I heard today by a former LDS lady that the young men are taught a deeper doctrine through their adolescent years than the young women, and that the young women at the time of marriage are innocent of some of the deeper more disturbing doctrines out there, not realizing what they are really committing to until years afterward. Is this true? This would explain so many things for me about some of my Mormon former girlfriends who gave me blank expressions and not knowing what I was talking about concerning some of these doctrines.

All the children who went to seminary (95% of the students at my high school), were all taught the deeper doctrine there. No division between girls and boys.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2011 05:56PM by Raptor Jesus.

I can't speak for the YM program, but I know the YW is flat, shallow, and devoid of almost anything that would even constitute "doctrine".

They are taught platitudes like "be nice" and constantly told the importance of being a good wife and mother. Bag yourself a good priesthood holder and he'll worry about all that pesky stuff for you.

However, Sunday School teaches the same crap to both sexes.

So if you didn't get it in YW, you would see it in Sunday School.

As soon as I read your first post, I did recall that girls get all the same Sunday school, seminary, institute, etc.

I was a young women's advisor for a while and I just remember being so disgusted by some of the activities. The worst one was when we all drove to the temple, dressed the girls up in wedding dresses and took photos. IIRC, the temple matron gave a spiel as well.

I also remember hearing of other wards performing mock weddings, where they would essentially review a civil wedding ceremony and mock it.

To be fair, I think those things are controversial even among the TBMs, but I had a hard time stomaching them at the time.

I'm sure girls have all the same opportunities as the boys to learn what is available, but their program is not designed for doctrine.

Mock Weddings! Field trips to the temple in wedding dresses! I am a female so I know you are speaking true, but this disgusts me. It never happened in my ward or stake, but I heard of it. I have no idea how I would have reacted as a teenager if my ward did this. I'd like to say I would have rebelled, but I was so brainwashed I really don't know. I might have thought it was great. Disgusting. F*$#ing cult.

pretending a wedding is going on and it was a civil wedding ceremony just to mock it???? Oh, the brainwashing goes deep. That is beyond belief.

I am of the opinion that the church truely has no "deep doctrine". They have what they have and that is what they teach and they teach all of it openly.

I never once recall being "taught" deep doctrine that I wasn't supposed to share or that I was being given to me and a select few.

I think there is the perpetuation of a "deep doctrine" myth in the church....There really is none, but the general body of the church assumes its really out there and someday they'll have the honor of learning it...and the GA's stay silent.

The closer you get to any form of deep doctrine in the mormon church, the closer you get to the lunatic fringe of reality.

THIS is the deepest doctrine of the church and the GA's know it....its all a bunch of made up BS, designed to bring in money to the corporation. That my freinds is as deep as it gets in mormonism.

"Deep" really means "embarrassing."

And look at everything that they distance themselves from over time.

I mean things like the following:
1. As a woman you will be given a special name and your husband will call it when its time to resurrect. He will know your name, but you can't know his.
2. Your husband will be your lord in the celestial kingdom. He can be sealed to more than you in this life but you can't be sealed to any other man. This means that you may have sister wives in the celestial kingdom
3. When you get there your main responsibility will be to procreate spirits. This will be your "heaven."

I did notice, however, a whole lot of people not paying attention in church and not knowing jack shit about the doctrine that they "loved" and cried about being "so true."

But that was also equal for both chicks and dudes.

The Deep Doctrine which is not available to everyone is called "truth".

You can tell by the stuff they ask you not to read and the people they tell you not to talk to and the fact that they don't care what you know/believe as long as nothing controversial doesn't come out of your mouth or written by you publicly.

Controversial: Also, "truth"

Anagrammy

I'm wondering if she was referring to the fact that when couples marry, often the groom has served a mission and therefore will have gone through the temple at least 2 years before the marriage, whereas the bride would be going through for the first time.

The guy would have been wearing garments for over 2 years and already know about initiatory work, all the handshakes, exactly what the oaths are etc. The girl would know next to nothing except what she may have wheedled out of her endowed friends.

Thank you! Yes! This kind of stuff

Well put, JTS: the word "deep" implies "meaningful"; then again, Scientology and Amway have deeper doctrine, but I don't think it's meaningful to anyone but the truly brainwashed, who EXPECT it to be....

Peeling away the layers of mormonism doesn't really reveal anything spiritual, just bizarre.

which has been that the "Gospel" is easy and simple to understand.
Young men go to the temple before going on missions so they get the temple ceremonies before women most often.

SusieQ#1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> which has been that the "Gospel" is easy and
> simple to understand.
> Young men go to the temple before going on
> missions so they get the temple ceremonies before
> women most often.

If I am remembering correctly wasn't the famous Mormon speak "The Gospel is simply beautiful and beautifully simple" ?

Helen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SusieQ#1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > which has been that the "Gospel" is easy and
> > simple to understand.
> > Young men go to the temple before going on
> > missions so they get the temple ceremonies
> before
> > women most often.
>
> If I am remembering correctly wasn't the famous
> Mormon speak "The Gospel is simply beautiful and
> beautifully simple" ?


Ya... something like that. My memory is a little fuzzy on that one. :-) Hmmm, maybe GBH said something like that.

Yeah, YW lessons suck, but I don't think the doctrine is sugarcoated. We are to be wives and mothers, men (priesthood holders) are superior. We were taught how to respect our husbands and be good mothers, but I was also taught that polygamy would be restored in the millenium. I was taught that J.S. had multiple wives. I knew things that many people leave the church over, but I was taught this.

Why? I'm not sure. Maybe because I was taught in 4 years of seminary and sunday school by single women outside of Utah.

Wow. I just realized that my two seminary and teenage Sunday school teachers were single women!!! Wow. Epiphany! It's true. Hmmm. Things are making sense now.

I was taught doctrines that fellow members did not learn until they took religion classes at BYU. I went to BYU, so this occassionally made for interesting talk. I was often surprised at how ignorant members raised in Utah and Idaho were, but again, maybe my teachers were unique.

I may be completely out of line, but this makes me think your girlfriends were from Utah who were taught that their only purpose was to serve a priesthood holder. I had roommates like this, I felt rather sad for them.

No, that's not true.

Okay, so the result of this consensus is that not everyone is aware of the same things. Some go to seminary and some don't, some are missionaries and some are not, some are single, some are in Utah vs. other states, some go to BYU while others attend different colleges.

All I know is that the manuals contain very simple things and they do not contain all things to know.

I will assume both men and women are given the same opportunities to know some of the things that are not in those manuals through different avenues of learning.

Plus, I have noticed in recent years, the stuff taught on Sundays is not as interesting as it used to be. More general, less intellectually stimulating.

It's all bullshit (pardone ma french), but it's standardized bullshit.

The young men don't get anything deeper than the young women get, unless they are blessed with an eccentric, wild-eyed teacher who goes off the reservation and starts telling them about peepstones, male-to-male sealings and Kokaubeam cosmology. But that would all be unofficial in today's Church and the wild-eyed teacher would probably be booted out if discovered straying that far from the official manuals.

Plus the young women can get their own eccentric, wild-eyed instructors on occasion, so there's no systemic withholding of deep doctrine from the womenfolk.

I suspect that the former LDS lady may have been a bit embarassed about not knowing some of the weird Mormon stuff and, trying to figure out why she never heard of it, came up with the idea that it must have been withheld from the women but taught to the men.

Suckafoo Like all subjects including education , employment , and religion, it all depends on just how much you want to delve into the more obscure or interesting information. When you commit yourself to teaching and understanding the temple or giving gospel doctrine lessons, after 20 years of deep study a lot of really weird ideas are brought to the forefront.

"A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows" . — Mark Twain

That was me, in a nutshell..

JB

"I know more than you. If you knew what I know, you'd appreciate how cool and spirichul I am. I pity your inferiority."

Gag.

During the primary to 19 years, it's all the same. We were segregated during Priesthood/Young Womens' meetings, so guys got the "you're special" stuff and gals got the "prepare to marry the guys who are special" stuff.

However, mission-bound members go through the temple, and (at least in my case) we got "special" Q&A with some GA's in the temple... as well as our GA reps telling us cool things in Zone Conferences. So, yes, the mission boys might have a heads up on the girls. That said... girls who go on missions would also be on equal par with their male counterparts.

But no, I don't recall ever being taught different doctrine in the youth program... just a different application of how we were to behave.

but it's because the boys are taught to go on missions and the girls are taught to get married.
Thus, practically, on average the groom is an RM and the bride is a younger non-RM.
There's a natural disparity there.

...from back in the '60s was MIA was Boy Scouts, and were were occasionally taught scouting skills. In Aaronic priesthood classes we got a lot of stuff about service, authority, obedience, goals, attending all our meetings, preparing to be a missionary, the WoW, not messing with the girls or ourselves, and the occasional weird opinion from an instructor or bishopric member about proper male and female roles. One I remember is that some guy claimed women should always wear their hair exactly like their husbands wanted.

So, basically, we were taught how to be the LDS version of leaders in the church and masters in the home, while the girls were being taught how to be good little Mormon wives.

Whatever deep doctrine (or pseudo deep doctrine, or since-disavowed deep doctrine, or favorite bullshit doctrine/theory/fringe belief of the instructor) I learned was in seminary.