Discussion UsefulNotes / Mormonism

I can field this one. Tackling the largest object first, X-rated films, the church has strong policies regarding pornography, which can be traced back to statements made by Christ, about looking on a woman, coveting, and thereby committing adultery in your heart. This could sound like a stretch, but the idea is that X-rated materials can have an impact on the fidelity of a person, young or old.

R-rated materials are not treated, however, with quite the same level of strictness as X. Viewing pornography is treated as a sin. You're not in as much hot water for watching an R-rated action thriller with lots of explosions and gore. One is a commandment, the other is a caution. The caution coming from the fact that there are, in fact, a number of R-rated films with what is deemed inappropriate content.

The church does not forbid the viewing of content aside from pornography. It strongly cautions you against it. Never have I been penalized for watching an R-rated film, and, after a certain age, my parents left it up to my own choice. No one asks you about it at church, and I've never seen anyone really harp on it. The ideas you've expressed are for the most part what goes down: Kids don't watch it because it's R-rated, the rating system in and of itself existing as a tool for helping parents and guardians make the decision on what their children should watch. Grown ups make their own choices as to what they are and aren't comfortable looking at. The exception, again, being pornographic materials.

I don't know what your Santa Claus experience is about.

The moral guardian stance varies from household to household. The Church advises "Hey, these movies are R-Rated, your kids shouldn't be watching them." And the parents say "Hey, you're right" or "Hey, I'ma do it anyway" or "Hey, maybe I shouldn't watch it either," or "NO R RATED MOVIES FOREVER." It depends greatly on the individual.

So, for a very quick recap- Pornography/X-rated materials are bad, because they lead to unclean thoughts/actions. R-rated materials are advised against because they can do the same, depending on the film. X-rated is breaking a commandment, R-rated is just choosing not to follow advice. -Corvo Sol

@Gaz Bev Moo

I've always found the notion that certain media is harmful to children, but not adults, to be rather bizarre. Speaking as someone who has studied developmental psychology, some of things actually are, but not the sort of things people usually think of as being harmful to children. For example, morally ambiguous situations can be harmful to children as they may model the behavior without understanding the significance of the moral ambiguity. Meanwhile, explicit nudity is absolutely not harmful to children (remember, children see their own naked bodies all the time) and I've found obsessively guarding children from it is actually more harmful as it teaches children to hate their own bodies.

Anyway, maybe media content exists that is harmful for people in general, not just children. I think that is a much less strange idea than thinking media can only be harmful to children. In that case, there would be legal restrictions to prevent children from watching such content as they can't legally consent to viewing it, but adults can chose to view such content at their own discretion. In that light, that church's guidelines make perfect sense - the church's standards are always just guidelines, not legally binding, and such content doesn't change in nature just because one is an adult.

@Corvo Sol

I disagree with the claim that watching pornography goes against Jesus's commandments. It's the act of turning a person into an object of lust that is sinful, not the physical act of observing someone in a sexual situation. Of course, pornography is created for the express purpose of doing such things, so it makes sense why voluntarily watching it would be prohibited except in exceptional circumstances like studying in an academic or legal setting. Anyway, pornographic and explicit are two different things, and the x-rating is based on whether or not it's explicit, not whether or not it's pornographic. There is explicit content ranging from medical text to cerebral art that is definitely not pornographic but may still receive what is equivalent to an x-rating if commercially produced, while some soft-core pornography can still pass with the R-rating. I guess that's the reason why R-Rated movies are discouraged.

I must also say America's obsession with sex is concerning. Yeah, Jesus was explicit about adultery there, but I think violent content can appeal to people's lust in much same way, and is just as if not more harmful. Remember, murder still trumps sexual sin in the Book of Mormon. While pornography is explicitly condemned as a genre, the standards for Youth also discourages violent content, as well as content that is unsavory in other ways, such as including drug use.

LDS theology holds that the assignment is entirely based on your own actions, with God using perfect judgement in regards to the circumstances you had during your life. Basically, you will end up at the best level you are able to achieve and be comfortable with. There is also the possibility of progression within each kingdom, though not between them. Note also that even the lowest kingdom is still a kingdom of glory, not a punishment.

Ask for it in this thread

Edit request submitted.

I have a grammar question about a line in the article: "Soon, it was assaulted by a mob, and Smith was shot and killed, along with his brother Hyrum."

Shouldn't the grammar be "Soon, it was assaulted by a mob, and Smith and his brother Hyrum were shot and killed" to make the article flow better? Could someone with edit privileges grammar fix or check that line?

I have a spelling correction: Where it says "The Quorum of the Twelve Apostels" could someone change that to read "Apostles" please?

At the same time as the age change for women, the age for men was dropped to eighteen, which is not reflected in the beginning portion of the page.

The place to ask is here.

But that is the thing. For Lucifer to 'save' everyone it would require him to force us to be good. There would be no other choice but his, and we would simply be puppets under his control. This would then break down the whole point of the plan of salvation. Not only that but he tried showing understanding of a subject the God had more experience in, and that he should get all the praise, power, and glory.

It would be like a supervisor in a single branch telling a CEO of the whole company he knows a better way to run the company, and that he should be CEO as well.

Lucifer was showing the greatest pride and arrogance in giving such a plan, and then starting a war when that plan was rejected. Known Troper: Fellmoon

Lucifer's attack on free agency is mentioned frequently by various prophets outside of the Standard Works, so even if it is not mentioned in them, it's still canon to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as the words of Prophets are considered modern scripture.

The original poster is incorrect. The Standard Works do explicitely state that Satan would have destroyed our free will. Moses 4:3 "Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against, me, and sought to destroy the agency of man..."

You may be thinking of the former restriction on certain groups, most notably blacks, receiving the Priesthood. There have been many attempted justifications of the Church's position, some of them involving descent from Cain (the son of Adam). As far as I know there has been no official statement of why; only that until 1978, some categories of men were not allowed to receive the priesthood, and after that it was available to all worthy men.

You may also be thinking of certain statements in the Book of Mormon, where the Lamanites' skin was darkened after they turned away from the Lord, and in some cases lightened when they repented. This was a visual indication to the Nephites that they shouldn't intermarry with them, on the grounds that associating very much with wicked people might erode their own righteousness.

The idea that dark skin = wicked people sounds like Unfortunate Implications to me.

As far as the "white skin = perfect; coloured skin = imperfect" thing goes, I've been a Mormon for 17 straight years and I've never heard anything like that at church. I've heard that people will have perfect bodies in heaven, but skin colour was never mentioned. In my experience, race appears to be about as important in Mormonism as the size of one's ears.

My mom, however, remembers when race was considered relevant in Mormonism. An old church book from the 60's or such taught that miscegenation was a sin; but that's been excised since 1978. Bruce R. Mc Conkie said a lot of racist things in his "Mormon Doctrine", but that has been officially repudiated as an embarrassment to the church.

So, to be short, yes, Mormonism was officially racist, but it isn't any more and hasn't been for decades. Unofficially, in my experience, race hasn't even been an issue.

The confusion most likely stems from an event in First Nephi where, after Laman and Lemuel separated from Nephi with their group of followers, Heavenly Father turned their skin a darker color to separate them from Nephi and his followers more easily. The color was lifted later on somewhere in Third or Fourth Nephi, if I remember correctly.

The Lamanites in the Book of Mormon are never viewed as being evil because of the color of their skin. Rather it is the incorrect traditions of their fathers that made them "evil". Indeed, Jacob condemns those Nephites who use the color of the Lamanite's skin as a reason to hate them, and says that the Lamantes are in fact more righteous than many of the Nephites.

I've been raised LDS, but yeah, one of the most iterated lessons in the mormon church is that, "God loves all his children." I mean, Jesus outright says, "Love thy neighbor (psst, that's everyone)" as the second greatest commandment of all, with the whole Good Samaritan parable to enforce that.

We don't even bother preaching against racism, as it is such a given with our beliefs, at least in this day and age. It would be comparable to giving a preschool lesson about "why murder is not okay." Both will involve napping, and in both cases the lesson is practically a Fantastic Aesop.

The thing about the church not giving the priesthood to "blacks" was unfair, but it sorta makes sense from mormon culture. That sounds terrible, but for a long time, Mormons were hated pretty badly themselves, and at the beginning many of which were killed for their beliefs and driven across America, including those who actually had to get TO America first. This was sort of the world's first impression for mormon culture, and we tend to expect grief from others.

Even close to modern times, bigotry towards the church was still common enough, though obviously not as intensely as it was to blacks. This is why the church leadership was hesitant to throw in their two bits. If they did, it would make the church a legitimate target for anti-black hate groups, which would be bad for the safety of the members from the hate groups, and converting people to the gospel could be seen as endangering them in this case.

Of course, there were racist mormons, despite church teachings, and had to leave the church when it eventually let the black men have the priesthood. Just like there are doubtlessly many members today who don't actually follow our teachings.

The LDS Church has expanded its website article on race. It basically says "we're not sure why blacks were denied the priesthood, but here's some possible reasons." It also notes that LDS congregations have always been integrated.

may I ask why you believe the Church mistreats LGBT teens.

Perhaps because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints routinely makes statements condemning homosexual behaviour as sin and abomination, and thus is one of the motivators for Mormon teens to harass their non-heterosexual peers?

However, as noted in the article itself, the CJCLDS is not the only Mormon denomination; in fact, there exists the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ, which split off from the CJCLDS specifically to be a pro-LGBT alternative. Other notable differences are that women may hold the priesthood, the Heavenly Mother (God's wife in Mormonism) is equal to God/Christ/The Holy Ghost, and the Word of Wisdom (from the Doctrine and Covenants) is not absolute, though still considered good advice.

Also worth noting is that Mormonism doesn't condemn homosexual attraction in and of itself, so long as the homosexual does not act upon his/her desires. More precisely, the CJCLDS condemns the sexual behaviors, not the orientation itself, since they regard sexual relationships between one man and one woman who are married as the only method of achieving sex without sinning. Individuals within the Mormon faith will on occasion take this way too far and pursue homosexuals regardless of whether they practice homosexual intimacy, making the assumption that all homosexuals perform homosexual behaviors.

Yes the Church condemns homosexual acts, but it doesn't do so in a way to incite violence against those that engage in them. If anything the Church is striving mightily to let these people know that it's their behavior, not them, that is unacceptable, and that the Church is willing to help them overcome that behavior if asked.

The fact the Church not only states such behaviors are unacceptable but implies, through saying it will help homosexuals "overcome" them, presupposes that such behaviors are choices and can be changed, and also works to make gay teens feel shame, self-hatred, and suicidal depression for their orientation. However much you consider that to be hating the sin and not the sinner, it can't be denied that such teachings are bad for the teens regardless of whether they specifically incite violence against them. Assuming their behaviors are wrong is the height of arrogance, and working to try and change them only damages people in the long run; anyone who claims to have been changed or 'saved' by ex-gay ministry is a liar or fooling themselves. And the fact there are denominations of Mormons which have rejected these views while still holding to most other tenets of the faith suggests it is not something intrinsic to it, and that by perpetuating such views the main LDS is indeed mistreating gay teens.

"presupposes that such behaviors are choices and can be changed" - Every behavior is a choice. Not always an active choice at the moment of action, as anyone with a habit can tell you, but it's always some kind of choice. And it is our choices that determine who we are, both now and eternally.

I'm afraid I don't buy your last sentence. You can disregard the Word of Wisdom in much the same way; that doesn't mean it's not intrinsic. In a more secular example, cops in the US can and do violate the Fourth Amendment while trying to uphold the rest of the law. (They shouldn't, but "shouldn't" almost never means "don't" on large scales.) Does that mean the Fourth Amendment is tacked on?

And, while I'm here, what exactly is unusual about a religion declaring that a given behavior is wrong? That's kind of one of the things they do.

If it's the "height of arrogance" to assume that a certain behavior is wrong, how is it not the "height of arrogance" to claim "anyone who claims to have [avoided this behavior] is a liar or fooling themselves"? It looks like exactly the same attitude to me - just opposite polarity.

The more accurate term would be "sacred". The garments serve as a reminder of promises made to God in the temples. Any supernatural protection is comparable to that offered by a cross/crucifix or a pocket Bible.

Soooo.. this is probably the most biased (pro-mormon) article on all TV Tropes. and TV Tropes is a haven for biased articles...

How is this biased?

The article does read like some parts were copied direct from LDS publicity websites, but at least that ensures it represents what Mormons believe. Also, there is a massive difference between "friendly" and "biased". The pages on Christianity for example, makes no claims about the truth or fiction of the material, but simply presents christian viewpoints -as christians see them-. This article is no different. It simply presents what Mormons believe (in an admittedly press-release fashion), and leaves the controversy to other more dedicated sources (namely scholars).

Is there any chance of actually explaining what the magic/sacred underwear thing is about in more detail, maybe in the article itself? The joke has been cracked so often (especially since Mitt Romney's rise to prominence) that it would seem to make sense to explain what it's all about.

Shouldn't the article mention at some point the rather tumultuous history of the LDS movement in the United States? Or the massive amount of criticism levied at the LDS movement, much of it based on the validity of its source material or historical claims, but some of it based on the blatant racism directed at Native Americans in the sacred texts?

I added a small paragraph explaining the Garments in the article, under "Temples". As a practicing Mormon, I can say that's probably the most that needs to be explained about them.

Hey, just 'cause it sounds like Mormon publicity doesn't make it a bad thing. We have really good publicity material. And we could be condemned for not trying to spread the gospel.

Agreed that this reads like an ad. The use of 'we' doesn't help either. This isn't the site to go converting people to any religion. This should probably be revised to read as less of a tropified version of the pr site, and more of a tropified encyclopedia article.

The garment is a thin undershirt that serves as a physical reminder of the covenants the wearer has made with God. It's no different than muslims and headscarves or sikhs and turbans.

No different from muslim headscarves and sikh turbans except that it's less visible.

That sounds fine. How shall we proceed?

Well, I'd actually disagree. Mormonism is smaller than Christianity (as a consequence of the basic laws of set theory), and is more often misunderstood, so it may warrant more in-depth explanation. Besides, it's easier to go in-depth when there's less history to work with.

wait what? So Christianity isn't misunderstood?

I agree that there are a lot of people with misconceptions about Christianity as a whole. Can't say how often I see people claiming "all Christians believe X." when that only applies to one particular denomination. That said, I'll go on the record as saying 1) I think Mormons are still more misunderstood, given the prolifity of misconceptions I've heard in my life and 2) I could very well be biased in that opinion, having never been of another faith.