D&C 127:2

[I Have Questions]

Yes. All of that. And also, what is the "feeling" that indicates the response is from God, as opposed to a "feeling" that's been self generated? What are the key, observable, repeatable, differences that one can identify between the two sensations? You won't get a clear answer on that one. Because nobody can articulate a reasonable, repeatable, consistent differentiation between them. Not even Church Leaders.

The best the Brethren can offer is to say that if the sensation feels like a confirmation of something they have said, then it’s from God. If it disagrees with them, then it isn’t. The inherent danger in such statements is obvious.

Also: If it disagrees with them, then you are not doing "it" properly.
Also: If it disagrees with them, then keep doing "it" until it does agree.

I’m really struggling to understand why affinity fraud is so rife within Mormon communities. Said nobody.

[Marcus]

Also: If it disagrees with them, then you are not doing "it" properly.
Also: If it disagrees with them, then keep doing "it" until it does agree.

I’m really struggling to understand why affinity fraud is so rife within Mormon communities. Said nobody.

A side issue to that is the background of the ones perpetrating the frauds. Invariably, they have a history of presenting themselves as true believers, until they were caught. It makes you wonder how many don't believe but say they do just to get along.

[I Have Questions]

I’m really struggling to understand why affinity fraud is so rife within Mormon communities. Said nobody.

A side issue to that is the background of the ones perpetrating the frauds. Invariably, they have a history of presenting themselves as true believers, until they were caught. It makes you wonder how many don't believe but say they do just to get along.

From my experience, when people stand up at Fast & Testimony and declare their belief in the Church, in Mormonism, etc. that’s not the same as committing to live by the standards espoused by the Church and Mormonism. I know people who held senior callings, and who were very pious on a Sunday. But come Monday morning they were quite happy to mislead people in business, to only tell partial truths, to allow others to incur financial damage, all so as “to get ahead”. Saying one believes, is not the same as believing enough to act in a way consistent with all those beliefs.

I would say that in my experience there are very few members who live to the standard they claim to espouse. Very few. There are some. But not many.

[Limnor]

A side issue to that is the background of the ones perpetrating the frauds. Invariably, they have a history of presenting themselves as true believers, until they were caught. It makes you wonder how many don't believe but say they do just to get along.

From my experience, when people stand up at Fast & Testimony and declare their belief in the Church, in Mormonism, etc. that’s not the same as committing to live by the standards espoused by the Church and Mormonism. I know people who held senior callings, and who were very pious on a Sunday. But come Monday morning they were quite happy to mislead people in business, to only tell partial truths, to allow others to incur financial damage, all so as “to get ahead”. Saying one believes, is not the same as believing enough to act in a way consistent with all those beliefs.

I would say that in my experience there are very few members who live to the standard they claim to espouse. Very few. There are some. But not many.

One conclusion that could be drawn is that type of behavior is the real “fruit” of the book, and may help explain why outward belief functions the way it does in some Mormon communities.

For example, Alma 32 actually teaches that performed faith is acceptable, even necessary: faith is explicitly described as acting as if something were true before evidence appears. Belief is based less on internal certainty and more a on behavioral posture—“experiment upon my words”—which legitimizes outward enactment as a valid substitute for inner conviction.

Another example is Alma’s people at the Waters of Mormon, who perform the covenant before they understand it, and their loyalty is accepted as righteousness.

So the book itself becomes a manual for the kind of behavior that thrives in high-demand religious communities: loyalty, performance and unity come first, and the inner life is secondary.

This view may provide insight into why affinity fraud and outward conformity can flourish—because the foundational text itself rewards the performance of belief as paramount.

[Marcus]

From my experience, when people stand up at Fast & Testimony and declare their belief in the Church, in Mormonism, etc. that’s not the same as committing to live by the standards espoused by the Church and Mormonism. I know people who held senior callings, and who were very pious on a Sunday. But come Monday morning they were quite happy to mislead people in business, to only tell partial truths, to allow others to incur financial damage, all so as “to get ahead”. Saying one believes, is not the same as believing enough to act in a way consistent with all those beliefs.

I would say that in my experience there are very few members who live to the standard they claim to espouse. Very few. There are some. But not many.

One conclusion that could be drawn is that type of behavior is the real “fruit” of the book, and may help explain why outward belief functions the way it does in some Mormon communities.

For example, Alma 32 actually teaches that performed faith is acceptable, even necessary: faith is explicitly described as acting as if something were true before evidence appears. Belief is based less on internal certainty and more a on behavioral posture—“experiment upon my words”—which legitimizes outward enactment as a valid substitute for inner conviction.

Another example is Alma’s people at the Waters of Mormon, who perform the covenant before they understand it, and their loyalty is accepted as righteousness.

So the book itself becomes a manual for the kind of behavior that thrives in high-demand religious communities: loyalty, performance and unity come first, and the inner life is secondary.

This view may provide insight into why affinity fraud and outward conformity can flourish—because the foundational text itself rewards the performance of belief as paramount.

Your point about rewarding "the performance of belief as paramount" is correct, in my experience.

One of the memories seared into my mind was when my dad was a professor, in his last year. He insisted I take his last summer class, even though I was only a sophomore in high school. I thought it was because he wanted to experience having his daughter in one of his classes before he stopped teaching. It was an early morning class, so he said I should make him breakfast before we left (he made it sound like a reward for me, but I see it now as a weird sort of grooming). I would make breakfast, sit down with our plates and I would invariably have to ask him to wait so we could bless the food. He would sigh at having to stop, but by the third day he snapped at me to stop telling him to wait for the blessing. I was in shock, we NEVER ate a meal in our family home without making a big deal about blessing the food, especially when he was 'presiding.' But when he was alone? It was an intrusion, and an embarrassment to him that I had to remind him. I continued making breakfast, but I never asked him to wait to bless the food again.

That moment weighed very heavily on me. It was the first time I had ever considered the performative aspect of Mormonism. Not the last, however, by far.

[Limnor]

Your point about rewarding "the performance of belief as paramount" is correct, in my experience.

One of the memories seared into my mind was when my dad was a professor, in his last year. He insisted I take his last summer class, even though I was only a sophomore in high school. I thought it was because he wanted to experience having his daughter in one of his classes before he stopped teaching. It was an early morning class, so he said I should make him breakfast before we left (he made it sound like a reward for me, but I see it now as a weird sort of grooming). I would make breakfast, sit down with our plates and I would invariably have to ask him to wait so we could bless the food. He would sigh at having to stop, but by the third day he snapped at me to stop telling him to wait for the blessing. I was in shock, we NEVER ate a meal in our family home without making a big deal about blessing the food, especially when he was 'presiding.' But when he was alone? It was an intrusion, and an embarrassment to him that I had to remind him. I continued making breakfast, but I never asked him to wait to bless the food again.

That moment weighed very heavily on me. It was the first time I had ever considered the performative aspect of Mormonism. Not the last, however, by far.

Not growing up LDS I never had the experience of my father “presiding” over my family, so it is difficult to understand that aspect. My mother always said “the man may be the head of the house, but the woman is the neck,” which I interpreted as the two of them working together.

I have conducted a fair bit of research, however, so when reading about your experience, I thought about “unrighteous dominion” within the LDS faith, which I understand as condemning authority that’s all performance, expectations enforced only when they serve the leader, and the potential for a built-in “power gap” that seems to leave the follower—children or women—carrying the responsibility.

Having read through multiple forums, I’ve gotten the impression that, in lived experience, it doesn’t feel like a rare setback within the system, it feels like the natural fruit of it. The shared experience from many ex-Mo’s relate their stories much like you have here—performance is rewarded, the inconsistency is excused, and the people under that authority are expected to absorb the impact.

And the thing is, that doesn’t seem to be just a personal flaw; from the outside it appears as the fruit of a system that teaches men they inherently have spiritual authority—whether they have genuine internal conviction or are merely performing their role—and teaches everyone else to sustain it.

[I Have Questions]

From my experience, when people stand up at Fast & Testimony and declare their belief in the Church, in Mormonism, etc. that’s not the same as committing to live by the standards espoused by the Church and Mormonism. I know people who held senior callings, and who were very pious on a Sunday. But come Monday morning they were quite happy to mislead people in business, to only tell partial truths, to allow others to incur financial damage, all so as “to get ahead”. Saying one believes, is not the same as believing enough to act in a way consistent with all those beliefs.

I would say that in my experience there are very few members who live to the standard they claim to espouse. Very few. There are some. But not many.

One conclusion that could be drawn is that type of behavior is the real “fruit” of the book, and may help explain why outward belief functions the way it does in some Mormon communities.

For example, Alma 32 actually teaches that performed faith is acceptable, even necessary: faith is explicitly described as acting as if something were true before evidence appears. Belief is based less on internal certainty and more a on behavioral posture—“experiment upon my words”—which legitimizes outward enactment as a valid substitute for inner conviction.

Another example is Alma’s people at the Waters of Mormon, who perform the covenant before they understand it, and their loyalty is accepted as righteousness.

So the book itself becomes a manual for the kind of behavior that thrives in high-demand religious communities: loyalty, performance and unity come first, and the inner life is secondary.

This view may provide insight into why affinity fraud and outward conformity can flourish—because the foundational text itself rewards the performance of belief as paramount.

The Church of today very much demands loyalty over righteousness. There’s plenty of examples, such as - do not criticise the leaders even if the criticism is valid, a testimony is found in the bearing of it, something things that are true aren’t useful, doubt your doubts etc, pay your tithing before paying for necessities etc. It is all obedience based rather than principle based teaching.

The behaviours and teachings of the SLC LDS Church are a long way from reflecting the principles that Jesus Christ taught.

[Marcus]

Not growing up LDS I never had the experience of my father “presiding” over my family, so it is difficult to understand that aspect. My mother always said “the man may be the head of the house, but the woman is the neck,” which I interpreted as the two of them working together.

I have conducted a fair bit of research, however, so when reading about your experience, I thought about “unrighteous dominion” within the LDS faith, which I understand as condemning authority that’s all performance, expectations enforced only when they serve the leader, and the potential for a built-in “power gap” that seems to leave the follower—children or women—carrying the responsibility.

Having read through multiple forums, I’ve gotten the impression that, in lived experience, it doesn’t feel like a rare setback within the system, it feels like the natural fruit of it. The shared experience from many ex-Mo’s relate their stories much like you have here—performance is rewarded, the inconsistency is excused, and the people under that authority are expected to absorb the impact.

And the thing is, that doesn’t seem to be just a personal flaw; from the outside it appears as the fruit of a system that teaches men they inherently have spiritual authority—whether they have genuine internal conviction or are merely performing their role—and teaches everyone else to sustain it.

Nelson's 'fruit of the system', from April 1999 priesthood session of general conference:

It is a joy to be with you tonight, brethren, and wonderful to see so many young men with their fathers. We are assembled because of our desire to hearken to the leaders of the Church. But this congregation is unique. I don’t see any mothers. Not one of us could be here without a mother, yet we are all here—without our mothers.

Tonight I am attending with a son, sons-in-law, and grandsons. Where are their mothers? Gathered in the kitchen of our home! What are they doing? Making large batches of homemade doughnuts! And when we return home, we will feast on those doughnuts. While we enjoy them, these mothers, sisters, and daughters will listen intently as each of us speaks of things he learned here tonight. It’s a nice family tradition, symbolic of the fact that everything we learn and do as priesthood bearers should bless our families.

Let us speak about our worthy and wonderful sisters, particularly our mothers, and consider our sacred duty to honor them...

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng

Notice he never mentions a woman as a wife, although that's small potatoes compared to the rest of his sexism.

[Limnor]

Nelson said: Where are their mothers? Gathered in the kitchen of our home! What are they doing? Making large batches of homemade doughnuts!

….It’s a nice family tradition

Let us speak about our worthy and wonderful sisters, particularly our mothers, and consider our sacred duty to honor them...

Summary: A warm, doughnut-flavored praise sandwich that keeps the hierarchy intact while quietly reframing it as “tradition.”

[Marcus]

Where are their mothers? Gathered in the kitchen of our home! What are they doing? Making large batches of homemade doughnuts!

….It’s a nice family tradition

Let us speak about our worthy and wonderful sisters, particularly our mothers, and consider our sacred duty to honor them...

Summary: A warm, doughnut-flavored praise sandwich that keeps the hierarchy intact while quietly reframing it as “tradition.”

Lol, but not by me. When you quote a quote, you lose the inner reference. Try this:

... Where are their mothers? Gathered in the kitchen of our home! What are they doing? Making large batches of homemade doughnuts!

….It’s a nice family tradition.

...Let us speak about our worthy and wonderful sisters, particularly our mothers, and consider our sacred duty to honor them...

Summary: A warm, doughnut-flavored praise sandwich that keeps the hierarchy intact while quietly reframing it as “tradition.”