I'm talking people who don't practice fundamentalist AKA polygamy Mormonism.

I read the following (while eating lunch) and wondered what an ultraconservative Mormon would/wouldn't do?

"Some ultraconservative Catholics oppose chickenpox vaccinations because it was developed in the 1960s from cell lines of two aborted fetuses. The Vatican has said it's OK for Roman Catholics to get the vaccine."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kentucky-court-rules-favor-health-department-over-teen-who-refused-n1025236

The only thing I could come up with was coke. An ultraconservative Mormon wouldn't do coke.

http://www.ldsliving.com/Did-the-LDS-Church-officially-OK-caffeine/s/70005

And even in the cola argument LDSLiving doesn't know. So I'm going to infer ALL Mormons are ultraconservative as a baseline. They like Catholics will cafeteria-style their religious adherence but unlike Catholics one would be hard pressed to find an ultraconservative Mormon precisely because Mormonism is ultraconservative and more strict than Catholicism in their not tolerating internal dissent?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2019 02:21PM by Elder Berry.

> So I'm going to infer ALL Mormons are
> ultraconservative as a baseline. They like
> Catholics will cafeteria-style their religious
> adherence but unlike Catholics one would be hard
> pressed to find an ultraconservative Mormon
> precisely because Mormonism is ultraconservative
> and more strict than Catholicism in their not
> tolerating internal dissent?

This seems right to me. And the cafeteria-style Mormon, the New Order Mormon, is in decline. The wave of excommunications over the last decade has made it clear that there is no middle ground; you are either with them or against them.

So in statistical terms, the distribution of Mormons yields a high mode towards the right end of the spectrum. There is a short tail of Snufferites, etc., moving further in that direction; and a larger tail to the left, but even that liberal tail is quite limited in size. What is remarkable about the church is its unusually monolithic form the very small tails on either side.

The defining characteristic is obedience. That is what keeps the distribution so tight and tall.

And their dirty cokes help their ultraconservative Mormonism go down, in the most delightsome ways!

in the dark and with the garments on.

So...

Some ultraconservative Mormons oppose naked sex because it was a pre-Restoration practice. The prophet has not said it's OK for Mormons to have totally nude sex.

I don't know that they teach that?

ultra conservative, but I do believe they got vaccines, but I can't verify that! I hated going to stay with them as they were SO OVER THE TOP and I purposely stayed away from them for 19 years until they showed up at my house.

I can't think of any in this ward. I grew up around some. Some ended up in the polygamy group in North Ogden that was going on in the 1970s called I believe the Sisterhood. Some ended up in prison including one who was my mother's friend. My mother was far from ultra conservative.

The temple reminded me of what ultra conservative mormons are like.

I forgot, my mother had another friend from high school on up (I referred to them in the post on sundayinutah thread). They had a lot of children, but the home life was bizarre from my point of view. You would have thought they were pioneers. They had a lot of their kids rebel. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't get vaccines. I think they produced almost everything they ever ate. I found them suffocating, as is my aunt's family.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2019 07:39PM by cl2.

only two pair of earrings is ultra conservative. An unwritten law that if you break there is no moral punishment, but yet a very important action that draws a line for who's special and who's not.

But as for politics, according to mormonism and conservative Christians, the left makes an art out of conniving and planning wickedness. Take for instance the 7th commandment, thou shalt not covet. This is the whole reason for the social justice movement and cultural marxism. They work to disrupt systems of power or oppression no matter where they lie because they desire something they (the left) don't have.

Also consider what Mathew 15:11 says: Man is not defiled but what goes into the body but what comes out. This verse is talking about people who shop at whole foods, and go organic, vegetarians, who want to stop clean coal, the environmentalists who are more hysterical about global warming and diminishing polar bears than about allowing people to enjoy resources and drive trucks. Sounds like the left?

But I would agree with EB's conclusion. tbms are ultraconservative by default.

This is one of the most ill-informed posts I have ever seen. Using political nonsense to gussy up your dislike for math, science, and logic.

You give Jordan a run for his money. Adam too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2019 11:19PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is one of the most ill-informed posts I have
> ever seen.

No, it is just another post you disagree with.

Unfortunately is perfectly true. Certain tendencies only exist to disrupt and undermine, often using other groups as fronts. If they do actually get around to constructing anything, they never take responsibility when it fails.

Of course you agree with him. He's parroting your dogma: Cultural Marxism, social justice, these are your usual thought-stoppers.

As for the Book of Matthew being about Whole Foods, well that is indeed your level of reasoning.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for the Book of Matthew being about Whole
> Foods, well that is indeed your level of
> reasoning.

That isn't what he said!

Although I do see a lot of parallels between current social trends and older ones. Food taboos can be found in primitive tribes, and are re-emerging in new forms today. Some were around for centuries - English speakers usually have a hang up about horse meat for example. We also see the world dividing up into new tribes based on sports teams, what kind of music we like etc.

And puritanism has been reincarnated in a new form recently.

Jordan: "That isn't what he said!"

macaRomney: "Mathew 15:11 . . . This verse is talking about people who shop at whole foods."

So yes, that is what he said.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2019 02:12PM by Lot's Wife.

Yes, in ref to what goes into your mouth and what comes out of it. Not much more than that. Not hard to understand.

Don't feel constrained by words, Jordan. Be free.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is one of the most ill-informed posts I have
> ever seen.

I agree.

"But as for politics, according to mormonism and conservative Christians, the left makes an art out of conniving and planning wickedness. Take for instance the 7th commandment, thou shalt not covet. This is the whole reason for the social justice movement and cultural marxism. They work to disrupt systems of power or oppression no matter where they lie because they desire something they (the left) don't have."

If coveting involves me and the guy with the millions of dollars jet (for work purposes) it makes no sense. I don't covet his jet because I don't think one would enhance my life. If people in poorer socioeconomic conditions covet it would it matter?

The whole philosophy of free capitalism isn't how I think the world even works. Just because people can exploit human societies for their gain doesn't mean it is something to disparage with saying other people will covet.

I liked what the El Salvadorian President said. He said it is his country's responsibility to improve and not The United State's fault for the immigrant deaths. They way the U.S. handled it was deplorable though. It is the way of humans to improve their conditions and then treat people poor people poorly for wanting their own conditions improved. But if you are going to call it coveting, I guess that tis your ivory tower.

I consider the ultraconservative Mormons to be those who homeschool their kids, don't believe in birth control, wear their church clothes all day on Sunday and only have a TV so they can watch General Conference and G movies. There are several Mormon families like that in my neighborhood, but they're not the norm.

These are also the same Mormons who seem to enroll their daughters in my daughters' dance classes every year. When it comes time for the recital, the daughters of the ultraconservative Mormons can be spotted because they're wearing a t-shirt under the dance costumes so they won't be immodest. It looks very strange.

"I consider the ultraconservative Mormons to be those who homeschool their kids, don't believe in birth control, wear their church clothes all day on Sunday and only have a TV so they can watch General Conference and G movies. "

These people share these attributes with the FLDS. Additionally, the FLDS have had the color red banned and can't have sex after menopause.

ultra-conservative Mormons want: Sacrament meeting in Reformed Egyptian?

Okay, getting serious here. The problem with all this mud-slinging is you get the issues muddied up, too. So relax!

I think it's natural to overlap conservative politics with conservative religion--up to a point.

I think Jordan has a good approach with his check list of personal life-style issues: the more a person, or family, checks them off, the more conservative one is. Not being ex/current LDS, my observations are 3rd hand, of course, but it seems to me that this is an evolving ("devolving?") paradigm. Coke and sex in garments are bygone, now replaced by not using the word "Mormon" out of proper context.

I think Jordan is onto something. What other beliefs and lifestyle practices would define an ultra-conservative Mormon?

How about reverence for the Book of Abraham?
Attending seminars on BoM "historical evidence?"
A bucket list of historic Mormon sites to visit?
A check list of temples visited (like climbers do mountain categories)?

Organize a good, comprehensive list, and you might have a cluster of things which define an ultra-conservative Mormon.

First of all, that list is not political, which it is good. It comprises elements that he thinks define "ultra-conservative" Mormons. But by my count a TBM of any sort would abide by 8 or so of his 12 items. That list doesn't get you out of a normal congregation.

I think the list is worth discussing, and expanding upon. The more things a person embraces, the more conservative they are. I'm thinking of those check lists along the line of, "You may be an alcoholic if..." and "You may be suffering PTSD if..."

How about holding that the CoJCoLdS is still the ONLY true church, and that pastors and priests of other denominations are servants of Satan?

Some might be very incendiary, such as: can a person maintain relations with an apostate 1) neighbor, 2) friend, 3) family relation, 4) son/daughter/spouse? That would be a shades-of-gray issue, as in "I won't have anything to do with that apostate across the street, but my kid..."

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the list is worth discussing, and
> expanding upon. The more things a person embraces,
> the more conservative they are. I'm thinking of
> those check lists along the line of, "You may be
> an alcoholic if..." and "You may be suffering PTSD
> if..."

Sure. The problem I see is that the entire church is very close to the extreme on a religious spectrum. There isn't much room for people to move farther towards orthodoxy/the right.

I would add, however, that there is a danger in such lists especially when they list specific beliefs or doctrines. For the church has jettisoned most of those tenets, with obedience remaining the critical measure of orthodoxy. So practices would be a good indication but asking whether a person believes in Adam/God, for instance, doesn't really get you closer to a definition.

The bottom line is that the church has defined "orthodoxy" as submission to whatever is taught today. In that sense believing some of the old doctrines may, depending on the depth of the commitment, move the person away from orthodoxy and not towards it. So does "orthodoxy" mean adherence to the old doctrines or fealty to the church, because they are different things.

A reminder: I approach this from 2nd & 3rd- hand perspective.

We need to differentiate between "conservative" (ultra and otherwise) and "orthodox." "Ultra-C" would include orthodox/obedient Mormons, but not necessarily the other way around.

In other words, the ultra-"C" will go the extra mile, and on his own initiative. The point of the list is to identify such people, and perhaps grade the intensity of their zeal.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The problem I see is that the entire church
> is very close to the extreme on a religious
> spectrum. There isn't much room for people to
> move farther towards orthodoxy/the right.

There might be a few. That's what this discussion is about, isn't it?
>
> I would add, however, that there is a danger in
> such lists especially when they list specific
> beliefs or doctrines. For the church has
> jettisoned most of those tenets, with obedience
> remaining the critical measure of orthodoxy. So
> practices would be a good indication but asking
> whether a person believes in Adam/God, for
> instance, doesn't really get you closer to a
> definition.

True, and that's what I had in mind with the evolving/"devolving" paradigm. Granted, nobody buys into Adam-God doctrine, but might there be a lingering few who read PoGP and accept (or try to) it? Some who openly expect that polygarmy will be reinstated in Zion, even if they don't practice it? Those would be the ultra-C's.
>
> So does "orthodoxy" mean
> adherence to the old doctrines or fealty to the
> church, because they are different things.

I'd say 21st Century orthodoxy is the latter ("fealty to the church." I define fealty as personal identification and obedience, including the willingness to adapt to changes in doctrine and practice.

"Ultra-Conservative" Mormonism includes that but also has 1) adherence to as many old doctrines as their cognitive dissonance will allow,* and engage in personal "holiness" lifestyle practices that exceed what most loyal Mormons do. Such an ultra-C might, even now, abstain from coke, buy swimwear to accommodate the garment, long for celestial polygamy, read the entire quad on a fixed schedule, avoid any movie over PG, etc.

*Such an Ultra-C might still believe in blood atonement, only to grudgingly acknowledge it has passed, and hold similar attachments to the temple blood oaths, etc.

The problem with the ultra-conservative/orthodox dichotomy is that orthodoxy is defined by the church and precludes ultra-conservatism. If one goes past the current orthodoxy and expresses public support for the old ideas that have either been disowned or intentionally de-emphasized, he will be excommunicated for heterodoxy. In other words, "orthodoxy" is hemmed in on the liberal side but also on the conservative side.


--------------
> There might be a few. That's what this discussion
> is about, isn't it?

Yes, there may be a few. But they will be really hard to describe because ultra-conservatism as anything other than an unusually fervent commitment to the living prophets and apostles ceases to be orthodox.


------------
> True, and that's what I had in mind with the
> evolving/"devolving" paradigm. Granted, nobody
> buys into Adam-God doctrine, but might there be a
> lingering few who read PoGP and accept (or try to)
> it? Some who openly expect that polygarmy will be
> reinstated in Zion, even if they don't practice
> it? Those would be the ultra-C's.

I believe very few TBMs think the PoGP is not genuine. It is still in the standard works that people carry to church every week, still offered as evidence of JS's prophetic nature, and has never been disavowed by the authorities. Likewise, the notion that polygamy will be reinstated in the millennium and heaven is still very much doctrine and accepted as such by TBMs. So in these and other cases, it is really hard to identify doctrines that would define an ultra-conservatism beyond orthodoxy.

This, I believe, is what EB had in mind when he said that Mormonism is DEFINED as ultra-conservatism. There are very few of the old canonical ideas, including the notion that race is tied to behavior in the pre-existence, that have been outright rejected.


----------------
> "Ultra-Conservative" Mormonism includes that but
> also has 1) adherence to as many old doctrines as
> their cognitive dissonance will allow,* and engage
> in personal "holiness" lifestyle practices that
> exceed what most loyal Mormons do. Such an ultra-C
> might, even now, abstain from coke, buy swimwear
> to accommodate the garment, long for celestial
> polygamy, read the entire quad on a fixed
> schedule, avoid any movie over PG, etc.

You see, I don't think there is a distinction in these instances between orthodoxy and ultra-conservatism. Most of the old doctrines are still alive, and no one cares about the others as long as a member obeys the current rules. My guess is that most TBMs still refrain from caffeinated beverages; I've never heard of anyone wearing swimsuits that accommodate the garment although a lot of TBMs would insist on peculiarly modest garb. Most Mormons wouldn't read the PoGP because they are too busy and lazy to do so but they would feel guilty about that. And there are a lot of TBMS, possibly a majority, who don't watch R-rated movies even today. So the difficulty you run into is that most of the obvious standards for ultra-conservatism inform the merely orthodox.

The only way to get further to the right than orthodoxy is by practicing polygamy or openly advocating that doctrine or the notion of personal revelation--and those get you excommunicated very quickly. So ultra-conservatism, if defined like that, doesn't encompass orthodoxy but makes you a heretic.

EB, is that what you were saying in your OP?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> EB, is that what you were saying in your OP?

Yes, people who observe beyond what their leaders advise reading into their words things that they might imply.

The Catholic example is accepting into your body something derivative of abortion. Those Catholics go JW in their adherence to avoiding abortion.

After much thought I think the gayby policy is a good example. The leaders pretty much made anyone associated with societal acceptance of homosexuality as it is acted out in societal norms like creating families a pariah.

An ultra-C Mormon would continue their private hate until there was something overt to indicate they were sinning. Like saying Mormon now is.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the list is worth discussing, and
> expanding upon. The more things a person embraces,
> the more conservative they are. I'm thinking of
> those check lists along the line of, "You may be
> an alcoholic if..." and "You may be suffering PTSD
> if..."
>
> How about holding that the CoJCoLdS is still the
> ONLY true church, and that pastors and priests of
> other denominations are servants of Satan?
>
> Some might be very incendiary, such as: can a
> person maintain relations with an apostate 1)
> neighbor, 2) friend, 3) family relation, 4)
> son/daughter/spouse? That would be a
> shades-of-gray issue, as in "I won't have anything
> to do with that apostate across the street, but my
> kid..."

Does anyone still use the term Gentiles? That would be a marker.

I had a book on Buddhism at home and a missionary told me that Buddhism comes from the Devil. Move on a few years and the church sells books about other religions, and they're even involved in interfaith work (which I think is a cover for a form of deep ecumenism.)

The key aspect of these people is that they follow the current teachings and then some.

So they think God let blacks into the temple in 1978, but they still think the ban was right and they have the curse of Ham.

Polygamy is likewise gone, but they think it was right when it happened.

Now is right, and yesterday was right, according to such people. They differ from what we usually call fundamentalists because they accept today's teachings as well.

Their defining characteristic is obedience which leads to authoritarian thought.

What would be a few other things? Love of MoTab (or whatever it calls itself these days), maybe getting into General Conference as much as they can etc.

Mormonism is clearly a spectrum.

I think that a person that is trying to be ultra-pious would focus on the teachings of the modern day profits. In doing so he/she would quickly realize (please assume this person is trying to think) that many of the profits have contradicted each other over time. Who was right?

I knew a guy that started down this road. He started by studying the teachings and probably couldn't make any sense of it, at all. He grew paranoid (cut-off his family, disconnected the phone, threatened his father-in-law with a shotgun, kidnapped his wife and baby to live "off-the-grid".)

Every single flippin GA and Q12 are GOP and arch conservatives. They are the standard for TSCC that the others emulate and hold themselves up to as examples of what being a stalwart Mormon is supposed to represent.

That is the *only* thing I can think of that would make any one of them ultra conservative in their religion, because to them their religion is money, over religion.

It's all about the corporation, running the business, the pyramid scheme. And that is how they operate, like Wall Street executives. Most of those guys come from business backgrounds ie, CEO's etc. They are there for one thing only and that is to run an empire that is their golden parachutes.

But I wasn't talking about them.

In my post I quoted The Vatican saying it accepts a vaccine from aborted fetuses. Ultraconservative Catholics don't accept that.

I was curious if there were something similar in Mormonism?

Honestly, I'm not a Mormon any longer, and I would have a difficult time accepting a vaccine from an aborted fetus. Seriously. Does that make me "uber" or "ultra" conservative as a religious person? I'm actually fairly liberal in my politics and my religion. But I would draw the line there.

And that is a political issue you raise because it is discussing an aborted fetus. That crosses the line between religious beliefs and politics. It's a political hot potato and you know it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2019 01:25PM by Amyjo.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Honestly, I'm not a Mormon any longer, and I would
> have a difficult time accepting a vaccine from an
> aborted fetus. Seriously. Does that make me "uber"
> or "ultra" conservative as a religious person?

I don't know. Why would you care? You didn't say so how could I say anything about you as an ""uber" or "ultra" conservative as a religious person?"

Just obfuscating my thread.

> And that is a political issue you raise because it
> is discussing an aborted fetus.

So what are you a moderator? Is bring up abortion in any context "political?"

Abortion is pretty much the perfect example of either a religious subject or religiously-oriented politics. It is squarely on topic under board rules.