Mormon Worldview

[Marie5890]

So, these “rarely talked about teachings” of the LDS (or any other religion or belief system) are absolutely vital. It is usually these beliefs that define us at the core of who we are. My belief in God as the ETERNAL Father (and not simply “Heavenly”) is central to my belief in the inalienable right to exist, and that right in turn is central to my belief in democracy. As I have explained earlier, if the One who gave those rights to us is not eternal and supreme, but is rather just one god among many, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not truly inalienable.

What you believe matters.

Exactly and very well put.

I can only speak to Mormonism since I know it well.
You cannot separate it’s theology from it’s faith.

The “why” they do things is because of the “what” they believe

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Marriage for them is a civil and legal situation and ends in death. It is not eternal. It can happen outside the temple and does not need any priesthood authority.

Being “sealed for time and all eternity” can only happen in the temple and only by priesthood authority.

So, yeah, I would be more interested in Morman “sealing” than their views on civil marriage.

But from what you said previously, a woman can be “unsealed”. (You said men don’t need to be and that makes sense under polygamy.) So it’s not really sealed for time and eternity. Is unsealing uncommon?

“exaltation” is where the couple, or the man with his multiple wives, has attained the highest level of the Celestial kingdom (there are three levels, and one has had to be baptized LDS, in in this life, or had their proxy temple work done, in order to get into the celestial kingdom in the first place) and become gods in their own right and will continue on with a spiritual procreation for their owns worlds.

So this is the ultimate goal, but how does it compare with other similar concepts such as Christian salvation?

You see in Mormon theology that is where we come from…

I understand but I’m trying to approach the theology from the humanism side.

You have been very helpful, would you care to take a stab at my other question:

How does the couple relate to the family and how does the family relate to the “government of God”?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Let’s break from LDS for a moment and look at a secularist who has a deeply held conviction regarding religion. This secularist believes that religion (Catholicism, LDS, Islam, Judaism, Confucianism, Deism, everyone) is responsible for every single war in human history and that world peace will only be achieved if religion is eliminated. This mindset is frighteningly common in the world today.

Let’s say a Southern Baptist strikes up a conversation with this secularist regarding, say, disease in Africa. The secularist and the Baptist agree that there is too much poverty and disease in Africa and that as well-to-do Westerners, all of us have an obligation to do what we can to help. The Baptist tells the secularist that his Baptist church is sending a mission to Africa to help teach work skills to poor people. Then the secularist winces, realizing he’s talking to a Christian, and a missionary one at that.

As it turns out, the Baptist and the secularist have superficially similar goals for solving this problem. However, their motivations are completely different. The Baptist is concerned with the well-being of each poor African and wants to give them all a chance to have a decent education. The secularist wants to reduce the birth rate by shipping condoms and contraception to Africa, essentially concentrating wealth by eliminating the poorest of the poor before they are even conceived.

The difference is entirely a matter of belief. The secularist’s belief regarding religion has him painting the Baptists (and the Catholics) as unnecessarily generating poverty by asserting that the poor have a right to exist. Because he does not believe there is a right to existence, his actions necessarily follow.

Here,* precisely because of its dogma about the pre-mortal existence*, the LDS church is on the side of the secularist. In the LDS view, contraception is permissible because no one is deprived of the right to exist on account of contraception because everyone already exists.

So, these “rarely talked about teachings” of the LDS (or any other religion or belief system) are absolutely vital. It is usually these beliefs that define us at the core of who we are. My belief in God as the ETERNAL Father (and not simply “Heavenly”) is central to my belief in the inalienable right to exist, and that right in turn is central to my belief in democracy. As I have explained earlier, if the One who gave those rights to us is not eternal and supreme, but is rather just one god among many, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not truly inalienable.

History bears this out: back when Europe was composed of absolute monarchies, one king would routinely revoke the rights of the subjects of another king. That kind of foolishness lead to war upon war and is the reason why the United States of America declared her independence–on the basis of a transcendent creator God having given to men the inalienable rights I have just described. That belief is rejected by Mormons.

What you believe matters.

Right, and well put, but I want to approach the belief from the matters side.

Two people might make the same choice for different theological reasons. But even your “superficial” similarity illustrates observable differences between the secularist and the Baptist. We can distinguish them by their proposed solutions. (And then we can pursue the question of why they arrived at different solutions.)

 

[Marie5890]

So, yeah, I would be more interested in Morman “sealing” than their views on civil marriage.

But from what you said previously, a woman can be “unsealed”. (You said men don’t need to be and that makes sense under polygamy.) So it’s not really sealed for time and eternity. Is unsealing uncommon?

So this is the ultimate goal, but how does it compare with other similar concepts such as Christian salvation?

I understand but I’m trying to approach the theology from the humanism side.

You have been very helpful, would you care to take a stab at my other question:

A woman who has been married for “time and all eternity” who ends up getting divorced need to send her unsealing request to the 1st Presidency (I believe she has to go that high, but I am not sure)

To my knowledge, they are quite common and never really denied. Mormon divorces are pretty close to the national norm is my understanding. It’s not that there is something “wrong” with getting a sealing unsealed, it’s just that it has to be done at the hightest level.

It’s not the more rigorous process of annulment. It’s more of just getting it done.

Christian salvation vs Mormon exaltation? Mmmm I would say it has less to do with being in the presence of God for all eternity (although that is true for Mormonism and the celestial kingdom), and more to do with the continuation of the family unit. Remember, for them Heavenly Father (and Mother) are exalted beings. So I would say being “saved” is to be “exalted”.

AFA how does the couple related to the family and the family relate to the “government of God” question, the best way to think about it is simply one big eternal family.

In other words, eternal procreation. Not only is there Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother(s) but also Heavenly Grandfather and Grandmother(s) and Heavenly great-grandfather and great-grandmother(s)

This stretches back thru eternity and forward…

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

A woman who has been married for “time and all eternity” who ends up getting divorced need to send her unsealing request to the 1st Presidency (I believe she has to go that high, but I am not sure)

To my knowledge, they are quite common and never really denied. Mormon divorces are pretty close to the national norm is my understanding. It’s not that there is something “wrong” with getting a sealing unsealed, it’s just that it has to be done at the hightest level.

It’s not the more rigorous process of annulment. It’s more of just getting it done.

Christian salvation vs Mormon exaltation? Mmmm I would say it has less to do with being in the presence of God for all eternity (although that is true for Mormonism and the celestial kingdom), and more to do with the continuation of the family unit. Remember, for them Heavenly Father (and Mother) are exalted beings. So I would say being “saved” is to be “exalted”.

AFA how does the couple related to the family and the family relate to the “government of God” question, the best way to think about it is simply one big eternal family.

In other words, eternal procreation. Not only is there Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother(s) but also Heavenly Grandfather and Grandmother(s) and Heavenly great-grandfather and great-grandmother(s)

This stretches back thru eternity and forward…

Thank you, this has been very helpful and I think you’ve answered the core question of the Mormon “worldview” at the level I was trying to understand it. Now I better understand the Mormon concept to family (and how it relates to their theological views).

 

[Marie5890]

Thank you, this has been very helpful and I think you’ve answered the core question of the Mormon “worldview” at the level I was trying to understand it. Now I better understand the Mormon concept to family (and how it relates to their theological views).

You are more than welcome.

 

[Janderich]

A woman who has been married for “time and all eternity” who ends up getting divorced need to send her unsealing request to the 1st Presidency (I believe she has to go that high, but I am not sure)

To my knowledge, they are quite common and never really denied. Mormon divorces are pretty close to the national norm is my understanding. It’s not that there is something “wrong” with getting a sealing unsealed, it’s just that it has to be done at the hightest level.

It’s not the more rigorous process of annulment. It’s more of just getting it done.

A few corrections here… The divorce rate for LDS couples sealed in the temple is around 6%, much lower then the national average.

It is actually rather difficult to get a sealing cancellation.

 

[Miriam1947]

Here,* precisely because of its dogma about the pre-mortal existence*, the LDS church is on the side of the secularist. In the LDS view, contraception is permissible because no one is deprived of the right to exist on account of contraception because everyone already exists.

So, these “rarely talked about teachings” of the LDS (or any other religion or belief system) are absolutely vital. It is usually these beliefs that define us at the core of who we are. My belief in God as the ETERNAL Father (and not simply “Heavenly,” i.e. one of many men who supposedly became a god) is central to my belief in the inalienable right to exist, and that right in turn is central to my belief in democracy. As I have explained earlier, if the One who gave those rights to us is not eternal and supreme, but is rather just one god among many, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not truly inalienable.

What you believe matters.

Great post!

 

[Marie5890]

religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm

How objective and unbiased this is
i dont know…

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Well, I thought I was done with this subject but I came across this article in the WSJ:

Ever since Mitt Romney said he was “not concerned about the very poor” but would fix America’s social safety net “if it needs repair,” conservatives and liberals have been frantically making suggestions. Gov. Romney says he would consider options like restructuring Medicaid. But if he wants to see a welfare system that lets almost no one fall through the cracks while at the same time ensuring that its beneficiaries don’t become lifelong dependents, he could look to his own church.

As I ride in a golf cart through a new 15-acre warehouse on the outskirts of Utah’s capital, I can’t help but wonder: How many Wal-Marts would fit in here? How many burgers can you make from 4,400 industrial pallets of frozen meat? And how do they keep this place cleaner than my kitchen floor?

Dedicated last month, the Bishops Central Storehouse contains a two-year supply of food to support the Mormon church’s welfare system in the U.S. and Canada (primarily for church members in need) and its humanitarian program, which sends food, medical supplies and other necessities to the needy (of all faiths) world-wide.

In addition to goods from canned peaches to emergency generators, the facility also houses the church’s own trucking company, complete with 43 tractors and 98 trailers, as well as a one-year supply of fuel, parts and tires for the vehicles. Just in case.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204792404577227173888056682.html

The impression one gets from this article, at least, is that the Mormons have created their own welfare and emergency response system, all on the foundation of Mormon tithing. Pretty impressive.

And while Catholic charities are quite active, they seem much more inclined to partnering with the state for funding than to rely on donations.

If this picture is accurate, it’s a pretty big difference.

 

[Marie5890]

Well, I thought I was done with this subject but I came across this article in the WSJ:

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204792404577227173888056682.html

The impression one gets from this article, at least, is that the Mormons have created their own welfare and emergency response system, all on the foundation of Mormon tithing. Pretty impressive.

And while Catholic charities are quite active, they seem much more inclined to partnering with the state for funding than to rely on donations.

If this picture is accurate, it’s a pretty big difference.

The LDS Church welfare program is very real and efficient for sure.

The first Sunday of every month is know as “fast and testimony” Sunday. Members fast for 24 hours and the money that they save from that is donated.

Mormons are also encourage to have a personal/family food storage where they have the eqivalent of a year’s worth of food…It may have been upped to 2 years

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The LDS Church welfare program is very real and efficient for sure.

The first Sunday of every month is know as “fast and testimony” Sunday. Members fast for 24 hours and the money that they save from that is donated.

Mormons are also encourage to have a personal/family food storage where they have the eqivalent of a year’s worth of food…It may have been upped to 2 years

The article mentioned the fasting donations but not the personal storage (which sounds like just good practical advice).

But this is interesting to me because it is a model I have long argued that Catholics should adopt. (Or, to be more precise, readopt, because this is how Catholics operated before the welfare state.)

Where should I go to find out more about this LDS welfare program? Any good books on it?

What is it that leads Mormons toward this more self-reliant view of welfare than Catholics seem to display?

 

[Marie5890]

lds.org/service/humanitarian?lang=eng

To be fair, when I was LDS, in order to have the access and benefit of the program, you did have to be a full LDS tithe payer.

Its the big reason that, at least when I was LDS, that so many South Americans (who were Catholic) joined the LDS church…

Because of the welfare program

Catholic charities, soup kitchens etc dont ask if you are Catholic.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

lds.org/service/humanitarian?lang=eng

To be fair, when I was LDS, in order to have the access and benefit of the program, you did have to be a full LDS tithe payer.

Its the big reason that, at least when I was LDS, that so many South Americans (who were Catholic) joined the LDS church…

Because of the welfare program

The WSJ article was unclear, but are you saying that even the emergency relief is for LDS members only?

On the one hand, I can see how that would not be attractive to Catholics. But, on the other hand, no-strings-attached is not an attractive option either.

I can see the logic of the LDS approach.

 

[Marie5890]

The WSJ article was unclear, but are you saying that even the emergency relief is for LDS members only?

On the one hand, I can see how that would not be attractive to Catholics. But, on the other hand, no-strings-attached is not an attractive option either.

I can see the logic of the LDS approach.

I dont know what the policy is these days. When I was LDS you had to be LDS yes.

I dont think the question is one of logic or attractiveness , but one of being Christ like.

Charity should be just that IMO.

 

[Jerusha]

Logically, Romney is reaching for a solution to the problem of the expense of welfare programs. If the LDS welfare system is only for full tithe-paying members of the LDS church, and the welfare system were to be dismantled, then every poor person would have to convert to LDS in order to survive.

Unless other charitable agencies would take over. This is highly unlikely in most parts of the country. Greed and selfishness are normal human traits, more so right now in the US. Witness the far right of the Republican party.

Anyone ever read Steinbeck’s bleak accounts of the Great Depression?

 

[Cat_Herder]

The WSJ article was unclear, but are you saying that even the emergency relief is for LDS members only?

On the one hand, I can see how that would not be attractive to Catholics. But, on the other hand, no-strings-attached is not an attractive option either.

I can see the logic of the LDS approach.

I dont know what the policy is these days. When I was LDS you had to be LDS yes.

I dont think the question is one of logic or attractiveness , but one of being Christ like.

Charity should be just that IMO.

So let me get this straight.

A poor person comes up to an LDS Humanitarian office and says they need help. The office person says “you can have all the food you want so long as you sign here to apostasize from your current church (and we’ll publish it for the world to see) and promise to pay us 10% of your income for the rest of your life. If you default on your tithe, you go to a very bad place until someone bails you out.”

That sounds more like a promissory note than a charitable act.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I dont know what the policy is these days. When I was LDS you had to be LDS yes.

I dont think the question is one of logic or attractiveness , but one of being Christ like.

Charity should be just that IMO.

I don’t think that either extreme is Christ like. Neither the extreme of sectarian exclusion, charity only for the community members, nor of that of jailing those who don’t contribute what is demanded of them, which is what the tax-based model rests on.

I am impressed with the LDS welfare system but not so much it’s exclusivity.

What is the theological basis of the Mormon approach to welfare? Why limit it to full members only?

 

[Marie5890]

So let me get this straight.

A poor person comes up to an LDS Humanitarian office and says they need help. The office person says “you can have all the food you want so long as you sign here to apostasize from your current church (and we’ll publish it for the world to see) and promise to pay us 10% of your income for the rest of your life. If you default on your tithe, you go to a very bad place.”

That sounds more like a promissory note than a charitable act.

I dont know what the policy is these days, but in the past you had to be LDS to have access to the welfare program

It’s a big reason there were so many Latinos form Central and South America joining the LDS church in the past.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Logically, Romney is reaching for a solution to the problem of the expense of welfare programs. If the LDS welfare system is only for full tithe-paying members of the LDS church, and the welfare system were to be dismantled, then every poor person would have to convert to LDS in order to survive.

Unless other charitable agencies would take over. This is highly unlikely in most parts of the country. Greed and selfishness are normal human traits, more so right now in the US. Witness the far right of the Republican party.

Anyone ever read Steinbeck’s bleak accounts of the Great Depression?

So let me get this straight.

A poor person comes up to an LDS Humanitarian office and says they need help. The office person says “you can have all the food you want so long as you sign here to apostasize from your current church (and we’ll publish it for the world to see) and promise to pay us 10% of your income for the rest of your life. If you default on your tithe, you go to a very bad place until someone bails you out.”

That sounds more like a promissory note than a charitable act.

While I will not defend what appears to be the LDS exclusive policy, there is a logic behind it that deserves consideration.

Jesus never sent welfare checks to the needy. His miraculous healings were always within the context of his spiritual mission. He distributed food to those who came to hear him. He was a redeemer first and used charity as a means to that end. This was the general nature of charity for most of Christian history.

Divorcing welfare from moral instruction is very problematic.