Members are directed to be "christlike", give service, be perfect and pure. At the same time, opportunities for exploitation are abundant.

My sense is that "good" people respond to the exhortation to serve their fellow man while the unprincipled take advantage of the trust placed in leadership.

What is puzzling to me (without meaning to be political) is why members are overwhelmingly conservative when often those values contradict the generosity that is encouraged.

Any thoughts?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2018 06:12AM by auntsukey.

I think because the culture grew out of the Wild West. Utah Mormonism is more Utah than Mormonism. Polygamy also played into the rise of an insular culture.

Mormonism is a mixed bag. As a doctrine monoculture, it suffers from the same institutional weaknesses of other monocultures. Namely that there’s nothing to fix bad thinking within the institution. TSCC would be better off to loosen its grip and lighten up on its pharisaical rules. I found that Mormonism is a religion of excuses. Excuses to be good, excuses to be bad, excuses to not think. I don’t need excuses.

For all of its lies, Mormonism did teach me some deep truths. That doesn’t mean it was worth it. But Mormonism is just one box. I escaped that box only to find another box. What makes secular beliefs less preposterous than Mormon beliefs? Whichever leads to love, that is the “truth”.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2018 10:25AM by babyloncansuckit.

I think Mormonism is mostly neutral. Humans are assholes. Mormons are assholes. Athesists are assholes. What makes Mormonism, and religion in general, slightly worse is that they are manmade but refuse to admit they are man-made. They think they are right and can't be convincted otherwise, so change is damned.

Atheism on the otherhand is manmade. So you will have bad things like genocide and greed that is inherent to the human condition. But it is knowingly man-made, so it can more easily change.

So I think Mormonism is mostly neutral. Everything bad in it is from it being run by men, for men. They just don't know they are wrong, and that makes it slightly worse.

Because TSCC goes AGAINST the members-
(AGAINST the people. Against nature!)
Even those they are leading astray.

M@t

...because there is no "introduction into Mormonism", newly-baptized members are without a compass. They rely on a pre-packaged diet of doctrine, conformity, and pablum......all served up under the umbrella/authority of a Prophet. So going in, they are screwed. If investigators and potential members had the scoop up front, then they might weigh the pluses and minuses better. One might abandon the craziness and doctrinal diatribe, for values that might come by not being a full-blown alkie, junkie, or tweaker. Just enjoy what you can from living a clean life, keeping your kids close, etc., cause' a few of us have gone a little too far to the edge in rebounding from the Church lunacy.

I don't think many potential converts even think that deeply.
It's about the feel-good, which is common in our society. Anything from drinking, shopping therapy, music etc.

It's an appeal to feel good and be happy. For some, it works, because they are more wired to how they feel, and less about what they think

I think your question is couched in the black and white thinking that is Mormonism.

Human beings are not monolithic, Mormons or others of any, or no, religious faith.

There is a spectrum of grey behavior within the Mormon population as there is any any population.

...right. Which is what I was positing. You could be a member just to have some sort of social or occasional interactive events; but my thought was if you had any heads-up as to the doctrinal side, you might make a more balanced approach to Mormonism....Cafeteria Mormonism, I think it's called. Like me, I could go back, realize it's all made up, but still get some benefit from the social interaction........not saying I wouldn't be shunned cause' I don take the Sacrament or don't go to Priesthood meeting....I think it could be pulled off by folks wishing to reshape their current local Church programs. Yes, I would probably have to go to the liquor store before services......look, it's a place to go On Sunday morning. Maybe a potluck after.......keeps us out of the bars.

" why members are overwhelmingly conservative when often those values contradict the generosity that is encouraged."

This is a fascinating observation and question that I have as well. Think back in time, back to 1800. America was designed by wealthy farmers back in Philadelphia, they were all conservatives and they designed a conservative nation with the idea of letting it's citizens have the most freedom imaginable with the lowest government control, lowest taxes, no aristocracy, deep faith in god, relying on mans own boots straps and potential. This is the American form of conservatism, the exceptional America.

Remember that Brigham Young's father was under General Washington in the great war, and the Youngs took as a model Washington as a great leader. They adopted the Virginia idea of how to rule underlings and blacks. That the upper class has the obligation to "conserve" the estate for future generations. That underlings were the burden that the gentry have to carry by virtue of being born into a more privileged situation. They held the same idea of the Indians, They are the white mans burden.

Progressivism is something else, something new. Joe tried it and was a dismal failure with sharing stuff (consecration) so by the time of Heber J Grant, they scrapt the plan of sharing and stuck with what works, "conservatism."

> Think back in time, back to
> 1800. America was designed by wealthy farmers back
> in Philadelphia, they were all conservatives and
> they designed a conservative nation with the idea
> of letting it's citizens have the most freedom
> imaginable with the lowest government control,
> lowest taxes, no aristocracy, deep faith in god,
> relying on mans own boots straps and potential.

You'll actually have to go back before 1800, by which time the constitution had been up and running for quite a while. The founders of the constitution were not conservatives but, in fact, revolutionary liberals. Hence the term "American Revolution." Europe viewed the American experiment as extremely dangerous because of the threat that it posed to established institutions. The Americans were ripping up the old political order, not conserving it.

"Letting. . . citizens have the most freedom imaginable with the lowest government control" is, in fact, a liberal proposition. Hence the word "liberty."

As for "lower taxes," I think you need to reread your constitution. If you do, you may notice that there is no discussion of the appropriate level of taxes. And if you were to look carefully at the personal lives and beliefs of the Founders, you would discover that many of them did not have "faith in God."



-------------------
> Remember that Brigham Young's father was under
> General Washington in the great war, and the
> Youngs took as a model Washington as a great
> leader.

Evidence? Do you seriously think BY modeled himself after a restrained leader who voluntarily relinquished power?


--------------
> They adopted the Virginia idea of how to
> rule underlings and blacks. That the upper class
> has the obligation to "conserve" the estate for
> future generations. That underlings were the
> burden that the gentry have to carry by virtue of
> being born into a more privileged situation. They
> held the same idea of the Indians, They are the
> white mans burden.

With "the white man's burden," you are off by over a century and in the wrong country (look it up), but let's put that aside for the time being. I am intrigued by your notion that noblesse oblige entailed a moral imperative to take care of the Native Americans. Didn't you write a week or two ago of one of your ancestors, saying that the massacre of "Indians" was justified because it facilitated the spread of Western civilization? So your notion of "taking care" of people is slaughtering them?


---------------------
> Progressivism is something else, something new.
> Joe tried it and was a dismal failure with sharing
> stuff (consecration) so by the time of Heber J
> Grant, they scrapt the plan of sharing and stuck
> with what works, "conservatism."

If you read Mormon doctrine carefully, you may discover that the United Order was not an experiment by JS but the word of God. And if you search your memory, you may recall that the Law of Consecration is still in the temple ceremony. During major political campaigns, like Prop 8, church leaders today call wealthy Mormons and ordered them to donate. So no, the church has not given up consecration and it does not believe that individuals have sole control over their resources.