DiscussMormonism.com

For Mon - to discuss it separately from the topic of the other thread:

Moniker wrote:THIS is why I went to MAD over a year ago! I was reading some stuff on FAIR and was beginning to recognize what precisely a prophet was for LDS. I was more than a bit taken back.

Husband and I discussed and we wanted to be reassured that questioning WAS encouraged. One of the first threads I made on MAD was about prophets and I tried to be polite while at the same time not being too mealy mouthed. It concerned me, it still concerns me when you may not question directives at all and taught to follow a prophet. I wanted to be assured that this thinking did not translate to being absurdly naïve and not being able to weed out "false" prophets (Helzer brothers,LeBaron, and the like) from those that were benign as seen in the Church. Although since researching more I'm not entirely convinced that the prophets of the LDS Church are in fact benign -- I find some "teachings" or "directives" in fact slightly frightening.

I understand the concern here - it is a scary concept! It doesn't necessarily feel scary at all when you are 'inside' the belief (at least it wasn't for me - I saw it as a distinct positive to think that there was direct divine guidance in latter days...), but once you've stepped out of it and look back - you kinda think to yourself "Ermm - I believed that 'those' guys were the ones who, out of all the people on the planet - were the ones 'authorised' to speak for God on his behalf? Seriously?!"
...however, I also know that one can have this belief and yet keep it in reasonable perspective. I know, because I have too many people around me (Many family members and friends who are Mormon) that do exactly that. How exactly that works? Well - there's all kinds of words you can throw at the issue. "Compartmentalisation" etc. I'm not as confident about exactly how it works as much as - in many cases - it does.

I'll use my sister as a specific example. We're pretty close, and when I left the church it was a bit of a shock to her. In her words: "If even YOU can leave the church, then that's scary".
We didn't really talk about why I left etc. for a long time. It was a subject we avoided. But after maybe I think 2-3 years, we just happened to get onto it. And there came a point in the conversation where we both said: "OK - let's just both say exactly what we think, and just promise to not offend each-other!".
So I laid out all the reasons why I no longer believed. The way I now saw things. The various problems I had with believing not only in Mormonism, but in any God at all. We did get into a bit of back and forth on some points....

...but on many points we both agreed that some things were 'problems'. I bought up something a past LDS president said - for example. (I'm not gonna say what, because I don't want this thread to get derailed over it). She thought about it for a bit and said: "Well OK, if they did say that, then that's wrong and I don't agree".

She believes that LDS leaders are inspired of God, and yet she doesn't believe everything they say. Both beliefs and attitudes go hand in hand.

My Sister believes that the current prophet is Gods chosen mouthpiece on Earth. But I don't believe for one second that she would literally go out and do anything the guy says - no matter what. The Mormon faith may make substantial efforts to try and get people to just 'follow along', but it doesn't necessarily succeed. Even on the people who actually believe it's 'true'!

Not to say there aren't more 'fundamental' LDS members. I'm sure there are plenty of them, and probably more proportionally than less 'regimented' religions. Should be noted, though, that my personal experience of Mormonism might be a tad different to others, being that it was here in the UK. From the sounds of it, we might be a tad more 'liberal' overall over here - in general...

RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:For Mon - to discuss it separately from the topic of the other thread:

Moniker wrote:THIS is why I went to MAD over a year ago! I was reading some stuff on FAIR and was beginning to recognize what precisely a prophet was for LDS. I was more than a bit taken back.

Husband and I discussed and we wanted to be reassured that questioning WAS encouraged. One of the first threads I made on MAD was about prophets and I tried to be polite while at the same time not being too mealy mouthed. It concerned me, it still concerns me when you may not question directives at all and taught to follow a prophet. I wanted to be assured that this thinking did not translate to being absurdly naïve and not being able to weed out "false" prophets (Helzer brothers,LeBaron, and the like) from those that were benign as seen in the Church. Although since researching more I'm not entirely convinced that the prophets of the LDS Church are in fact benign -- I find some "teachings" or "directives" in fact slightly frightening.

I understand the concern here - it is a scary concept! It doesn't necessarily feel scary at all when you are 'inside' the belief (at least it wasn't for me - I saw it as a distinct positive to think that there was direct divine guidance in latter days...), but once you've stepped out of it and look back - you kinda think to yourself "Ermm - I believed that 'those' guys were the ones who, out of all the people on the planet - were the ones 'authorised' to speak for God on his behalf? Seriously?!"

Well, I was an avid reader of the crime library a few summers ago (uber paranoid summer!) and read a bunch about the "false" prophets and whatnot and didn't even think about LDS too much -- just recognized there are religious nutjobs all over the place. Then, as I was reading FAIR I just was rather uncomfortable with those that are told that one man speaks for God. It just rubbed me the wrong way -- I really want to know that dissent and questioning was encouraged, I suppose. I think that most of the "teachings" (I don't know if that is the accurate word?) seem rather benign. There just seems to be a lot that deals with healthy lifestyle choices -- and that's not a bad thing. Yet, as you know, the sexual aspect is rather bothersome to me -- I still don't understand why God cares if people masturbate???

Yet, it more came down to, for me, the ability to consider what you are being taught. I also was rather uncomfortable with Joseph Smith (and mentioned that in the thread) and some of the worship that I see for him. I think it's never a good idea to give over much of your own will to another person. Even more than an individual doing so is when you are surrounded by others that buttress the position that one man speaks for God that this in effect could even counter an individuals ability to step outside that set up.

...however, I also know that one can have this belief and yet keep it in reasonable perspective. I know, because I have too many people around me (Many family members and friends who are Mormon) that do exactly that. How exactly that works? Well - there's all kinds of words you can throw at the issue. "Compartmentalisation" etc. I'm not as confident about exactly how it works as much as - in many cases - it does.

Yes, I think Nehor has mentioned the Holy Ghost and what not. My only concern (being blunt here) is that when you are taught that there ARE individuals that DO speak for God and you accept this that how will you really know when you are being misled? It just seems like a setup for a group of people that may be easier to sway. I saw threads on MAD about get rich quick schemes and the like and I had bells ringing and lights flashing as I read those threads. I just really wanted to know that there was some safeguard in place. As someone on the outside looking into the culture it's difficult for me to determine precisely what occurs -- yet I do know it makes me acutely uncomfortable.

I'll use my sister as a specific example. We're pretty close, and when I left the church it was a bit of a shock to her. In her words: "If even YOU can leave the church, then that's scary".
We didn't really talk about why I left etc. for a long time. It was a subject we avoided. But after maybe I think 2-3 years, we just happened to get onto it. And there came a point in the conversation where we both said: "OK - let's just both say exactly what we think, and just promise to not offend each-other!".
So I laid out all the reasons why I no longer believed. The way I now saw things. The various problems I had with believing not only in Mormonism, but in any God at all. We did get into a bit of back and forth on some points....

That's great you could talk to your sister about this! I'm sure that was a relief that you could come to some understanding and treat both beliefs as if they had merit. I wish more discussions as such could occur on both boards!!!!

...but on many points we both agreed that some things were 'problems'. I bought up something a past LDS president said - for example. (I'm not gonna say what, because I don't want this thread to get derailed over it). She thought about it for a bit and said: "Well OK, if they did say that, then that's wrong and I don't agree".

She believes that LDS leaders are inspired of God, and yet she doesn't believe everything they say. Both beliefs and attitudes go hand in hand.

This is interesting to witness on the boards. I don't quite understand the need to believe at some point then shuffle that to the back and deny it later. I don't want to say anything ugly -- but it just doesn't appear rational and does appear to be a lot of rationalizations and compartmentalizations in order for believers to continue to believe even when there are contradictions.

My Sister believes that the current prophet is Gods chosen mouthpiece on Earth. But I don't believe for one second that she would literally go out and do anything the guy says - no matter what. The Mormon faith may make substantial efforts to try and get people to just 'follow along', but it doesn't necessarily succeed. Even on the people who actually believe it's 'true'!

Not to say there aren't more 'fundamental' LDS members. I'm sure there are plenty of them, and probably more proportionally than less 'regimented' religions. Should be noted, though, that my personal experience of Mormonism might be a tad different to others, being that it was here in the UK. From the sounds of it, we might be a tad more 'liberal' overall over here - in general...

Right, well as we see from you (and other ex-Mos) that there is dissent. :)

I'm rather fascinated by the LDS culture and religion at this point. Some of it just seems so bizarre to me -- truly it's almost outside the entire notion of "America" I understand. And of course you're in the UK and I have no basis to understand that culture of LDS. Yet, here it's truly very unique -- apart somehow and it's difficult, at times, to remember these are a product of America -- just seems *off* to me in some respects. Yet, to be fair fundamentalist Christianity appears *off* to me, as well.

Thanks for creating the thread. :)

Moniker wrote:Yet, as you know, the sexual aspect is rather bothersome to me -- I still don't understand why God cares if people masturbate???

Could be that God really does care about people masturbating! (Well not 'really', but just trying to be fair...!)

...or it is a logical conclusion of Mormon belief. Mormon belief is that you must at the very least try to keep your mind and your heart free of inappropriate sexual thoughts and temptation. However, how would one masturbate and yet be not doing the complete opposite? I think 'Mormon leaders' had a think about that and decided: "Well, I guess that means that masturbation simply isn't OK".

Yeap - I believe the opposition to it can be damaging. But in it's own kinda crazy way, it's logical - if you start from a given position.

I think it's never a good idea to give over much of your own will to another person.

Totally agreed. And I'm never going to do so again... (Or at least try - emotion can sneak up on you sometimes...!)
But I guess the question here is exactly how much 'will' does the average Mormon actually give over? Early Mormonism was quite a different beast - the Mormon church has been making quite an effort since then to appear (or be?) more mainstream. 'Prophets' of the LDS church have become less like Joseph Smith in that that they don't regularly prophesy regularly or stun church members with bold new doctrines.

I think Pirate put it best somewhere else. She said something like: "I think - at some point - we (LDS) will have a President that is an actual prophet."

Yes, I think Nehor has mentioned the Holy Ghost and what not.

Yeah - Nehor would call it the Holy Ghost. I call it his own inbuilt ability to determine right from wrong. His 'conscience'. He can tell me it's communication with 'God' if he likes. And I'll respect that he believes that, but I don't.

I think Nehor pretty much does what my Sister does. I just don't think my Sister bothers to come up with such technicalities as 'The Holy Ghost can potentially Trump something a church leader says". She was raised in the Mormon church and believes in all the basics. As far as she's concerned, she has had too many 'spiritual confirmations' of the truthfulness of the 'basics' of the church to deny them. But she also has her own mind, and is perfectly willing to use it.

My only concern (being blunt here) is that when you are taught that there ARE individuals that DO speak for God and you accept this that how will you really know when you are being misled? It just seems like a setup for a group of people that may be easier to sway.

Certainly agree. As I say, I think it entirely likely that Mormonism has a 'higher proportion' of people who don't bother to 'really' think for themselves than a lot of other religions.

I saw threads on MAD about get rich quick schemes and the like and I had bells ringing and lights flashing as I read those threads. I just really wanted to know that there was some safeguard in place. As someone on the outside looking into the culture it's difficult for me to determine precisely what occurs -- yet I do know it makes me acutely uncomfortable.

There are several little snippets from past LDS leaders themselves stating things like "Don't just blindly follow me - each person must get their own confirmation from God". (I can't remember exactly what they are, or who said them. When I have more time, I'll try and look them up.) But of course, we also have statements like: "When the leadership have spoken, the thinking have been done"! I think even with the church leadership itself (at any one time, and over time), each person within that leadership has different opinions over how much 'control' should be asserted - whether it's better to let someone stray rather than exert unreasonable control, or to simply clamp down and save souls in a more 'direct' manner.

That's great you could talk to your sister about this! I'm sure that was a relief that you could come to some understanding and treat both beliefs as if they had merit. I wish more discussions as such could occur on both boards!!!!

Yeah -I was really glad to go over some of that stuff at the time.
Just to get over how 'intense' it was though, I ended up making one point about something - can't even remember exactly what. It struck a little harder than I had intended. MY sister ended up saying: "Hmm - let's take a break huh. Do you want some chili? I'll cook some up...".

As she was making it, she did something silly. Can't remember - something like she started getting out curry ingredients instead. (Wasn't that, but something similar). "Oh. LOL! What am I doing?" she said. But she was laughing a little too loud. A little too shrill. And a little too often. As she was stirring something in, she was really 'going at it' - harder than usual. And the look on her face wasn't right.

It was then that I decided that I was gonna back off. We've never really gotten into it again 'as seriously' as we did back then. (And that was a good few years back...)

I don't want to say anything ugly -- but it just doesn't appear rational and does appear to be a lot of rationalizations and compartmentalizations in order for believers to continue to believe even when there are contradictions.

Heh - no worries about being ugly. I doubt my Sister would put up too much of a fight against what you've just said above actually. She wouldn't deny that I'm - say - a more logical, 'literal' thinker than she is. (As probably you too). She may argue how important 'rationality' is to being a good person though.
I'm quite sure my Sister does compartmentalise to some degree - I'm sure that's true. I'm sure she does 'rationalise away' certain things - I think that's also true. But what I'm also quite sure of is that my Sister wouldn't rationalise away in a manner that would go against her 'heart' and her sense of right and wrong. The church has certainly 'influenced' that sense of right and wrong - no question there. But she also has her own 'areas and ideas' of right and wrong seperate from the church, that they actually can't touch. At least I have seen no evidence that they can. Even though she 'believes' in the church.

I'm also quite sure that my Sister is a better person than I'll ever be.

Right, well as we see from you (and other ex-Mos) that there is dissent. :)

Yeap - us Mormons are allowed to leave. Their quite reasonable like that! Heh.
But we're also talking about being able to dissent whilst still believing in it. Whilst still being 'involved'.

Yet, here it's truly very unique -- apart somehow and it's difficult, at times, to remember these are a product of America -- just seems *off* to me in some respects. Yet, to be fair fundamentalist Christianity appears *off* to me, as well.

Yeap - fundamentalist Christianity may not believe in modern day prophets, and yet they still do a pretty good job of getting all 'fire and brimstone' on one's arse!

I saw a bit of disturbing programme on TV last night actually. 'Baby Bible Bashers' - about very young kids who have their parents moving them into a missionary life at very young ages. One father took his kid out (the kid looked like 8-10) with him preaching on the streets, with billboards etc. The kid was used to going out around his neighborhood, which was usually friendly. So he really liked it and enjoyed it. He didn't just stand around, he'd confidently give fluent 'sermons' to people, quoting scripture from memory etc. Really a bright kid...

...but the programme showed what happened when they tried going to New York and do the same thing. The father of course knew what to expect, and tried to prepare the son. "The devil has a strong hold of New York son" - he was saying - "He's gonna try and break us down. You have to be prepared for it...".

"I'll be OK Daddy. I'll pray for Gods help to be strong..." Was the reply.

Well, within a few minutes of being surrounded by TRULY hostile people, he was sitting at the side of the pavement crying his eyes out, while his Dad - oblivious - carried on yelling right back.

You don't need modern prophets to get yourself into a dogmatic, "this-is-the-truth-and-thats-how-it-is" mindset...! (No modern prophet had gone and told that guy that he needed to put his son through such an ordeal...)
And I don't think we should forget about the militant atheists either...

Thanks for creating the thread. :)

You're more then welcome... :)

...as far as placing a particular person in the position of 'spokesperson for God' - and allowing that person the potential to 'do the thinking for' a massive amount of people, we also have the Pope to consider.
And the number of people he can / could play like a fiddle make Mormonisms numbers look (relatively) insignificant.

But I think Catholics would argue that they have their own minds. (JFK had to make a speech that made that very clear...)

RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:

Moniker wrote:Yet, as you know, the sexual aspect is rather bothersome to me -- I still don't understand why God cares if people masturbate???

Could be that God really does care about people masturbating! (Well not 'really', but just trying to be fair...!)

I don't like being fair -- I've mentioned this to you before! Come on! ;)

...or it is a logical conclusion of Mormon belief. Mormon belief is that you must at the very least try to keep your mind and your heart free of inappropriate sexual thoughts and temptation. However, how would one masturbate and yet be not doing the complete opposite? I think 'Mormon leaders' had a think about that and decided: "Well, I guess that means that masturbation simply isn't OK".

Uh, I think denying yourself the opportunity to just masturbate actually INCREASES the odds that you'll be having sexual thoughts. Just orgasm and get back to whatever you need to be doing!

Yeap - I believe the opposition to it can be damaging. But in it's own kinda crazy way, it's logical - if you start from a given position.

Well, you need to spell it out slowly for me 'cause I still don't geddit!!!!

No masturbation = intense sexual frustration vs.
Masturbation = frustration relieved and back to business

I think it's never a good idea to give over much of your own will to another person.

Totally agreed. And I'm never going to do so again... (Or at least try - emotion can sneak up on you sometimes...!)
But I guess the question here is exactly how much 'will' does the average Mormon actually give over? Early Mormonism was quite a different beast - the Mormon church has been making quite an effort since then to appear (or be?) more mainstream. 'Prophets' of the LDS church have become less like Joseph Smith in that that they don't regularly prophesy regularly or stun church members with bold new doctrines.

Right, and as I researched a lot of my concerns were put at rest. I went in with a fairly open mind (my brain spills out sometimes my mind is so open) and just wanted to be assured that there was some safeguard in place.

I think Pirate put it best somewhere else. She said something like: "I think - at some point - we (LDS) will have a President that is an actual prophet."

She's such a smart cookie!

Yes, I think Nehor has mentioned the Holy Ghost and what not.

Yeah - Nehor would call it the Holy Ghost. I call it his own inbuilt ability to determine right from wrong. His 'conscience'. He can tell me it's communication with 'God' if he likes. And I'll respect that he believes that, but I don't.

I think Nehor pretty much does what my Sister does. I just don't think my Sister bothers to come up with such technicalities as 'The Holy Ghost can potentially Trump something a church leader says". She was raised in the Mormon church and believes in all the basics. As far as she's concerned, she has had too many 'spiritual confirmations' of the truthfulness of the 'basics' of the church to deny them. But she also has her own mind, and is perfectly willing to use it.

Well, I would think getting confirmation that certain things are "bad" for you seems okay. I mean, why would you all of a sudden have an epipheny that smoking is bad for you! But, some of the other stuff just seems like "control" for no other purpose than to control -- why? I don't understand the need. For instance the sexual aspect and certain teachings about appearance.

I saw threads on MAD about get rich quick schemes and the like and I had bells ringing and lights flashing as I read those threads. I just really wanted to know that there was some safeguard in place. As someone on the outside looking into the culture it's difficult for me to determine precisely what occurs -- yet I do know it makes me acutely uncomfortable.

There are several little snippets from past LDS leaders themselves stating things like "Don't just blindly follow me - each person must get their own confirmation from God". (I can't remember exactly what they are, or who said them. When I have more time, I'll try and look them up.) But of course, we also have statements like: "When the leadership have spoken, the thinking have been done"! I think even with the church leadership itself (at any one time, and over time), each person within that leadership has different opinions over how much 'control' should be asserted - whether it's better to let someone stray rather than exert unreasonable control, or to simply clamp down and save souls in a more 'direct' manner.

Well, what occurs to those within the Church that gets a holy ghost tap on the shoulder that tells them to go against the directives? It just doesn't make a lot of sense to believe that the Prophet "speaks for God" and yet this other Godly ghostly particle thing that can enter your mind tells you that the Prophet who also "speaks for God" is wrong.

Yeah -I was really glad to go over some of that stuff at the time.
Just to get over how 'intense' it was though, I ended up making one point about something - can't even remember exactly what. It struck a little harder than I had intended. MY sister ended up saying: "Hmm - let's take a break huh. Do you want some chili? I'll cook some up...".

As she was making it, she did something silly. Can't remember - something like she started getting out curry ingredients instead. (Wasn't that, but something similar). "Oh. LOL! What am I doing?" she said. But she was laughing a little too loud. A little too shrill. And a little too often. As she was stirring something in, she was really 'going at it' - harder than usual. And the look on her face wasn't right.

It was then that I decided that I was gonna back off. We've never really gotten into it again 'as seriously' as we did back then. (And that was a good few years back...)

You have a great family, Ren. I wish all those that departed had family and a community that could accept them and their lack of belief.

I don't want to say anything ugly -- but it just doesn't appear rational and does appear to be a lot of rationalizations and compartmentalizations in order for believers to continue to believe even when there are contradictions.

Heh - no worries about being ugly. I doubt my Sister would put up too much of a fight against what you've just said above actually. She wouldn't deny that I'm - say - a more logical, 'literal' thinker than she is. (As probably you too). She may argue how important 'rationality' is to being a good person though.
I'm quite sure my Sister does compartmentalise to some degree - I'm sure that's true. I'm sure she does 'rationalise away' certain things - I think that's also true. But what I'm also quite sure of is that my Sister wouldn't rationalise away in a manner that would go against her 'heart' and her sense of right and wrong. The church has certainly 'influenced' that sense of right and wrong - no question there. But she also has her own 'areas and ideas' of right and wrong seperate from the church, that they actually can't touch. At least I have seen no evidence that they can. Even though she 'believes' in the church.

Well, just from watching board participants here and at MAD and the gang up on those that are on the other side or are seen as a threat I see group mentality running amok. This "right" and "wrong" you speak of seems to depart once they get going as a gang. It's startling to witness it -- otherwise good, compassionate people that lose the sense of humanity and recognizing their "target" as a human being. It is infact terrifying for me to witness it. First time I witnessed it was on MAD as they mocked the descendents of MMM -- was HORRIFIED! I was astounded. Seriously -- didn't quite know what to make of it. Then there are people here that root for their team (let's say upset about McCue or that Nephi was chided) and yet gang up on posters here that are on the "opposing team". I think this ability to step outside your group is a great test to see if you TRULY recognize "right" and "wrong" and can apply it to all situations.

I'm also quite sure that my Sister is a better person than I'll ever be.

I think you're a pretty great guy!

I saw a bit of disturbing programme on TV last night actually. 'Baby Bible Bashers' - about very young kids who have their parents moving them into a missionary life at very young ages. One father took his kid out (the kid looked like 8-10) with him preaching on the streets, with billboards etc. The kid was used to going out around his neighborhood, which was usually friendly. So he really liked it and enjoyed it. He didn't just stand around, he'd confidently give fluent 'sermons' to people, quoting scripture from memory etc. Really a bright kid...

...but the programme showed what happened when they tried going to New York and do the same thing. The father of course knew what to expect, and tried to prepare the son. "The devil has a strong hold of New York son" - he was saying - "He's gonna try and break us down. You have to be prepared for it...".

"I'll be OK Daddy. I'll pray for Gods help to be strong..." Was the reply.

Well, within a few minutes of being surrounded by TRULY hostile people, he was sitting at the side of the pavement crying his eyes out, while his Dad - oblivious - carried on yelling right back.

Oh man! Religion scares me at times! Yet, any dogmatic belief (secular too) that is taken to fanaticism can create this sort of intolerance and hatred. I consider this child abuse.

You don't need modern prophets to get yourself into a dogmatic, "this-is-the-truth-and-that's-how-it-is" mindset...! (No modern prophet had gone and told that guy that he needed to put his son through such an ordeal...)
And I don't think we should forget about the militant atheists either...

You're absolutely correct! Any "truth" and intolerance for those that don't fit into it is not something healthy for society.

Let me just add this about the prophets: I see much of the directives (what are they called???!) as not being particularly harmful. Matter of fact most of them that relate to health and family and whatnot seem to just be common sense. Yet, I wonder why there is a need to be told these things that are just sort of known anyway?

I also see that a lot of the mentality of LDS is that those outside of LDS are all druggies, sexual wackos (I'm sure I'm seen as one -- even though I am actually VERY normal/typical/average for a female in the States), and alcoholics. I think they may see themselves as living a wholesome life and not recognizing that there are shades and that if someone takes a drink, or fornicates that they're not awful people. I also am uncomfortable that the sins don't seem to be relative, there's no scale apparently. Sex outside marriage = murder makes me a bit uncomfortable. Yet, still going back to control and helping the members live wholesome lives seems to be the justification. Yet, when put at such an extreme it just appears that they view outsiders as vile sinners, perhaps? Not sure -- I just know even from ex-Mos that see me as somehow "odd" (and hate to break it to them -- I'm NORMAL!) that this mentality of "apartness" makes them view the outside world as flawed.

Hope that makes sense.

Continuing from that thought! Another triple post for Shades! Love ya!

This is the point, eh? To be apart? That "normal" is not what is desired. To hold ourselves above? That those that fornicate, drink, whatnot are actually miserable and that if they lived a "wholesome" life that there would be relief and true happiness? Is that where that stems from? I know I've felt some sort of "pity waves" (and some people rather blunt that they pity me -- of course I refrained from telling them what I thought of them:) coming from people this last year that made me acutely uncomfortable..... So, this idea that we are "happy lala" here in LDS land and those outside are not because they ARE "normal"???

Is that part of this? Yes? No?

You know, I think the culture of the church does more to promote blind obedience than the leaders themselves.

I can not tell you how many members will vehemently deny that you should EVER disagree with the apostles. This mindset is the dominate one in Utah County.

It is believed that there will be a time when the saints will exodus to Jackson County. If Pres Monson got up next conference and told the saints to move, I believe most of them would, no questions asked.

Scottie wrote:You know, I think the culture of the church does more to promote blind obedience than the leaders themselves.

I can not tell you how many members will vehemently deny that you should EVER disagree with the apostles. This mindset is the dominate one in Utah County.

It is believed that there will be a time when the saints will exodus to Jackson County. If Pres Monson got up next conference and told the saints to move, I believe most of them would, no questions asked.

Someone should start a thread on MAD and ask them. Or here -- what of the ex-Mos -- would they have moved?

I wonder if it's less about the prophets, yet the community that exerts this group think? Both in tandem?

Moniker wrote:Uh, I think denying yourself the opportunity to just masturbate actually INCREASES the odds that you'll be having sexual thoughts. Just orgasm and get back to whatever you need to be doing!

Actually, that's a very good point!

It could be different for different people - with different levels of sex drive. Maybe if you have a low sex drive, it's easier to keep your thoughts under control, and refraining from masterbation might actually help. Not very likely though - as I take your point on board.

I think the sense I meant was that if you are masturbating, then you simply have to be having a minimum level of sexual thoughts - at the very least during the act. But if you don't, then it's 'possible' that you are totally without those thoughts.
If you masterbate, you've ruled out the possibility that you are ever without those thoughts.
But if you don't, being completely without the thoughts IS (at least potentially) possible.

But of course - in 'reality' - we all know that sometimes you just can't control your thoughts! This is the problem - the LDS standard is essentially impossible, and yet they still want to reach for it as the 'ideal', and act as if it is 'possible' - if you try hard enough.

If LDS leaders were to say 'It's OK to masturbate', then (I believe, in their minds) that's really saying 'It's OK to have a minimum amount of inappropiate sexual thoughts' - as the 'standard' to aim for. And that's just not something they'd want to admit. It's admitting that sometimes the mind is simply not greater than the body. Again, this is another of those Mormon 'starting points'. I was always taught that the mind can and should be stronger than the body - at least if you are righteous, pray, read your scriptures, attend church etc. etc. If the mind cannot overcome the body, then you are not trying hard enough, or you are not letting the Holy Ghost in to help you etc.

I totally see what you're saying - practically it makes little sense. But in an effort to aim for the 'highest' standard possible, the church ends up shooting itself in the foot.

You've already worked out that my thinking on this has probably been 'warped' by my LDS upbringing?
...heh, no need to tell me. I already agree :)

But, some of the other stuff just seems like "control" for no other purpose than to control -- why?

I'm not sure if you ask 'why' in the sense of:

"What good reason is there"?
...or...
"I just want to understand what the thinking is..."


I may not know the best way to explain it...

If the Mormons are the 'chosen people of God', and yet the Mormons 'act no better' than the 'gentiles', then their behaviour is a lie to the concept.

"By their fruits ye shall know them"

Mormons aren't supposed to act like 'everybody else'. They are meant to look different. (Earrings, dress codes). They are meant to control their sexual appetites. They are meant to 'stand apart'. That's embedded into the concept of being a Mormon. (At least a good one).
Church leaders don't want to walk into an average chapel and see a bunch of people who behave like 'everyone else'. So, they put the 'rules' in place to combat that eventuality.

Well, what occurs to those within the Church that gets a holy ghost tap on the shoulder that tells them to go against the directives?

I don't want to go putting words in the mouths of Mormons on this board, but I think by far the most common reaction to someone claiming a spiritual answer that went against official church teachings would be:

"That wasn't REALLY the true spirit", or "You read it wrong" - or something of this nature. i.e. There first reaction wouldn't be to deny that it's possible the HG could inform someone differently - they'd just argue it wasn't really the HG.

But also, bear in mind that if my sister DID have a feeling that told her to go against, or not fully accept, some church concept - I doubt her first reaction would be go telling anybody it. I mean, I don't know for sure - but my guess would be she would just keep it to herself, and try her best to avoid conflict between her idea and the church 'ideas'.

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to believe that the Prophet "speaks for God" and yet this other Godly ghostly particle thing that can enter your mind tells you that the Prophet who also "speaks for God" is wrong.

Why are you under the impression that any of this has to make sense?! LOL :)

Well, just from watching board participants here and at MAD and the gang up on those that are on the other side or are seen as a threat I see group mentality running amok

I seriously would not judge the entire Mormon community by the behaviour of Mormons on message boards. No more than the entire ex-Mo 'community' (whatever that really means) should be judged by what goes on on this board, or others like it.

My sister has never got ANYWHERE near an internet board like MADB. There may be some that are like her on there, but generally they do NOT represent someone like her. Not even close...

Many of the people who go to a place like MADB want to get into a debate, and don't mind an argument. My sister is absolutely live and let live. She'd have made an even worse missionary than me -which is probably why she never had any inclination to go, even though she married relatively late. That kind of attitude just isn't in her.

I think Mormonism can 'bring out the worst' in some people. But I also think that attitude has to be in them in the first place...

I think you're a pretty great guy!

Well, then you know how good my Sister is then :)

I consider this child abuse.

I was certainly thinking the same thing as I was watching that programme.
I know my sister (or my brother-in-law) would never put their child through anything like that. The Bishop, or the Stake President, or any General Authority, or the Prophet himself could ask them till their blue in the face.

They'd tell them 'no'.