Mormons, what are they?

[ben_dy]

Casen:

I’d like to jump in here…

Casen,

I’m not yet adept in quoting quotes (or a lot of other available formatting) but I’m going to give it a shot…

ben_dy:

What I have learned, though, is: 1) that many Mormons are either totally unaware of some of the doctrines of their church;

Casen:

No offense, but this statement doesn’t reveal anything as it could apply to any church in the world. Are there any Catholics out there that are “totally unaware of some of the doctrines of their church”?? I’m guessing there are a few…

No offense taken as I know, all too well, that there are MANY Catholics who are, indeed, “totally unaware of some of the doctrines of their church” - which is why I have been involved in adult catechesis for so long AND why I am thankful that we have had so many catechisms available for so long and particularly thankful for the Catechism of Trent, the Baltimore Catechism series, and, of course, the NEW and sound and cross-referenced and just terrific all-round new Catechism of the Catholic Church. I included this first only because there was one LDS poster here who said that she (?) had learned quite a few of the doctrines of the LDS church here. The same can surely be said for a number of Catholics here, I’m sure. This member was responding to a post with the “Hie to Kolob” lyrics which, I believe, she had never heard and someone (LDS or ex-LDS) gave her the hymn number in, what I assume is a standard, LDS hymnal. We (Roman Catholics) don’t have a standard Church (but I have a preference for the fairly recent Adoremus Hymnal which contains hymns that some (young and old) may never have sung but (save for those in Latin, certainly) would not be surprised, certainly, to find the hymn “Daily, daily sing to Mary” (and would, hopefully, know their way around “Asperges me, Domine”!).

ben_dy:

1. that some who ARE aware of that which I find bizarre think likewise and don’t, in fact, believe those particular doctrines or accept the history, revelations, etc.,

Casen:

I think this is pretty rare though I don’t disagree that this does exist in rare cases. In my experience those that have problems with particular doctrines or revelations are on the sure road to apostasy and eventually kick themselves out of the church. If you don’t believe in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith for examply it doesn’t take long for the whole thing to come crashing down and you won’t remain a member for long.

Well, now on this one we might disagree - I’ve read a number of messages (and one biography of a fairly famous BYU prof, I believe - and I read this recently but can’t recall his name! Died recently… ah, my fault for not making a notation on this one) who say that they don’t believe much in the church’s doctrines, but they stay in the church because it’s expected of them, it has strong moral values, it provides an entirety of social life, etc. Now I KNOW, as well, that the same can be said for a number of Catholics (although, of course, I do not think OUR doctrines bizarre!), protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc. I think that there are people of all religions who might reject some or even ALL doctrines particular to their faith but who choose to stay - for reasons known only to themselves. I would actually believe it to be more prevalent in the LDS church or you wouldn’t find the term “Jack Mormon” in use. The term “Jack Mormon”, as I understand it, wouldn’t quite be the same as a “Cafeteria Catholic” but it may be close.

ben_dy:

1. that there are those who believe that the moon men of Brigham Young do in fact exist and that if we haven’t found them it is simply because they exist in the spirit world, which is made of matter as solid as any visible lead yet invisible to those who lack the grace and purity to see,

Casen:

You lost me with this one.

Oh - I was making reference to what I assume would be called Mormon fundamentalists - those who believe that when Brigham Young, as recorded in the JoD, spoke of the inhabitants of the moon and the sun (JoD, Vol, 13, p 271) and D&C 131:7-8 - “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.” My characterization here would be, as I said, of an LDS member who takes all that is spoken and written by the prophet as literal: if BY says there are men on the moon and sun there are - if we’ve been to the moon and found no moon men it must be because they are of spirit. Does that make sense now?

(continued…)

 

[ben_dy]

(continued…)

ben_dy:

1. that there are many - most maybe (and this may be the same for many, many Catholics, as well) - who just go along, try to live a good life, wear their garments out of tradition and obligation.

Casen:

You’re wrong here too. The LDS church requires a lot more out of its members than most churches, particularly those that attend the temple and hence wear garments. Do you really believe these people are giving 10% of their incomes to the church, attending weekly, serving in church callings, doing their home teaching, etc. “out of tradition”? No, most of these people wear their garments because they firmly believe their church to be the restored church of Jesus Christ.

Well, yes, I do think that it is very, very likely that there are LDS members as I described.

A notorious, and well documented case, that I’m aware of only because I am (if I may pat myself on the back) a talented calligrapher and, I found early in life, adept at reproducing the handwriting of others (which some would, uncharitably, call forgery!) and I am interesting in old documents, handwriting, and forgery and my late wife gave me, one Christmas, a book called "“A Gathering of Saints”, a book about Mark Hofman, who forged a number of documents of LDS ‘church fathers’ and sold them to (or sold to others to be donated to) the LDS church.

If you’re not familiar with the story it makes fascinating reading.

Anyway, Hofman was by all appearances a faithful Mormon but he produced documents that were intended to embarrass the church (and you’d have to read the book to understand his reasoning). It turns out that he not only hated the church but was in fact an atheist.

He made three bombs and killed two people and, with the third nearly killed himself and, as he lay on the ground bleeding to death a passerby noticed that he was wearing temple garments and had anointing oil handy and anointed him saying - something to the effect of - “I command you to live” (a LDS anointing of the sick? Only for those who hold the priesthood or something? I don’t know - I’m sure you would!?).

Anyway, I’ve read a number of messages from LDS members (as noted in #2) that are, outwardly, perfect LDS members but who, for reasons of their own (in Hofman’s case, it reads as if it was both fear of his father and not wanting to displease his family) do what the church requires out of habit, fear of rejection, etc.

The same is true of some Catholics, of course, but less so these days, I think, because we are no longer in Catholic ‘ghettos’. From what I have read, even where Mormons are a definite minority, there is (and I think it only natural) a desire and a lifestyle that ensures that most of your closest friends are Mormon as well - naturally true in Utah! And it’s true of me - because I am active and have always been so even though (or maybe particularly because) all the years that I’ve lived in the south (where Catholics are a minority) the majority of my friends are Catholic. And my very closest friends are quite orthodox.

But I do have friends that said that, once they got away from their parents, they’d stop Sunday Mass attendance - some did and have never come back (yet are still friends and I still pester them and pray for them!) but most DO come back to the Church when they have children - even those whose parents are dead when their first child is born do what they KNOW is right, even though the only justification is that the Church will give their children a good moral head-start, a fine education.

But they come back; they have to be an example to their kids, after all. The funny thing is many of these lapsed Catholic become as full of faith as possible. Some don’t, of course - some reconnect in outward actions and appearances only. And I have to believe that the same scenario is played out by LDS members as well - I’ve read messages from Mormons that describe the same things that I’ve just described - it’s likely universal among all religions.

(continued…)

 

[ben_dy]

(continued…)

In sum, I’ll stand by my characterizations and go further and say that there are many more that could be added. The one characterization that I can make of Catholics that I can’t make of LDS members is “orthodox” - it is what I call myself: I find it in the firm and faithful belief of the Credo and in the Magisterium. With the LDS church, no creed that even some protestants confess (the Apostle’s Creed) can be professed and, even though there is a collection of scripture and tradition that is uniquely LDS there seems to be no authority beyond the flavor of the day for so much seems in direct conflict. so much put on the shelf with the only certainty that what is dogma today might be shelved the next. Use wine in the sacrament; yes, use wine, but only that made by your own hand; no, use water?

But I also have to stand by my statement that I could fill pages with what are, to me, doctrines so foreign to Christianity found in the LDS church that I can only classify them as ‘bizarre’. So fantastic that I cannot believe how, using reason and faith, anyone could believe them.

So, Casen, it seems an impasse… will you grant my characterizations, though, and explain how one might be an orthodox Mormon?

 

[Evanescence]

One last thought. ‘Bizarre’ is a very loaded term which suggests you have yet to really make the effort to understand. Or to put it a bit diferently: if a single individual, clearly plagued by immaturity or mental illness, proposes an off-beat idea, it is fairly easy to reject the idea as ‘bizarre’, as faulty in some respect. If one or two seemingly-mature persons propose an off-beat idea but quickly abandon it, one can assume the same sort of thing. When an idea takes hold among a relatively significant group of fairly reasonable people, who shape their lives around that idea–well they may be wrong-headed, the central idea may be mistaken, and the idea may be unfamiliar to you. It is even possible that you must let the idea pass you by simply because you haven’t enough time to spend studying every off-beat idea or belief-system that exists. But it is unfair to characterize ideas which other people take very seriously as simply ‘bizarre’.

Since some people can indeed live their lives dedicated to MISTAKEN ideas which they believe to be true–it is well worthwhile to have some standard by which to guage the reliability of new or unfamiliar ideas. Most of us here agree that historic Christianity is a good and reliable standard, even if we disagree to some degree on just how to define ‘historic Christianity’. I think you are one who agrees with the majority in this regard. Hence my strong suggestion that you make certain you have the basics of Christian belief down pat.

…Now your confusing me even more

Sorry, I was just curious on what Mormanism is… and their beliefs and doctrines.

Evanescence

 

[ben_dy]

Evanescence:

…Now your confusing me even more

Sorry, I was just curious on what Mormanism is… and their beliefs and doctrines.

Evanescence

Evan-

I’m not sure where you’re located but I’m fairly certain that there are missionaries in Australia. If you go to the LDS website - hold on a minute - yes, go here…

mormon.org/question/worship/1,8578,4105-1-AUSTRALIA,00.html

…and if there is a number - or a tool free 06- number - you can call and request a Book of Mormon (and I’d suggest asking specifically for the volume that includes “Doctrine and Covenants” and “Pearl of Great Price” AND ask to have it delivered…

…then you can get 1-6 visits from two very nice young men (unless you’re female!) who can present the VERY BASIC doctrines of the LDS church. Have some Kool-Aid or juice on hand, a creative Jello snack, and settle back and listen and don’t be afraid to ask questions.

I think that my brochures were lost when I moved recently but they are somewhat informative - and and my missionaries even had some DVD’s and CD’s that they left behind (but I returned) after the 2nd lesson. The DVD’s were just kind of bad - yet historically interesting - movies, but the DVD’s were pretty interesting.

The nicest thing about getting information in this manner is that it’s personal - there are real people talking! - and… it’s FREE!!!

The only cautionary note that I would posit is to make certain that you’re firm in your faith before getting yourself into a “two against one” situation: when the Mormon doctrine of heaven is presented it can be terribly appealing - MUCH better than the Muslim 40 virgins! Well, actually quite a bit like the Muslim heaven except you get to be a god with your own world (or worlds, I’m not certain - I’m also not certain if you get a pre-existing planet or if, as in this planet, all the gods get together and help create your own solar system).

Anyway - like I said, it’s free and you can get a good grasp of basic beliefs: just don’t let them try to ‘re-baptize’ you!

Oh - one little ‘trick’ - if one or both of the missionaries moves as if to shake your hand STAND STOCK STILL AND DO NOT MOVE. Look at them but DON’T MOVE! Then say - “I have a message for you”, wait about 30 seconds, and then say ‘just kidding, no message!’ and invite them in. If they’re well-versed in LDS doctrine, they may take you for the “spirit of a just man made perfect” who CAN’T SHAKE HANDS but who can deliver messages.

 

[Evanescence]

…then you can get 1-6 visits from two very nice young men (unless you’re female!) who can present the VERY BASIC doctrines of the LDS church.

What? what? what? what is wrong with females?
Are women considered lower than men in their religion?

I think my parents would kill me if mormans came to my door

I rang up the local Jehovah’s Witnesses kingdom hall to ask about their basic doctrines, the one conversation costed me $10 cause the JW guy wouldn’t stop talking, he was full on trying to convert me and getting my address out of me (didn’t give it to him )
Are the Mormans like this? are they really into converting others?

Evanescence

 

[PaulDupre]

Casen:

You’re wrong here too. The LDS church requires a lot more out of its members than most churches, particularly those that attend the temple and hence wear garments. Do you really believe these people are giving 10% of their incomes to the church, attending weekly, serving in church callings, doing their home teaching, etc. “out of tradition”? No, most of these people wear their garments because they firmly believe their church to be the restored church of Jesus Christ.

Oh come on now. Anyone who has ever been LDS knows that if they can’t see your “eternal smile”, they won’t buy insurance from you or hire you as a contractor or invite your kids to the birthday party or …

LDS depend so heavily on other LDS for their social and business welfare that they conform whether they truly believe it or not. That’s the downside of being part of such an insular group.

Paul

 

[blueadept]

Evanescence:

What? what? what? what is wrong with females?
Are women considered lower than men in their religion?

Evanescence

They have female missionaries. I find it amusing that the women have to be 21 before going on a mission, but they do exist.

Evanescence:

Are the Mormans like this? are they really into converting others?

Evanescence

They will tell you they are simply spreading the good news of Jesus. They won’t tell you about how their mission president wants so many converts. Their goal is to convert others and they personally believe they are doing the Lord’s work.

 

[majick275]

Don’t Drink The Koolaid!

 

[flameburns623]

Evanescence:

What? what? what? what is wrong with females?
Are women considered lower than men in their religion?

LDS Missionaries are invariably young men in their early 20’s. To avoid indiscretions, they are under some very strict guidelines regarding the things they can and cannot do to teach a woman, particularly a single woman and particularly a young single woman. If you’re a woman or a girl they will want to have a relative present–your husband or in some cases your older children (if you have at least one or two over the age of about 12 or so). Or they will make arrangements to have a sister or a married couple from the local Ward (like a Catholic parish) come with them, just to ensure that they avoid even the apearance of impropriety. As it is, outsiders often accuse Mormons of using the ‘sex appeal’ of eager young men to lure people, especially women, into the Church. In point of fact, the lives of LDS missionaries are as regimented as the lives of many orders of Roman Catholic religious, and indiscretions are rare.

About 10% of LDS missionaries are ‘Sister Missionaries’–young women. Like the men, they travel in pairs. If you are a single woman with no kids, and if a pair of Sisters is available, it is likely they will be assigned to teach you. Another 5% to 10% of missionaries are retired older married couples: while many of these serve in senior positions in Latter-Day Saint missions, some do the door-to-door work as well, and such couples are also tapped to visit the single young lady ‘Investigators’–the LDS term for a catechumen or would-be proselyte.

I think my parents would kill me if mormans came to my door

Please note the proper spelling is “Mormon”. If you are under 18, the Missionaries will teach you but they WILL NOT allow you to be baptised without your parent’s permission.

I rang up the local Jehovah’s Witnesses kingdom hall to ask about their basic doctrines, the one conversation costed me $10 cause the JW guy wouldn’t stop talking, he was full on trying to convert me and getting my address out of me (didn’t give it to him )
Are the Mormans like this? are they really into converting others?

Evanescence

Missionaries are forbidden from accepting donations from non-members, except that they can accept a small free-will offering in exchange for a copy of the Book of Mormon. They usually won’t ask for such a donation, and they may not even accept the donation. Non-members may not contribute to the LDS Church financially at all–this is a ‘privilege and obligation’ of members only. (In practice, I think there are LDS charities that you can contribute to, not directly related to the LDS Church. However, the LDS Church will absolutely NOT accept tithing from non-members, and those Mormons who have been excommunicated are ABSOLUTELY forbidden to give any sort of financial support the LDS Church).

Mormons do not ‘pass the plate’ during their services but instead have special envelopes with little carbon-copy forms inside of them. The little forms are filled out and the member keeps the carbon copy, putting the original form into the sealed envelope along with their contribution. The envelope is then either passed quietly to a member of the Bishopric (a Mormon bishop or one of his two Counselors) between meetings; or it is slipped under the door of the Bishop’s office; or people simply mail it in. In this way, all donations are entirely private and strictly between the Church and the individual.

Mormons have no paid professional clergy by the way, but the Bishop is the head of the local Ward. He will not be a full-time servant of the congregation and will nearly always have some sort of secular full-time job–which is part of the reason he has two Counselors and also why there are a plethora of other sorts of ‘callings’ with exalted-sounding titles–Elder’s Quorum Presidencies, Relief Society Presidencies, and on and on. If the church in your area is especially small, the congregation may be called a ‘Branch’, in which case it is led by a Branch President and two Counselors.

Obviously, Mormon missionaries are very motivated to help you become a member of the LDS Church–hence they are known as ‘missionaries’. However the LDS Church believes strong in ‘free agency’ and they will NOT twist your arm to convert you. The LDS Missionary Discussions are not profoundly informative–they try very hard to make themselves seem not too terribly different from run-of-the-mill Protestants. However you will get some idea of the unique doctrines of the LDS Church, and you can do additional reading on your own.

 

[PaulDupre]

flameburns623:

Mormons have no paid professional clergy by the way,

This is only true at the local level. The mormon General Authorities (The 1st Presidency, Apostles, and Seventies), numbering now in the hundreds, are full-time Church employees and receive a salary (they call it a stipend, but it is a salary).

Paul

 

[flameburns623]

Ben_DY:

Flame-

I’m not so certain that I agree and my reasoning is thus: the more I learn of the LDS church, it’s founding, etc., the more I find that (mentally, at least) I utter the word ‘bizarre’ to myself.

Several years ago when I went through the six missionary lessons with a couple of terrific young men, and had conversations that went beyond the ‘canned’ presentations, and also read the 3 standard works with which I was unfamiliar, my mental utterance was along the line of ‘different’. But in the past couple of months, as I came here and just stumbled across the LDS sub-forum, re-reading the standard works, and now have read almost 50 books in that time, ‘bizarre’ is the term that comes to mind frequently

If the 50-plus books you’ve read are predominantly anti-LDS books, and if you have not followed the advice I proferred in my booklist–reading at least two LDS books on any given topic for any one anti-LDS book on the same subject–then of course you are going to feel increasingly jaundiced towards LDS theology. A great many things attributed to the LDS Church by it’s critics are not fairly characterized–many are outright fabrications which have gained currency only by constant repetition. At this point, if in fact you have majored in reading anti-LDS stuff–it might well behoove you to go back to FAIR-LDS, FARMS, and SHIELDS, and read some of their apologetics material on some of the bigger issues in your mind. Then read some of the things I suggested above, look over the LDS magazines for a few months, etcetera. You hopefully won’t get converted to Mormonism by all of this, but you’ll gain a better understanding of the topic and see how it is that active LDS followers feel that anti-Mormons spend way too much time on the peripheral and speculative aspects of their Church.

Had I learnt pretty much everything I know about Roman Catholicism from critics of the Catholic Church–Lorraine Boettner, Alexander Hislop, Jack Chick, Maria Monk, Father Chiniquy, The Menace, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, the anti-Catholic screeds of the early Protestant Reformers and so on–I might feel the same way. Even if I counter-balanced that reading by looking over the Catechism of the Catholic Church and mebbe The Glories of Mary by Alphonsus Liguouri. It would be pretty hard for me not to think of the Catholic Church as ‘bizarre’.

I am pretty circumspect in the kinds of things I recommend one reads about the LDS Church by it’s critics: I really do think one should read about another’s religious persuasion first to understand it, and not to debunk it. The subject of Mormonism WANTS debunking, I grant you, the LDS Church puts on a face of itself which is entirely too rosy and ‘faith-promoting’. But gaining a glimpse into how Mormonism sees and understands itself is not necessarily a bad thing.

I do stress that one should ALSO major in understanding and learning to articulate the core teachings of orthodox Christianity first and foremost. Learning about Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or other heretical groups or false religions should be a side interest to this main task, without being a distraction to it. One should spend a lifetime catechizing one’s self, not depending upon a high-school catechism class or a Sunday homily to do the job for you.

 

[blueadept]

PaulDupre:

This is only true at the local level. The mormon General Authorities (The 1st Presidency, Apostles, and Seventies), numbering now in the hundreds, are full-time Church employees and receive a salary (they call it a stipend, but it is a salary).

Paul

Thanks for that info, I seem to learn something everyday! I would be surprised if anyone could answer this but does anyone know how much of a stipend a member of the Seventy would probably get?

 

[ben_dy]

Evanescence:

What? what? what? what is wrong with females?
Are women considered lower than men in their religion?

Well - hmm. Not really. Sort of. It depends on who you ask and what you’re specifically asking about. As in the Catholic Church, there are no women priests. However, every male (and, as of 1978 I mean EVERY male, not just white males) if called and found worthy is eligible for the priesthood and should you meet young male missionaries they WILL be priests. But because missionaries are (usually) so young (one of mine was 19, one was 21) males missionaries don’t visit with young single females. There are female missionaries, I think, but they start later (age 21) and can be older than male missionaries.

As I’ve said, the two young men who visited with me were bright, funny, and just a delightful conversationalists. The 21 year old was nearing the close of his (I believe) two year mission and told me that he had not converted anyone during that time but, as we both agreed, as he had been all that time in the “Bible Belt” of the southern US, finding a convert to the LDS church is even that much rarer than finding a convert to Catholicism: the latter happens but there is a MUCH greater prejudice against Mormons than Catholics in this part of the states (not as much anti-Catholicism here now as when I moved here as a teen but it’s still around),

Now - can a single female attain the same level of ‘heaven’ (the celestial kingdom) as males. No, according to what I’ve read. In the celestial kingdom (heaven) men have many wives and populate their kingdoms and women reproduce and do whatever else it is that women do in heaven. While many think the Catholic idea of the man as the head of the household is archaic, the LDS understanding is, perhaps, far beyond that.

Evanescence:

I think my parents would kill me if mormans came to my door

I rang up the local Jehovah’s Witnesses kingdom hall to ask about their basic doctrines, the one conversation costed me $10 cause the JW guy wouldn’t stop talking, he was full on trying to convert me and getting my address out of me (didn’t give it to him )
Are the Mormans like this? are they really into converting others?

Evanescence

I’ve only had one experience with the JW’s and it was NOTHING like my experience with the Mormon missionaries. The ‘canned’ lessons are pretty short and the guys are just so tremendously polite and are open to all questions. Yes, I think they have a zeal to convert but they are (if my experience is typical) not in the least pushy and DO take a breath for any questions. I actually had a 3 hour phone conversation (toll free! I supplied my phone number and they called me!) with a missionary who was at the missionary training center which I believe is on the Brigham Young University campus (and I can’t recall what the missionary ‘prep’ camp is called - I think it’s a 6 week training session and I know that it’s an acronym with a satirical nickname).

We also had a long conversation about Jello (Jell-O?) - a staple of the LDS diet and among my favorite deserts (one made a crack that with the amount of Jell-O that I eat that I was already ‘half LDS’). I don’t know if there are any ‘bad LDS missionary experiences’ out there or not - but mine was informative and, two years after the fact, I’m now taking up reading about LDS doctrines and history as a hobby with the idea in mind that while I find much of the doctrine, as I’ve said, bizarre, if these two kids are indicative of the typical missionaries, members of the LDS church are extraordinarily nice people (and your parents might even enjoy the conversation). If anything, my encounters with the LDS missionaries served to strengthen my faith even more.

Good luck on your endeavors!

 

[flameburns623]

PaulDupre:

This is only true at the local level. The mormon General Authorities (The 1st Presidency, Apostles, and Seventies), numbering now in the hundreds, are full-time Church employees and receive a salary (they call it a stipend, but it is a salary).

Paul

blueadept:

Thanks for that info, I seem to learn something everyday! I would be surprised if anyone could answer this but does anyone know how much of a stipend a member of the Seventy would probably get?

This info is NOT entirely accurate, but has something to do with the way the LDS Church is set up. The GA DO get a stipend, but as I understand it doesn’t come from the LDS Church itself but is paid via some subsidiary body. I confess I am not clear on the details. I would point out that a few hundreds of salaried full-time servants in a church of upwards of 12-15 millions, with thousands of meeting-houses and many millions of unpaid volunteers running most of the daily affairs–is not a lot of salaried people. Large Catholic dioceses probably support more salaried professionals than does the LDS Church.

To my knowledge the LDS Church does not release the information you are seeking so any data would be speculative, and might well be slanted in a negative light if derived from antagonistic sources. Compared to many Protestant Evangelicals–compared even to some diocesan priests–most of the General Authorities live rather modestly, considering that they are married and generally have fairly large families. Keep in mind also that LDS General Authorites were often rather successful in secular business enterprises before entering into full-time service to the LDS Church–they have personal sources of support apart from whatever ‘stipend’ they earn from the Church.

 

[blueadept]

flameburns623:

This info is NOT entirely accurate, but has something to do with the way the LDS Church is set up. The GA DO get a stipend, but as I understand it doesn’t come from the LDS Church itself but is paid via some subsidiary body. I confess I am not clear on the details. I would point out that a few hundreds of salaried full-time servants in a church of upwards of 12-15 millions, with thousands of meeting-houses and many millions of unpaid volunteers running most of the daily affairs–is not a lot of salaried people. Large Catholic dioceses probably support more salaried professionals than does the LDS Church.

To my knowledge the LDS Church does not release the information you are seeking so any data would be speculative, and might well be slanted in a negative light if derived from antagonistic sources. Compared to many Protestant Evangelicals–compared even to some diocesan priests–most of the General Authorities live rather modestly, considering that they are married and generally have fairly large families. Keep in mind also that LDS General Authorites were often rather successful in secular business enterprises before entering into full-time service to the LDS Church–they have personal sources of support apart from whatever ‘stipend’ they earn from the Church.

Thank you for the clarification. This was along the lines that I sort of suspected. The members of my wife’s ward have made a big deal how their bishoporic and the people who give the talks in sacrament meeting is not paid and why they get a lot of leeway during their talks. I do find it amusing though how most of the leaders of the LDS church seem to be reasonably well off though and leaders in the community. I remember a conversation I had with my wife once on why I was giving a donation for the retired priests of our parish and that there shouldn’t be a need for that. I told her that was just another point we ‘agree to disagree about.’

 

[ben_dy]

flameburns623:

If the 50-plus books you’ve read are predominantly anti-LDS books, and if you have not followed the advice I proferred in my booklist–reading at least two LDS books on any given topic for any one anti-LDS book on the same subject–then of course you are going to feel increasingly jaundiced towards LDS theology. A great many things attributed to the LDS Church by it’s critics are not fairly characterized–many are outright fabrications which have gained currency only by constant repetition. At this point, if in fact you have majored in reading anti-LDS stuff–it might well behoove you to go back to FAIR-LDS, FARMS, and SHIELDS, and read some of their apologetics material on some of the bigger issues in your mind. Then read some of the things I suggested above, look over the LDS magazines for a few months, etcetera. You hopefully won’t get converted to Mormonism by all of this, but you’ll gain a better understanding of the topic and see how it is that active LDS followers feel that anti-Mormons spend way too much time on the peripheral and speculative aspects of their Church.

Had I learnt pretty much everything I know about Roman Catholicism from critics of the Catholic Church–Lorraine Boettner, Alexander Hislop, Jack Chick, Maria Monk, Father Chiniquy, The Menace, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, the anti-Catholic screeds of the early Protestant Reformers and so on–I might feel the same way. Even if I counter-balanced that reading by looking over the Catechism of the Catholic Church and mebbe The Glories of Mary by Alphonsus Liguouri. It would be pretty hard for me not to think of the Catholic Church as ‘bizarre’.

I am pretty circumspect in the kinds of things I recommend one reads about the LDS Church by it’s critics: I really do think one should read about another’s religious persuasion first to understand it, and not to debunk it. The subject of Mormonism WANTS debunking, I grant you, the LDS Church puts on a face of itself which is entirely too rosy and ‘faith-promoting’. But gaining a glimpse into how Mormonism sees and understands itself is not necessarily a bad thing.

I do stress that one should ALSO major in understanding and learning to articulate the core teachings of orthodox Christianity first and foremost. Learning about Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or other heretical groups or false religions should be a side interest to this main task, without being a distraction to it. One should spend a lifetime catechizing one’s self, not depending upon a high-school catechism class or a Sunday homily to do the job for you.

Flame,

Most of the books I got from the local library, DeseretBooks.com, and Amazon.com and I THINK I’ve had a fairly balanced view (and printed and read over 2,500 pages from FARMS, FAIR, and the “Online Collections” from BYU) and some of the books were by ex-Mormons (four from the Tanner’s) but NONE had the Boettner stench - the ‘anti-Mormon’ books that I read were well-reasoned and while some did ‘attack’ the LDS church they did so reasonably and, in some cases, even humbly. I read five of the books on your list but I did read more Nibley than Talmage - I got the JoD from the local library which is just across the street from the local LDS meeting house! Oh, and I did read the pdf versions of Ensign available for 2005 but I really didn’t find much “meat” there.

So, in one sense, while not following your reading list to a ‘t’, I did follow it unknowingly. But I admit that my knowledge of the Catholic Church has been a lifetime in the making while my LDS reading has been only for a total of about four months (two months in 2003 and two months this year) so while I’ve not devoted the same amount of time to the study of each (and I could not help but read from the POV of an extremely strong Catholic faith) I still find - and am continuing to find - many doctrines ‘bizarre’: so odd that I cannot understand how others can, even (or particularly) with faith and reason, believe. I need not, I think, present those doctrines here - many have been brought up in messages already (and I’ve not even searched the oldest messages).

(continued…)

 

[ben_dy]

(continued…)

It’s only been within the past 10-15 years that my ‘library’ of Catholic theology has begun to equal in English what I began ‘collecting’ in the late 1940’s through the mid 1960’s in Latin. And - as re-reading some of my test papers from college show, my ability to translate from one language to the other is poor yet my grasp of each language is ‘fair to good’ so I think I have a good grasp of classic ECF writings and the like but when I read some modern ‘popular’ theology (Crossan (both before and after he was left the Church), O’Brien, Kung, etc.) I don’t - or didn’t - get the same ‘feeling’ of solid doctrine. So I tend to stay with the classics yet DO embrace with joy orthodox popular writings - later Ratzinger, a great deal of JPII - but I don’t claim, at all, to be a scholar of Christianity: just familiar enough to be able to embrace my faith with faith, reason, spirituality, and orthodoxy, all of which I find are one when I speak of my faith and the knowledge of my faith.

I found the poll in the Newsweek “Spirituality in America” issue interesting - Roman Catholics were second only to ‘non-Christians’ when responding “sometimes” or “often” when asked “How often do you explore the spiritual ideas of other faiths?” And yet when the response was “never” Roman Catholics were very much on par with both evangelical protestants and non-evangelical protestants. And as I take “spirituality” to include doctrine (though many I’m sure would disagree) I think that the “often” response is interesting.

So I will continue to explore the LDS church until my interest wains. I do feel that I’ve been fair in my limited research and I find much of the FARMS apologetics wanting - not answering the question satisfactorily. I get the impression that Gee has replaced Nibley as the chief LDS apologist yet now matter how respected his credentials he has yet to make credible that which I find incredible,

Am I correct in my assumption, then, that you find that my use of the word ‘bizarre’ disrespectful because you assume that I’ve read only rabid anti-LDS texts? If so, I can assure you that is not the case. But, as my reading has been hasty and limited and only over a short period of time, I admit that there have been some MINOR points which I have found LESS bizarre than on first reading.

I did print a copy of your suggested reading list and will likely search for and purchase a few titles this weekend. I am particularly interested, at this point, to read a balanced account (non-LDS, non-anti-LDS) of the origin of the Book of Mormon. I read some excerpts from a book called “Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?” but realized, quickly, that it was definitely ‘biased’… perhaps you could recommend something? I don’t think I’d be interested in the nine-volume fictional biography of JS, however - something that is a fair and historically accurate critique.

 

[majick275]

blueadept:

Thank you for the clarification. This was along the lines that I sort of suspected. The members of my wife’s ward have made a big deal how their bishoporic and the people who give the talks in sacrament meeting is not paid and why they get a lot of leeway during their talks. I do find it amusing though how most of the leaders of the LDS church seem to be reasonably well off though and leaders in the community. I remember a conversation I had with my wife once on why I was giving a donation for the retired priests of our parish and that there shouldn’t be a need for that. I told her that was just another point we ‘agree to disagree about.’

You might want to do a little research on this. You see this has “evolved” over time. There was a time when Bishops and stake presidents got percentages of the tithing and patriarchs charged for blessings. Then the bishops and stake presidents got “living allowances” and patriarchs got “tips”. Then they tried giving all threee a “living allowance”. Then Bishops got a stipend for necessary expenses only and stake presidents and patriarchs worked for free. Now there are few positions that receive “expense allowance” and even those are required to itemize, etc.

General Authorities on the other hand used to get put on the boards of directors for church owned companies and draw pay for that in addition to their “modest living allowance” straight from the church and of course royalties from their books and tapes.

Recently changes were made and they no longer draw pay from church companies. They receive the living allowance (which is NOT disclosed) and royalties where applicable. Most of “the brethren” are in fact people of some means from their private sector endeavors however some have come up through full time church employment or other humbly compensated careers. I would hardly call the present lifestyles of these men “extravagant” but they are all pretty well off. I find it more disturbing that the LDS church keeps it finances secret even from the members than anything else.

One also tends to find many “benefits” to church leadership positions for those in sales or similar fields where they can gain from a built in trusting network. Nothing evil here just one of the reasons why you tend to see the leaders of LDS churches living “comfortable” lifestyles. I think that often times Men of means are chosen because they are seen as less likely to be distracted by financial concerns and can thus focus more on their callings.

I find as a Catholic that there are many benefits to having trained professionals running the church full time. As former LDS I tend to think that many protestant pastors preach what gets their contracts renewed and/or a nice raise.

 

[mormon_fool]

ben_dy:

Now - can a single female attain the same level of ‘heaven’ (the celestial kingdom) as males. No, according to what I’ve read. In the celestial kingdom (heaven) men have many wives and populate their kingdoms and women reproduce and do whatever else it is that women do in heaven. While many think the Catholic idea of the man as the head of the household is archaic, the LDS understanding is, perhaps, far beyond that.

Fascinating post. Thanks for sharing your experiences and observations. Sorry if I have snipped out all the good stuff so I could focus on the problematic.

Both single males and females can attain the Celestial Kingdom. Perhaps you were thinking about the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom called exaltation? As I understand the LDS scriptures a pre-requisite for this is an eternal marriage, so neither a single man or single woman can attain this. You may wish to review my comments in Ziggy’s thread for scriptural support on this. Furthermore, there is nothing in the canon as officially interpreted by the First Presidency that makes polygamy practices a requirement for attaining that level. And I can say this despite what any one can drag up from the Journal of Discourses.

“Populating kingdoms” and “reproducing” seems rather speculative to me. The concept of exhalted beings enjoying “eternal increase” is from the scriptures but it is open to interpretation. We of course, don’t know how spiritual offspring are formed from “intelligences”, perhaps it is more of a creative process than a “reproductive” process.

The things that are actually in the scriptures and not the speculative extensions of them do indeed seem to be archaic. Which is another theme of Ziggy’s thread.

later,
fool