that could be partly affected by the places I've lived--the West, and the Bible Belt, mostly.

 

ETA: It may be that some of what you perceive as "changes" in this thread are not things where the actual doctrine has "changed", but maybe where the change has been in the general level of accurate understanding amongst church members. When it comes to actual church teachings, I have not noticed much in the way of actual doctrinal changes over the years, though there have been some definite efforts at focus and clarification. You'll still meet up with people in the church who have some pretty wonky ideas, but if their notions don't gel with what we have through actual revelation, then their opinion shouldn't be given any more weight than anyone else's. IYKWIM. It does put a lot of responsibility on the individual to educate themselves and learn to distinguish doctrine from opinion--and that's one reason I think the church emphasizes education so strongly.

Edited January 4, 2011 by MamaSheep

[Veritaserum]

ETA: It may be that some of what you perceive as "changes" in this thread are not things where the actual doctrine has "changed", but maybe where the change has been in the general level of accurate understanding amongst church members. When it comes to actual church teachings, I have not noticed much in the way of actual doctrinal changes over the years, though there have been some definite efforts at focus and clarification. You'll still meet up with people in the church who have some pretty wonky ideas, but if their notions don't gel with what we have through actual revelation, then their opinion shouldn't be given any more weight than anyone else's. IYKWIM. It does put a lot of responsibility on the individual to educate themselves and learn to distinguish doctrine from opinion--and that's one reason I think the church emphasizes education so strongly.

 

I think this is true. I was born in 1980, so I missed some of the stranger theories, I guess. :) My dad was born and raised in the Church and my mom converted when she was a child (my grandma and one of my uncles joined, too, but my grandpa and other uncles did not). I grew up in Southern California, where I think wild theories may not be as common as they are in Utah (I've lived here for the past 13 years). Or maybe there were wild theories, but I didn't pay attention to them when I was young, but I notice them now. :tongue_smilie: Either way, I love that the Church actively encourages us to seek answers for ourselves. Personal study AND faith are both emphasized. We are not the mindless drones of a cult, even if that is how some people like to inaccurately and unkindly portray us. ;)

[mom2myboys]

You asked for it!

 

Is it really offensive to use the word "Mormon"?

 

How is homeschooling perceived in general among LDS folks?

 

I apologize if these questions were answered previously in the thread.

 

Thanks!

 

I am still reading through this thread and have not seen all of the answers about HSing among LDS folks yet. I think it depends on where you live and many other factors besides religion whether people HS or not. In our area, most of the families in our LDS branch are homeschooling. It seems that more and more people are choosing to homeschool in general around here due to budget cuts, etc. and that is reflected at church as well. :)

[MamaSheep]

I think this is true. I was born in 1980, so I missed some of the stranger theories, I guess. :) My dad was born and raised in the Church and my mom converted when she was a child (my grandma and one of my uncles joined, too, but my grandpa and other uncles did not). I grew up in Southern California, where I think wild theories may not be as common as they are in Utah (I've lived here for the past 13 years). Or maybe there were wild theories, but I didn't pay attention to them when I was young, but I notice them now. :tongue_smilie: Either way, I love that the Church actively encourages us to seek answers for ourselves. Personal study AND faith are both emphasized. We are not the mindless drones of a cult, even if that is how some people like to inaccurately and unkindly portray us. ;)

 

I didn't grow up in Utah either, though my parents and grandparents, and great-grandparents are all LDS (funny how you don't "inherit" a testimony, though, you've got to go find your very own--but I did have family members who were well-grounded in actual church doctrine and were a good resource for when I had questions; maybe that's partly why I haven't noticed sweeping "changes", if the "changes" have been toward the doctrine I was taught, rather than changes IN that doctrine).

 

I don't know if the inaccuracies in teaching were any worse or more pervasive in Utah than other places or not. That would be interesting to know...hmmm. I will say that my impression of Utahns from the ones I met growing up was not all that stellar. One of the things that bugged me about them was the level of religious complacency and (it seemed to me) willful ignorance, and maybe a certain level of "I have come from Zion to grace you mission-fielders with my presence" snobbery. Part of that, I think, was because where I grew up I was frequently challenged to think about exactly WHAT it was that I, personally, was going to believe in, and WHY I was choosing to believe it, because most of the people around me believed other things, and some of them were--let's just say they were not shy about expressing their opinions. I think kids in Utah maybe didn't have quite the same motivation to dig in and sort things through. There was definitely a point in my life at which it really got under my skin to run into complacent "Utah Mormon" kids who had never given a second thought to things that were precious enough to me to cope with the...um...negative tactics that were sometimes employed. When dh told me he thought we needed to move to Utah, he did so knowing it was number 3 on my list of "places never to live"...lol. It's been good for me, though, because I have met a lot of people here who have helped me overcome some of my personal stereotypes and prejudices.

Edited January 4, 2011 by MamaSheep

[MamaSheep]

I am still reading through this thread and have not seen all of the answers about HSing among LDS folks yet. I think it depends on where you live and many other factors besides religion whether people HS or not. In our area, most of the families in our LDS branch are homeschooling. It seems that more and more people are choosing to homeschool in general around here due to budget cuts, etc. and that is reflected at church as well. :)

 

I agree. I think the number of LDS people homeschooling relates more to the conditions in their surrounding communities than to religious pressures one way or the other. The church does teach that parents have a responsibility to make sure their children receive a good education, but it doesn't really take any stance that I'm aware of as to how that should be accomplished.

[mo2]

(Sorry if this has been asked. I haven't made it though all the pages yet.)

 

Do people leave the LDS faith very often? I know several people who have converted to the LDS faith, and I've had plenty of LDS people come to my door inviting me to their church. It seems that they try very hard to get people to join their faith. So I've always wondered what happens if someone decides to leave? Do they just stop showing up for church sermons/Sunday School/etc? Will someone from the church try to talk with them and convince them to stay? And what if they leave and then later decide to come back? Will they be welcomed?

 

I hope I have worded this in a non-offensive way. :)

[dangermom]

Yes, people do leave. If you just stop coming, someone will probably show up and see if you're OK, ask you to come back, etc. You'll stay on the records and every so often, someone will probably stop by. If you don't want people contacting you, you can say so and you'll be listed as a 'do not contact,' but your name will still stay in the records. If you want to LEAVE, you write a letter with your name and information and ask to have your name removed from the records of the church. Then that's done--you're no longer considered to be a baptized member of the church, all your covenants are canceled.

 

We like it when people come back.

[mo2]

Yes, people do leave. If you just stop coming, someone will probably show up and see if you're OK, ask you to come back, etc. You'll stay on the records and every so often, someone will probably stop by. If you don't want people contacting you, you can say so and you'll be listed as a 'do not contact,' but your name will still stay in the records. If you want to LEAVE, you write a letter with your name and information and ask to have your name removed from the records of the church. Then that's done--you're no longer considered to be a baptized member of the church, all your covenants are canceled.

 

We like it when people come back.

 

Thank you. So if a person came back after leaving, would they have to be re-baptized? Is the whole leaving thing just kind of forgotten, or is there counseling or something to help resolve whatever issues the person had?

[Veritaserum]

(Sorry if this has been asked. I haven't made it though all the pages yet.)

 

Do people leave the LDS faith very often? I know several people who have converted to the LDS faith, and I've had plenty of LDS people come to my door inviting me to their church. It seems that they try very hard to get people to join their faith. So I've always wondered what happens if someone decides to leave? Do they just stop showing up for church sermons/Sunday School/etc? Will someone from the church try to talk with them and convince them to stay? And what if they leave and then later decide to come back? Will they be welcomed?

 

I hope I have worded this in a non-offensive way. :)

 

It happens, but IME it isn't common. The vast majority of LDS folks I know remain members until they die. I happen to have a brother and dh happens to have a sister and a brother who have left the Church. In general, we do tend to reach out and see why they are leaving (doctrinal issues, conflicts with other members, etc.) to see if they want help. If someone wants to leave, they certainly can. They can ask to have their names removed if they do not want to be contacted again. We love our siblings even though they are no longer LDS. They are still part of our family. They would absolutely be welcomed back to Church if they decided to return. (In some cases, counseling with the Bishop may be needed.) :)

[MamaSheep]

Thank you. So if a person came back after leaving, would they have to be re-baptized? Is the whole leaving thing just kind of forgotten, or is there counseling or something to help resolve whatever issues the person had?

 

It would depend on how they left. If they just stopped coming, they could just start coming again. If they had their names removed from the records, or if they were excommunicated for some reason, they would need to be baptized. Anyone who has a question or issue is always encouraged to ask for help, whether they have been attending meetings regularly or not.

 

HTH

 

And yes, we LOVE it when people come back.

 

ETA: Also, you don't have to be a member to attend church meetings. You are more than welcome to come just as a visitor, as much as you want.

[MarinesWife]

I think this is true. I was born in 1980, so I missed some of the stranger theories, I guess. :) My dad was born and raised in the Church and my mom converted when she was a child (my grandma and one of my uncles joined, too, but my grandpa and other uncles did not). I grew up in Southern California, where I think wild theories may not be as common as they are in Utah (I've lived here for the past 13 years). Or maybe there were wild theories, but I didn't pay attention to them when I was young, but I notice them now. :tongue_smilie: Either way, I love that the Church actively encourages us to seek answers for ourselves. Personal study AND faith are both emphasized. We are not the mindless drones of a cult, even if that is how some people like to inaccurately and unkindly portray us. ;)

 

I appreciate all the answers that have been given in this thread. I can definitely see how those of the LDS faith can believe whole-heartedly in the teachings of their leaders/church. From the outside, I hope you can understand why Protestant Christianity calls the LDS faith a cult or non-religion. You do not believe in the trinity and your founder viewed words through magic rocks. Also there are many resources that show how the Book of Mormon was changed through the years to clear up spelling or grammar or whatnot. If his translation was directly from the Lord, then there should have been no need for a change. I do not have point by point in front of me, but I remember reviewing this myself once and seeing how much of the Book of Mormon is almost word for word from the Bible. Also, historic literature (especially the Bible) can be proven by what is found on this earth. Not one thing from the Book of Mormon can be proven.

 

Quoted from http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon74.html

Smith was largely regarded at the time as a con man and fraud. His golden plates disappeared, transported to heaven, or so he said. The civilizations recorded within the Book of Mormon have never been substantiated by any historical evidence through either archaeology or corroborated by any credible scholar or historian. Instead, as originally perceived by Smith's contemporaries, they appear to be little more than a collection of fictional stories put together by Smith, based largely upon other writings and his own creative imagination.

 

 

The founding of the LDS church all sounds hokey. It just does....so while I can see faith within individual members, there is a belief that LDS members are not Christians because your saving faith is not in the same God that other denominations have their faith in.

 

Jehovah Witnesses are also non-trinitarian...Adventists also were for many, many years and because they wanted to be seen as a "mainstream" evangelical church they changed their theology some years ago...there is a current newer denomination that also is non-trinitarian and is being flagged as a "cult."

 

I'll stop there. Anyway, I am sorry that you feel it is unjust to call LDS a cult. I don't think one group has the authority over another to decide they are a cult. I do believe that the initial followers were a cult. My belief now is that LDS members are just misinformed and are teaching something that is not biblical. At the same time your answers in this thread just show once again how different groups interpret scripture differently.

[Veritaserum]

I didn't grow up in Utah either, though my parents and grandparents, and great-grandparents are all LDS (funny how you don't "inherit" a testimony, though, you've got to go find your very own--but I did have family members who were well-grounded in actual church doctrine and were a good resource for when I had questions; maybe that's partly why I haven't noticed sweeping "changes", if the "changes" have been toward the doctrine I was taught, rather than changes IN that doctrine).

 

I don't know if the inaccuracies in teaching were any worse or more pervasive in Utah than other places or not. That would be interesting to know...hmmm. I will say that my impression of Utahns from the ones I met growing up was not all that stellar. One of the things that bugged me about them was the level of religious complacency and (it seemed to me) willful ignorance, and maybe a certain level of "I have come from Zion to grace you mission-fielders with my presence" snobbery. Part of that, I think, was because where I grew up I was frequently challenged to think about exactly WHAT it was that I, personally, was going to believe in, and WHY I was choosing to believe it, because most of the people around me believed other things, and some of them were--let's just say they were not shy about expressing their opinions. I think kids in Utah maybe didn't have quite the same motivation to dig in and sort things through. There was definitely a point in my life at which it really got under my skin to run into complacent "Utah Mormon" kids who had never given a second thought to things that were precious enough to me to cope with the...um...negative tactics that were sometimes employed. When dh told me he thought we needed to move to Utah, he did so knowing it was number 3 on my list of "places never to live"...lol. It's been good for me, though, because I have met a lot of people here who have helped me overcome some of my personal stereotypes and prejudices.

 

I had those same thoughts about Utah Mormons as well. Dh is from New York and we thought we would move east once we were done with school. He got a great job here, though, so we have stayed. I've been happy to discover that there are plenty of LDS folks in Utah who are nothing like the negative stereotypes I recall from my youth. I think the population is more varied now. Our ward has members that grew up in other parts of the country or even outside of it. I think that lends to giving a better perspective on things. :)

[cougarmom4]

 

Well, we do take seriously the charge the Savior gave us to spread the gospel to all the world. We believe we have precious truths and want to share it with everyone!

[cougarmom4]

The founding of the LDS church all sounds hokey.

 

I'll do my best to choose not to be offended...but that is rather disrespectful, imho.

[Melinda in VT]

(Sorry if this has been asked. I haven't made it though all the pages yet.)

 

Do people leave the LDS faith very often? I know several people who have converted to the LDS faith, and I've had plenty of LDS people come to my door inviting me to their church. It seems that they try very hard to get people to join their faith. So I've always wondered what happens if someone decides to leave? Do they just stop showing up for church sermons/Sunday School/etc? Will someone from the church try to talk with them and convince them to stay? And what if they leave and then later decide to come back? Will they be welcomed?

 

I hope I have worded this in a non-offensive way. :)

 

"Inactives"--people who no longer attend church regularly--are pretty common. Yes, people from the church will contact them to see if they are ok and to encourage them to attend. If you are inactive and decide to come back, you are definitely welcome.

 

It is less common to get your name removed from the church, but not as uncommon as I used to think. Some people face resistance from church leaders when they try to get their names removed. It is easier these days, because there are Internet sites where you can learn the correct legal language to use. In our case, we received no overt resistance from our bishop, but either he or someone in Salt Lake dragged their feet, because it took over a year from the time we sent our letter until the church sent a letter confirming our name removal.

 

If I were ever to decide to return, I would need to be baptized again.

[mo2]

Thought of another one.

 

I am not LDS. My brother converted when I was, oh, I don't know, 18 or 19 maybe. Anyway, it kind of took us by surprise because we didn't really even know he was going to church or anything and then all of a sudden he came home and announced that he was going on a missionary trip. (The 2-year trip that young men do.) I remember getting a letter from the church to our family about what sort of communication we would be allowed to have with my brother while he was gone. He was only allowed to call like once or twice a year, and we were welcome to write him but they asked us to keep it infrequent. And they specifically asked that we not write to him about things going on at home because it might distract him from his mission. I get that (kind of), but if something were going on at home, say, someone was sick or something, wouldn't it be okay for him to know so that he could, you know, pray for them or whatever? I guess I was just kind of appalled at all the restrictions they wanted to give us as to how/when/how much we could communicate with him. Since the LDS church claims to put such a big emphasis on the importance of family, one would think they would want us to stay in touch with him. Or is it because we were not LDS that the restrictions were put on us? Because we might try to sway him away from the church or something?

[Veritaserum]

I appreciate all the answers that have been given in this thread. I can definitely see how those of the LDS faith can believe whole-heartedly in the teachings of their leaders/church. From the outside, I hope you can understand why Protestant Christianity calls the LDS faith a cult or non-religion. You do not believe in the trinity and your founder viewed words through magic rocks. Also there are many resources that show how the Book of Mormon was changed through the years to clear up spelling or grammar or whatnot. If his translation was directly from the Lord, then there should have been no need for a change. I do not have point by point in front of me, but I remember reviewing this myself once and seeing how much of the Book of Mormon is almost word for word from the Bible. Also, historic literature (especially the Bible) can be proven by what is found on this earth. Not one thing from the Book of Mormon can be proven.

 

Quoted from http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon74.html

Smith was largely regarded at the time as a con man and fraud. His golden plates disappeared, transported to heaven, or so he said. The civilizations recorded within the Book of Mormon have never been substantiated by any historical evidence through either archaeology or corroborated by any credible scholar or historian. Instead, as originally perceived by Smith's contemporaries, they appear to be little more than a collection of fictional stories put together by Smith, based largely upon other writings and his own creative imagination.

 

 

The founding of the LDS church all sounds hokey. It just does....so while I can see faith within individual members, there is a belief that LDS members are not Christians because your saving faith is not in the same God that other denominations have their faith in.

 

Jehovah Witnesses are also non-trinitarian...Adventists also were for many, many years and because they wanted to be seen as a "mainstream" evangelical church they changed their theology some years ago...there is a current newer denomination that also is non-trinitarian and is being flagged as a "cult."

 

I'll stop there. Anyway, I am sorry that you feel it is unjust to call LDS a cult. I don't think one group has the authority over another to decide they are a cult. I do believe that the initial followers were a cult. My belief now is that LDS members are just misinformed and are teaching something that is not biblical. At the same time your answers in this thread just show once again how different groups interpret scripture differently.

 

And I guess that's the end of respectful dialogue! :tongue_smilie: Really, I see no reason whatsoever that a "nontrinitarian" church must be defined as a cult (which conjures images of mindless following, closed communities, trapped members, and overbearing leaders). :glare:

 

I know why there are passages from the Bible in The Book of Mormon, but I think it would be useless to go to the effort of explaining. Sorry, I need to go calm down now. :chillpill:

[learning2gether]

Can I just say again how interesting I think this discussion is? I have been very impressed by many things in the LDS Church. I had some missionaries come to my door once and I explained that I was busy and didn't have time to discuss anything and the two young men kindly asked if there was anyting that I need help with. I said no that I was just trying to get the kids and the laundry in the van so that I could get to the laundry mat and they offered to take the baskets for me. They carried my laundry to the van for me, told me to have a nice day and were on their way. They weren't pushy as others have been and even offered their help.

 

I have clicked on a few of the links mentioned earlier and have done some reading. Did Emma Smith really leave the LDS Church? If so would she be able to be with her husband for eternity? I am assuming they were sealed to each other. How would her leaving effect that?

 

I have considered visiting an LDS Church, but I think I would feel a little uncomfortable. I know that church policy has changed, but being black I wonder if hearts have changed. Official policy and what people actually think and feel are two very different things.

[Veritaserum]

Thought of another one.

 

I am not LDS. My brother converted when I was, oh, I don't know, 18 or 19 maybe. Anyway, it kind of took us by surprise because we didn't really even know he was going to church or anything and then all of a sudden he came home and announced that he was going on a missionary trip. (The 2-year trip that young men do.) I remember getting a letter from the church to our family about what sort of communication we would be allowed to have with my brother while he was gone. He was only allowed to call like once or twice a year, and we were welcome to write him but they asked us to keep it infrequent. And they specifically asked that we not write to him about things going on at home because it might distract him from his mission. I get that (kind of), but if something were going on at home, say, someone was sick or something, wouldn't it be okay for him to know so that he could, you know, pray for them or whatever? I guess I was just kind of appalled at all the restrictions they wanted to give us as to how/when/how much we could communicate with him. Since the LDS church claims to put such a big emphasis on the importance of family, one would think they would want us to stay in touch with him. Or is it because we were not LDS that the restrictions were put on us? Because we might try to sway him away from the church or something?

 

The same requests are made of LDS families of missionaries. We want missionaries to be able to focus on their work is all. It would definitely be appropriate to inform a missionary of an illness or a death. I think they discourage sharing the drama of last night's party and stuff more along those lines. :)

[mo2]

I'll do my best to choose not to be offended...but that is rather disrespectful, imho.

 

:iagree: It is wonderful of you all to open yourselves up to answer our questions, and that whole post was disrespectful.

[Xuzi]

I don't think receiving revelation from the Lord via a hat is any less "hokey" than recieving it via a burning bush. ;)

 

And ya, I don't think the LDS church fits the definition of "cult" so much as some have expanded the definition of cult to fit the LDS church.

[MarinesWife]

And I guess that's the end of respectful dialogue! :tongue_smilie: Really, I see no reason whatsoever that a "nontrinitarian" church must be defined as a cult (which conjures images of mindless following, closed communities, trapped members, and overbearing leaders). :glare:

 

I know why there are passages from the Bible in The Book of Mormon, but I think it would be useless to go to the effort of explaining. Sorry, I need to go calm down now. :chillpill:

 

Well I did agree with you that I don't think one group has the authority to just decide another group is a cult. I didn't say you were a cult. I just said that I understand why Protestant Christianity views non-trinitarian groups as cults.

 

As an aside, we lived in Utah for 3 years. Between neighbors, Girl Scouts, and a Mom's group, I had so many women tell me that the only reason they stayed in the church was because they were "trapped." Because it was a family thing or culture thing. That they would be ostracized - completely abandoned - if they were to leave. Several of my neighbors said they kept going because that was how their family businesses stayed afloat - because LDS members frequent other LDS business. Which I agree with by the way! Support one another. But to be afraid to leave is sad.

 

My husband is from Idaho Falls and the picture that he gives of being shunned and bullied because he was NOT LDS is quite sad and distressing. (His sisters who have just recently graduated from high school did not encounter this - he graduated 20 years ago.)

 

However, like I said before, it was refreshing to at least read this thread and see that there are LDS members that love the Lord and want to learn and are following their faith with their whole hearts (and not being drones :tongue_smilie:).

[MarinesWife]

I don't think receiving revelation from the Lord via a hat is any less "hokey" than recieving it via a burning bush. ;)

 

And ya, I don't think the LDS church fits the definition of "cult" so much as some have expanded the definition of cult to fit the LDS church.

 

:lol: Well that is true.

[Xuzi]

And mo2, I'll repeat what a PP said, and say that the restrictions are the same for all missionary families, members and non. I think your being a non-member family though is what made the letter so "wierd", as most LDS already know what the restrictions are. If someone in the family is dying or struggling in some way, of course share that with your brother. But they want you to try and limit the amount of "family drama" you involve him in. His focus is to be first upon the Lord, family second, for these next two years. He won't be able to give you of himself in the same way as he has in the past, but it's only for the two years that he's specifically dedicated to serve the Lord as a missionary, and then you'll get him "back". ;)

[mo2]

Is it true that Joseph Smith talked to a lizard? No, wait...is it true that a lizard talked to Joseph Smith? I can totally understand him talking to the lizard because I talk to animals all the time. But if the lizard talked back, how do you know that it was God revealing himself and not a hallucination from heat stroke/dehydration/illness/whatever. Or is this just a myth?

[Veritaserum]

Can I just say again how interesting I think this discussion is? I have been very impressed by many things in the LDS Church. I had some missionaries come to my door once and I explained that I was busy and didn't have time to discuss anything and the two young men kindly asked if there was anyting that I need help with. I said no that I was just trying to get the kids and the laundry in the van so that I could get to the laundry mat and they offered to take the baskets for me. They carried my laundry to the van for me, told me to have a nice day and were on their way. They weren't pushy as others have been and even offered their help.

 

I have clicked on a few of the links mentioned earlier and have done some reading. Did Emma Smith really leave the LDS Church? If so would she be able to be with her husband for eternity? I am assuming they were sealed to each other. How would her leaving effect that?

 

I have considered visiting an LDS Church, but I think I would feel a little uncomfortable. I know that church policy has changed, but being black I wonder if hearts have changed. Official policy and what people actually think and feel are two very different things.

 

I'm so glad those boys were nice. :) Yes, Emma left. Well, she stayed behind when the Church moved to Utah. Honestly, I totally understand why she did. I think God will have compassion on Emma and I'm sure Joseph would plead her case if it came to that.

 

WRT to visiting, you are right that some folks will be friendlier than others. I'd ask you to sit by me. :) I think attitudes have softened and changed quite a bit over the past three decades. Have you checked out http://www.blacklds.org/ and http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/? I have a friend that attends the Genesis group (she is white and her dh is black). Their family likes it.

[Xuzi]

I can honestly say I have never heard that!

Is it true that Joseph Smith talked to a lizard? No, wait...is it true that a lizard talked to Joseph Smith? I can totally understand him talking to the lizard because I talk to animals all the time. But if the lizard talked back, how do you know that it was God revealing himself and not a hallucination from heat stroke/dehydration/illness/whatever. Or is this just a myth?

[mo2]

And mo2, I'll repeat what a PP said, and say that the restrictions are the same for all missionary families, members and non. I think your being a non-member family though is what made the letter so "wierd", as most LDS already know what the restrictions are. If someone in the family is dying or struggling in some way, of course share that with your brother. But they want you to try and limit the amount of "family drama" you involve him in. His focus is to be first upon the Lord, family second, for these next two years. He won't be able to give you of himself in the same way as he has in the past, but it's only for the two years that he's specifically dedicated to serve the Lord as a missionary, and then you'll get him "back". ;)

 

 

Thanks. We're not that close, really, anyway. (Obviously, since we didn't even know he was going to church! We thought all the time away from home meant that he had a new girlfriend or something.) You're probably right, we just weren't accustomed to the procedures. This was several years ago, anyway.

[Veritaserum]

Is it true that Joseph Smith talked to a lizard? No, wait...is it true that a lizard talked to Joseph Smith? I can totally understand him talking to the lizard because I talk to animals all the time. But if the lizard talked back, how do you know that it was God revealing himself and not a hallucination from heat stroke/dehydration/illness/whatever. Or is this just a myth?

 

:lol: I have never heard of this.

[mo2]

I can honestly say I have never heard that!

 

:lol: I have never heard of this.

 

Wow! I brought a new one to you! :lol:

[DianeW88]

Thought of another one.

 

I am not LDS. My brother converted when I was, oh, I don't know, 18 or 19 maybe. Anyway, it kind of took us by surprise because we didn't really even know he was going to church or anything and then all of a sudden he came home and announced that he was going on a missionary trip. (The 2-year trip that young men do.) I remember getting a letter from the church to our family about what sort of communication we would be allowed to have with my brother while he was gone. He was only allowed to call like once or twice a year, and we were welcome to write him but they asked us to keep it infrequent. And they specifically asked that we not write to him about things going on at home because it might distract him from his mission. I get that (kind of), but if something were going on at home, say, someone was sick or something, wouldn't it be okay for him to know so that he could, you know, pray for them or whatever? I guess I was just kind of appalled at all the restrictions they wanted to give us as to how/when/how much we could communicate with him. Since the LDS church claims to put such a big emphasis on the importance of family, one would think they would want us to stay in touch with him. Or is it because we were not LDS that the restrictions were put on us? Because we might try to sway him away from the church or something?

 

Mine son is currently serving a mission in California. We write to him once a week (email, actually) and he responds on his "P-day" (preparation day). We can write as often as we like, but he generally doesn't have a whole lot of time to respond, because he's busy. This past week, we received a letter with photos and we emailed back and forth for a bit, because we happened to be online at the same time.

 

He calls us twice a year on Christmas and Mother's Day. The rules about how long the phone calls can be vary from mission to mission, but we spoke with our son for four hours on Christmas day.

 

We do talk about what is going on at home, but if it's something stressful that he can't do anything about anyway, we usually don't share it with him. We've told him about our cats passing away, but when my dh was in the process of changing jobs, we didn't mention it, because we didn't want him to worry. And, as it turns out, the blessings of having a missionary serving are very real. We knew layoffs would be imminent, and on the day my husband found out his position would end with the company he'd been with for twenty years, he received an offer from a competitor only two hours later with a $1,000 per month raise on top of it. We count as it as a great blessing from the Lord and we are so grateful.

 

So, to answer your question, no, you didn't have any more restrictions on contact than any LDS family would have had. And, the purpose of the communication restrictions are to allow your missionary to focus on his job....serving the Lord and the people around him.

[Xuzi]

Well I did agree with you that I don't think one group has the authority to just decide another group is a cult. I didn't say you were a cult. I just said that I understand why Protestant Christianity views non-trinitarian groups as cults.

 

As an aside, we lived in Utah for 3 years. Between neighbors, Girl Scouts, and a Mom's group, I had so many women tell me that the only reason they stayed in the church was because they were "trapped." Because it was a family thing or culture thing. That they would be ostracized - completely abandoned - if they were to leave. Several of my neighbors said they kept going because that was how their family businesses stayed afloat - because LDS members frequent other LDS business. Which I agree with by the way! Support one another. But to be afraid to leave is sad.

 

My husband is from Idaho Falls and the picture that he gives of being shunned and bullied because he was NOT LDS is quite sad and distressing. (His sisters who have just recently graduated from high school did not encounter this - he graduated 20 years ago.)

 

However, like I said before, it was refreshing to at least read this thread and see that there are LDS members that love the Lord and want to learn and are following their faith with their whole hearts (and not being drones :tongue_smilie:).

I hope you can understand that your experience is an issue (and a distressing one at that) with "Mormon Culture" rather than then Church. As has been mentioned a few times in this thread, there are differences in the way the membership functions within and outside of Utah (some of it is stereotypes, but all stereotypes have some element to truth to them). I lived in Utah for a time during my college years, and I made special effort to befriend those who were not LDS, although many of them were already fairly jaded, and thinking I was out to convert them.

 

I've heard many talks from the Prophet and Apostles saying that we should reach out, not be judgemental, be kind to those who disagree with us, particularly about the church, and not limit our associations with those who agree with us. Obviously it's something the membership still struggles with actually carrying out, but I think your younger sibling's experience in Idaho shows that change is slowly being made, and the next generation of LDS members is learning to be more Christ-like to our non-LDS neighbors. It's extremely unfortunately that it hasn't always been like that in some LDS-populated areas. :(

[Veritaserum]

Well I did agree with you that I don't think one group has the authority to just decide another group is a cult. I didn't say you were a cult. I just said that I understand why Protestant Christianity views non-trinitarian groups as cults.

 

As an aside, we lived in Utah for 3 years. Between neighbors, Girl Scouts, and a Mom's group, I had so many women tell me that the only reason they stayed in the church was because they were "trapped." Because it was a family thing or culture thing. That they would be ostracized - completely abandoned - if they were to leave. Several of my neighbors said they kept going because that was how their family businesses stayed afloat - because LDS members frequent other LDS business. Which I agree with by the way! Support one another. But to be afraid to leave is sad.

 

My husband is from Idaho Falls and the picture that he gives of being shunned and bullied because he was NOT LDS is quite sad and distressing. (His sisters who have just recently graduated from high school did not encounter this - he graduated 20 years ago.)

 

However, like I said before, it was refreshing to at least read this thread and see that there are LDS members that love the Lord and want to learn and are following their faith with their whole hearts (and not being drones :tongue_smilie:).

 

I'm sorry that those women felt that way, but I have never encountered those feelings (trapped, etc.). I make friends with people regardless of their religious beliefs. Mutual respect is something I value. ;)

 

I can see how a person who is outside the mainstream could be an easy target for bullies. Sadly, this is true for many things beyond religion. I would certainly not tolerate bullying from my children.

 

And I will never understand why some Protestant churches insist on labeling other churches as cults simply due to differences in beliefs. :glare:

[Melinda in VT]

Is it true that Joseph Smith talked to a lizard? No, wait...is it true that a lizard talked to Joseph Smith? I can totally understand him talking to the lizard because I talk to animals all the time. But if the lizard talked back, how do you know that it was God revealing himself and not a hallucination from heat stroke/dehydration/illness/whatever. Or is this just a myth?

 

Actually, it was a salamander. ;)

 

And it came from a document that was later proved to be a forgery.

 

Google "Salamander Letter" if you have time to spare.

[cougarmom4]

Thought of another one.

 

I am not LDS. My brother converted when I was, oh, I don't know, 18 or 19 maybe. Anyway, it kind of took us by surprise because we didn't really even know he was going to church or anything and then all of a sudden he came home and announced that he was going on a missionary trip. (The 2-year trip that young men do.) I remember getting a letter from the church to our family about what sort of communication we would be allowed to have with my brother while he was gone. He was only allowed to call like once or twice a year, and we were welcome to write him but they asked us to keep it infrequent. And they specifically asked that we not write to him about things going on at home because it might distract him from his mission. I get that (kind of), but if something were going on at home, say, someone was sick or something, wouldn't it be okay for him to know so that he could, you know, pray for them or whatever? I guess I was just kind of appalled at all the restrictions they wanted to give us as to how/when/how much we could communicate with him. Since the LDS church claims to put such a big emphasis on the importance of family, one would think they would want us to stay in touch with him. Or is it because we were not LDS that the restrictions were put on us? Because we might try to sway him away from the church or something?

 

Families and friends are encouraged to write and be supportive of missionaries! As a returned missionary, I can tell you how wonderful it was to see a letter waiting from a loved one...missions aren't necessarily easy and a letter can make quite a difference in how a missionary handles a challenging day/week/month! But I also understand the church asking families to limit correspondence in some ways--I had friends who would write letters telling me all about how much fun they were having at college and who they were dating and how awesome this concert was. All those letters did was make me wish I was back with them! I also had family/friends who would write letters telling me of personal struggles or challenges--and how they were able to overcome them...and it strengthened my testimony and helped me see how the Lord was blessing my family and myself.

[TKDmom]

I have considered visiting an LDS Church, but I think I would feel a little uncomfortable. I know that church policy has changed, but being black I wonder if hearts have changed. Official policy and what people actually think and feel are two very different things.

 

We have several members of our ward who are black. I wish we had more, because I always wonder if they feel uncomfortable, and I would hate for that to be the case...

 

You can come visit us. ;)

[DianeW88]

Can I just say again how interesting I think this discussion is? I have been very impressed by many things in the LDS Church. I had some missionaries come to my door once and I explained that I was busy and didn't have time to discuss anything and the two young men kindly asked if there was anyting that I need help with. I said no that I was just trying to get the kids and the laundry in the van so that I could get to the laundry mat and they offered to take the baskets for me. They carried my laundry to the van for me, told me to have a nice day and were on their way. They weren't pushy as others have been and even offered their help.

 

I have clicked on a few of the links mentioned earlier and have done some reading. Did Emma Smith really leave the LDS Church? If so would she be able to be with her husband for eternity? I am assuming they were sealed to each other. How would her leaving effect that?

 

I have considered visiting an LDS Church, but I think I would feel a little uncomfortable. I know that church policy has changed, but being black I wonder if hearts have changed. Official policy and what people actually think and feel are two very different things.

 

You would be absolutely welcomed with open arms!! Even here in pasty white Utah (for the most part), we have African American members in our ward. We love and value all of our brothers and sisters and are thrilled to have people of all races and backgrounds join us! Don't hesitate to go to a service. I think you will be very pleasantly surprised. :) There is also an LDS organization that African American members of the church started as a way to share their experiences and culture of being African American and LDS with each other and the rest of the world. The name escapes me at the moment, but I'll look into it and hopefully be able to post a link for you. Perhaps one of the other ladies may know it off the top of her head. I also know that Gladys Knight (yes, that Gladys Knight) has written a bit about her experience being LDS. She started an absolutely AMAZING choir with the members of her stake in Las Vegas called "Saints Unified Voices". Or as she likes to say..."the SUV choir". I'll try and get you a link to that as well.

 

As far as Emma goes, when the church moved on to Utah, she chose to stay behind. And personally, I think the woman was completely exhausted. She had been through the wringer and then some. Her history is fascinating and there are many books on her life. I adore Emma. I wish I had some of her grit. :D

 

Found the link! It is called the "Genesis Group" and their homepage is here: http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/

 

Here is Gladys Knight singing one of our most beloved children's hymns. "I am a Child of God". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KvIi0mOcVc

Edited January 4, 2011 by DianeW88

[mo2]

Actually, it was a salamander. ;)

 

And it came from a document that was later proved to be a forgery.

 

Google "Salamander Letter" if you have time to spare.

 

 

I will, thank you!

 

And here's another question, maybe more for converts...

 

If you converted to the LDS faith, why did you choose that particular faith? Or, if you left the faith, why did you leave? Or why do you stay? What aspects of the LDS religion do you struggle with? (These questions may be too personal. If so, just ignore me.)

[Melinda in VT]

I have clicked on a few of the links mentioned earlier and have done some reading. Did Emma Smith really leave the LDS Church? If so would she be able to be with her husband for eternity? I am assuming they were sealed to each other. How would her leaving effect that?

 

Well, I think from Emma's perspective, she didn't leave the LDS Church, Brigham Young did. :D

 

Following Joseph's death, there was disagreement on who should be the next prophet. There were arguments in favor of several people.

 

The bulk of the church members ended up accepting Brigham Young as prophet and ended up in Utah. Emma stayed with the next-largest group, which recognized her son as prophet. This became the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka RLDS). I believe their name changed again recently, but I can't remember the exact name. There were a couple of smaller groups that formed churches after Joseph's death as well.

[Amira]

Actually, it was a salamander. ;)

 

And it came from a document that was later proved to be a forgery.

 

Google "Salamander Letter" if you have time to spare.

 

I'm a little surprised that the other LDS posters aren't familiar with this. The salamander letter and everything surrounding it are a pretty big part of recent LDS history. But my family has been a little more personally impacted by those forgeries, so maybe I heard about it more.

[Xuzi]

There's always some unique and interesting citicizms of Joseph Smith that pop up whenever these types of conversations get started. :) It doesn't bother me, really. After reading through the Bible, and seeing the Lord's Prophets in ancient times be rejected again and again. and again. and again. I doubt they were very well thought of in their own day either. ("a prophet in his own country..." and all that). I think it's easier for people to wrap their minds around supernatural events that happened millenia ago, versus ones that happened pretty darn close to their own backyard, and in pretty close to their own time. The one blessing and curse of Joseph Smith's life being so modern is that we have LOTS of records about him. It's a blessing because we have so many of his revelations, and personal accounts from people who knew him, so we get to know him as a person better than we know, say, Moses, or Elisha, or Matthew. It's a curse because, like any human, he had warts. He also had enemies. There are those who puffed up his accomplishments to build him up as a greater person than he was, and those who made up exagerations, or lies, or twisted truth to make it look like something strange and wierd, rather than wonderful. We don't have this same level of detailed information about any of the ancient Prophets. Who knows what kinds of things people were saying about Isaiah or Ezekiel, who's messages were also less than well recieved by the peoples they were preaching them to.

 

(and I'd heard of the Salamander Letter, but didn't know what it contained -I guess I should have figured it was about a Salamandar :P - but again, I don't see why other Christians should use it as an attack. They also believe a donkey spoke, after all. ;) )

 

Wow! I brought a new one to you! :lol:

[DianeW88]

I'm a little surprised that the other LDS posters aren't familiar with this. The salamander letter and everything surrounding it are a pretty big part of recent LDS history. But my family has been a little more personally impacted by those forgeries, so maybe I heard about it more.

 

Isn't that Mark Hoffman and the forgery scheme he had going about 25 years ago with fake LDS documents he'd made on his own and was trying to sell? I was at BYU at the time and remember it vividly. He's still in prison, isn't he?

[MamaSheep]

I don't think receiving revelation from the Lord via a hat is any less "hokey" than recieving it via a burning bush. ;)

 

:lol: I was thinking the same thing. And then being told by God to build a BIG boat and put your animal collection in there. And a ram 'conveniently' in the thicket right there where your God told you to sacrifice your son? Sure you didn't just chicken out? Or maybe make the whole thing up? And...you want me to believe that God told you to cut WHAT off my baby boy's body? And then there's that guy who came back from the dead....riiiiight. You know, the one who supposedly could walk on water, although only a handful of his supporters claim to have seen him do it. (And I hope everyone can see that I'm being a bit sarcastic. I believe in all these things just as much as the angels who came to Joseph Smith. But there are things in Christianity that would seem just as "hokey" to an outsider.)

 

As far as "magic rocks", the Urim and Thumim are also referred to in the Bible. Literally translated the words mean "light and perfection", but they were stones that were set in the breastplate of the high priest:

 

¶And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goeth in before the Lord: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord continually (Exodus 28:30)

 

And the "Urim", at least was something through which 'answers' from God could evidently be be received:

 

And when Saul enquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets. (1 Samuel 28:6)

[Mekanamom]

That's totally ok. It's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction when I hear something that seems 'off' to want to know where it came from so I can go look it up myself and form my own opinions. I'm sorry if I made you feel put on the spot.

 

Oh, no, no... I don't feel put on the spot. :) I entered the conversation because I find it really interesting. All I have to offer to the discussion are my own experiences, which were those of a youth in the 70's and 80's. Though I am no longer a member, I identify culturally with growing up LDS, and I think it's very very interesting how the culture has evolved (and how it has not.) I studied the social sciences in college, so I tend to see things through that lens.

 

 

ETA: It may be that some of what you perceive as "changes" in this thread are not things where the actual doctrine has "changed", but maybe where the change has been in the general level of accurate understanding amongst church members. When it comes to actual church teachings, I have not noticed much in the way of actual doctrinal changes over the years, though there have been some definite efforts at focus and clarification. You'll still meet up with people in the church who have some pretty wonky ideas, but if their notions don't gel with what we have through actual revelation, then their opinion shouldn't be given any more weight than anyone else's. IYKWIM. It does put a lot of responsibility on the individual to educate themselves and learn to distinguish doctrine from opinion--and that's one reason I think the church emphasizes education so strongly.

 

I think that's exactly it. What was generally accepted (in my ward and my family) as "truth" has been refined over the years. :) I'm glad to see it, because some of those things that ended up as "myth" used to exasperate me to no end. LOL.

 

FWIW, these things weren't presented as opinion, of course; they were presented as: "This is how things are, based on such and such scripture." Personal study was encouraged... as was prayer. Most people seemed to pretty much accept the lesson material. (At least that is my assumption based on listening to other people's testimonies.)

[MamaSheep]

I hope you can understand that your experience is an issue (and a distressing one at that) with "Mormon Culture" rather than then Church. As has been mentioned a few times in this thread, there are differences in the way the membership functions within and outside of Utah (some of it is stereotypes, but all stereotypes have some element to truth to them). I lived in Utah for a time during my college years, and I made special effort to befriend those who were not LDS, although many of them were already fairly jaded, and thinking I was out to convert them.

 

I've heard many talks from the Prophet and Apostles saying that we should reach out, not be judgemental, be kind to those who disagree with us, particularly about the church, and not limit our associations with those who agree with us. Obviously it's something the membership still struggles with actually carrying out, but I think your younger sibling's experience in Idaho shows that change is slowly being made, and the next generation of LDS members is learning to be more Christ-like to our non-LDS neighbors. It's extremely unfortunately that it hasn't always been like that in some LDS-populated areas. :(

 

:iagree: I am so sorry this happened, and sadly this is not the only time I've heard of that being the case. As someone who was treated badly because I was LDS, I can certainly sympathize. I too hope that you can understand that this was a case of people behaving badly in spite of church teachings to the contrary, and not a case of people living what the church teaches in this regard. And since whoever actually did this stuff is probably not here, may I just apologize on their behalf, and hope that you and your dh might be able to forgive us, as a people, for harm done to you by some of us who should have known better. I am so sorry.

[Amira]

I will, thank you!

 

And here's another question, maybe more for converts...

 

If you converted to the LDS faith, why did you choose that particular faith? Or, if you left the faith, why did you leave? Or why do you stay? What aspects of the LDS religion do you struggle with? (These questions may be too personal. If so, just ignore me.)

 

I stay because I have faith in Jesus Christ and I believe that He restored His Church through Joseph Smith. I won't disagree with posters throughout this thread who have said that some things we believe are hard to believe, or hokey, or weird, or whatever. They are, logically. But since I want religion in my life, I'm going to have to deal with some amount of perceived hokeyness (new word?), because I haven't yet found any religion that doesn't have something in it that I can't logically believe. And faith goes a lot way in overcoming hokeyness in any religion.

 

I will also freely admit that I am not entirely comfortable with every single thing that has happened in the church, whether officially sanctioned or not. Even though I believe this church is led by Christ, there are still a lot of fallible humans running things. I refuse to expect perfection from everyone. But as I said, I have not found any other religion that I am entirely comfortable with either.

 

I stay with this particular church because there are several specific doctrines that come together in it that I really like. The nearly universal salvation is a primary attraction for me. Even though it doesn't always work this way, I hope that a church that believes that everyone can be saved also will treat everyone well. I also like our current prophet's strong emphasis on love/charity. And I love believing that I am sealed to my husband. This church gives me a lot to go on, both here on earth and after I die.

[Amira]

Isn't that Mark Hoffman and the forgery scheme he had going about 25 years ago with fake LDS documents he'd made on his own and was trying to sell? I was at BYU at the time and remember it vividly. He's still in prison, isn't he?

 

Yes, I think he has a life sentence.

[Veritaserum]

I stay because I have faith in Jesus Christ and I believe that He restored His Church through Joseph Smith. I won't disagree with posters throughout this thread who have said that some things we believe are hard to believe, or hokey, or weird, or whatever. They are, logically. But since I want religion in my life, I'm going to have to deal with some amount of perceived hokeyness (new word?), because I haven't yet found any religion that doesn't have something in it that I can't logically believe. And faith goes a lot way in overcoming hokeyness in any religion.

 

I will also freely admit that I am not entirely comfortable with every single thing that has happened in the church, whether officially sanctioned or not. Even though I believe this church is led by Christ, there are still a lot of fallible humans running things. I refuse to expect perfection from everyone. But as I said, I have not found any other religion that I am entirely comfortable with either.

 

I stay with this particular church because there are several specific doctrines that come together in it that I really like. The nearly universal salvation is a primary attraction for me. Even though it doesn't always work this way, I hope that a church that believes that everyone can be saved also will treat everyone well. I also like our current prophet's strong emphasis on love/charity. And I love believing that I am sealed to my husband. This church gives me a lot to go on, both here on earth and after I die.

 

:iagree: I'll just ditto that. :) Now I'm going to sweep up the pine needles from the dead tree I just hauled outside. Laundry wouldn't be a bad idea, either....

[MamaSheep]

I have considered visiting an LDS Church, but I think I would feel a little uncomfortable. I know that church policy has changed, but being black I wonder if hearts have changed. Official policy and what people actually think and feel are two very different things.

 

I think for the most part the hearts changed before the policy did. Having lived in the South, I do acknowledge that some tension does still exist in some places, but depending on where you live it would probably be similar to whatever the general culture in the area is like. Actually, I thought that (with the exception of a few individuals I occasionally wanted to pound) it was generally a little more accepting, even in the South. Your milage may vary, but in general your odds are pretty good. If you come to my ward, you can sit with us. If you want to. We'll be the pasty white couple trying to control kids who look WAY too old to be acting like that in church. People might stare at you if you sit with us. (Just kidding. The members of our ward have really become like extended family and are very tolerant of us and our "issues".)

 

ETA: If you do decide to visit, I would love to hear about your experience.

Edited January 5, 2011 by MamaSheep

[MamaSheep]

I'm a little surprised that the other LDS posters aren't familiar with this. The salamander letter and everything surrounding it are a pretty big part of recent LDS history. But my family has been a little more personally impacted by those forgeries, so maybe I heard about it more.

 

I'm familiar with it, but didn't really hear much about it. Maybe it made a bigger splash in some areas than others.