Lets face it, its in our upbringing. We were judged better than everyone else in heaven. So we are inherently judgmental. I have been working on being more tolerant and less judgmental for years, but still catch myself judging people all the time.

Anyone live in Utah in the 90s? Everyone just had to have those french jeans. Gerbaud. I never could afford them, or really much of anything. I always wore hand me downs. I always felt like such a looser. I guess I just was not blessed enough to have those jeans! 20 years later, I'm trying to figure out why I bought an Ipad2, or why I have an Iphone (in white). Am I screwed up for life?

My daughter, could care less about name brands. Her school is immensely diverse, and she has friends that were born all over the world. She has her own style, such a unique kid. And she is not judgmental in the least! She was never Mormon either...

Anyone else having issues giving up Mormon mentality?

I think being materialistic and judgmental can be symptoms of the same issue: insecurity and lack of self worth.

Work on becoming very self-assured and comfortable with who you really are. The rest should work out.

children are far over the top judgmental and materialistic compared to my children and they aren't mormon (are Jewish).

They are snobs and he admits it. (He can be, too--I think he finds I level him out there--I'm surprised he is with me considering what his ex-wife was like, but then he wanted to marry me in my 20s.)

This is an example--his son "needed" a new car. He couldn't just get a regular car, he spent $43,000 on his car and his mother provided $20,000 from his trust fund (he definitely doesn't earn enough to pay for it on his own). My boyfriend drives a BMW. I drive an Aveo. . .

My kids drive my old car and my ex's old car . . .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2012 12:53PM by cl2.

It's interesting that you feel materialistic and judgmental. My experience in the Church has been that I've been taught all my life that both of those things are wrong. "Judge not lest ye be judged", and there are innumerable talks from prophets about the importance of not being materialistic.

Now, members may not be living it, but not for lack of trying on the part of the Church leaders to get them to live it!

Some quotes:

"Stewardship, not conspicuous consumption, is the proper relationship of man to material wealth."


"The next time you are tempted to buy something on impulse, ask:

1. Do I truly need this, or do I merely want it?
2. What is enough? What is sufficient?
3. What standard of living is appropriate for my current income?

"Answering such questions can be difficult, for it often means coming face-to-face with our pride. While Jesus was here on earth, He chose to lead a humble life and recommended that those who wished to follow Him cast aside their desire for riches and seek first the kingdom of God.

"Chronic indebtedness is also closely linked to the fulfillment of fantasies based on the belief that what people have is who they are. Tangible assets become a symbolic reflection of how much people are worth, so those who have less feel inadequate. Those holding such beliefs think, “Right now, I may not be as good as so-and-so, but if I owned such-and-such, then I would be as good.”

"Before attending his 10-year school reunion, Ron bought a new Buick sedan in order to impress some of his high school buddies. While driving back to his hometown, he talked excitedly to his wife about how impressed the others were going to be when they saw him drive up in a new car. Unfortunately, the first friend he encountered was driving a new Lexus and the second drove up in a red Ferrari. Ron immediately felt swamped by feelings of inferiority. He never really enjoyed driving the Buick again.

"This type of thinking can lead to conspicuous consumption in a futile attempt to “keep up with the Joneses.” A pile of credit cards and a home equity line of credit can create a phantom income—an illusionary income that hopelessly mires one in debt.

"The next time you find yourself comparing what you have to what others have, ask:

1. Does my Father in Heaven love me for who I am or for what I have?
2. How much of what I buy is intended to impress others?
A true sense of worth comes from our knowledge that we are beloved sons and daughters of Heavenly Father. In the eyes of God, do we believe that our soul is in any way less important than the soul of another? If we will turn to God for clarity about who we are, we will have less need to impress others with our wealth. Henry David Thoreau concluded, “Money is not required to buy one [necessity] of the soul” (Walden and Other Writings of Henry David Thoreau, ed. Brooks Atkinson [1950], 293). As we travel through mortality, it might be well for us to keep in mind where our true wealth is found.

The LDS church just built a temple to material acquisition -- the City Creek Mall. The church built it with money that it apparently doesn't have, considering that members must now "volunteer" for church janitorial work. Far more was spent on the City Creek complex than on any other of their temples. It's easy to see what the church really values.

What does it matter if the mall had more money spent on it than the temple? That doesn't make sense to me. I could say that the amount spent building city creek and building projects like it is less than the amount spent on building the temples, which is probably true.

The difference between a temple and a project like City Creek is that the temple uses money, while City Creek is an investment that returns money which then can build even more temples than would have otherwise been possible without the investment. If you have one pot of money that is to be used for general welfare (temple fund, intangible spiritual benefits) and another that is set aside as investment, I don't see a problem with that.

I also don't understand how the investment activity of the Church somehow means that it doesn't place it's temple or spiritual priorities higher. Again, I think you fail to see that secular investments properly done will increase the ability of the Church to make greater spiritual investments in temples than it otherwise could.

miketay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I could say that the amount spent building city creek and building projects like it is less than the amount spent on building the temples, which is probably true.

At an estimated five billion dollars for the entire project, it is by far the church's most expensive temple. They have gotten some of it back (and will continue to get some of it back) through the selling of condos. Many condos will undoubtedly go to auction. It is unlikely that the church will ever get its money back, much less make a profit on the mall itself.

> The difference between a temple and a project like City Creek is that the temple uses money, while City Creek is an investment that returns money which then can build even more temples than would have otherwise been possible without the investment.

What makes you think that temples aren't investments? First of all you have the acquisition of the land and the temple itself, both of which are built tax free. Then you have the cost of ten percent of participating members' incomes in order to have access to the temple. Temples are huge moneymakers for the church.

The mall not so much. It will be a many decades (if ever) before the mall returns money to to the church. It simply can't generate enough income to offset the outrageous building expenses.

You said:

> At an estimated five billion dollars for the entire project, it is by far the church's most expensive temple. They have gotten some of it back (and will continue to get some of it back) through the selling of condos. Many condos will undoubtedly go to auction. It is unlikely that the church will ever get its money back, much less make a profit on the mall itself.

First, $5B is not a confirmed number. I've seen estimates anywhere from $1.5B to $11B. Second, what does it matter if it is the most expensive SINGLE real estate development (e.g. compared to a religious building like a temple)? On the whole, was the amount spent in total investment activity more than the amount spent in total religious activity, or even the meetinghouse and temple budgets? We don't really know exactly, but a claimed inside source tells me that meetinghouse and temple budgets are BY FAR the largest line items in the budgets. Those probably dwarf this investment over a similar period of years this particular real estate investment was made. So I think what people on here are saying is that it's a bad investment--if the Church wanted to invest, they should have put the money in stock, bonds, money market or savings account or something, or it should invest a smaller portion of it's money, or possibly people here are saying that the Church should not invest any portion of its money at all. (There's probably not agreement among the people here on the specific objection).

If they don't end up making their money back, it was a poor investment decision. Poor decisions can happen. The Church isn't a perfect organization. I don't think people should treat it like it is. I have friends that work there, and there's plenty of "challenges" (read: mistakes made in management) they see daily in being a part of the bureaucracy and highly vertical organization that it is.

You said:
> What makes you think that temples aren't investments? First of all you have the acquisition of the land and the temple itself, both of which are built tax free. Then you have the cost of ten percent of participating members' incomes in order to have access to the temple. Temples are huge moneymakers for the church.

I'm not saying that temples aren't investments of a sort. I'm just making a distiction as most other posters here have made that this city creek project doesn't fall in the religious investment category, but rather, secular, non-operational investment. Most of the criticism seems to come from the fact that the Church made a large investment in something non-religious (out of their non-operational budget). The question being raised, I think, is this: is an organization like a church justified in investing ANY money in non-religious things? Should they? I would say yes. Here's why:

I think it's a wise idea for any Church or charity to make investments outside their normal giving/operations as a way to continue fund operations in the face of decreased donations, such as during recessions. Charitable donations suffer significantly during recessions. The strategy many charities and churches take in this way allow them to increase non-operational investment during booms, and decrease non-operational investment during busts to pull that money back to maintaining a consistent level of religious and humanitarian need and standard operations.

It would certainly be a lot more difficult for the Church to fund it's needs and it's member's needs during a recession and potentially a lot less money without the ability to draw from reserved funds (non-operational investments). And although the Church's main goal should not be in non-operational/secular investment, should they not try to get a good return with these reserve investments? I would argue yes, they have an obligation to try to balance a good rate of return with a proper risk tolerance as any charity does. Investments in real estate have done very well for the Church historically, and they've had a good track record here. Can they made stupid investments from time to time? Absolutely. Maybe this is a big one! But the jury is still out on the long-term impact I believe of this particular investment. We are, after-all, still in a real-estate down market.

You said:
> The mall not so much. It will be a many decades (if ever) before the mall returns money to to the church. It simply can't generate enough income to offset the outrageous building expenses.

You might be right here. Maybe they made a bad call.

There's not such thing as a foolproof investment that can't under any circumstances suffer any loss. But again, whether it's a poor investment or not is hard to guage for a few reasons. First, we don't know the real financials. Some of the money in the estimate went to tearing down the old buildings. That money probably would have had to have been spent anyway to restore the economic value of the probably near fully depreciated improvements on the already owned property.

Second, there may be other intangible religious returns from the property. Much as the Church doesn't get direct benefit from direct humanitarian aid, there are intangible benefits and reasons for doing it that fall within it's mission. One example might be downtown beautification that can increase, say, tourism, which the Church has an interest in because it can get more converts. Others include the religious education facilities on the premesis.

miketay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We don't really know exactly, but a claimed inside source tells me that meetinghouse and temple budgets are BY FAR the largest line items in the budgets.

It usually is for any church. The difference is, the LDS church draws top dollar in terms of tithing and other donations. Depending on the source, it is either the top church in terms of donations per active member, or in the top three. It rakes in a heck of a lot of money. The LDS church asks for 10% of gross or more from its members, and gets it in a fair number of cases. Overall, figure that it gets perhaps 5%. Compare this to (by my estimate) 1-3% of gross donation figure common to other mainstream Christian churches.

What other Christian churches have that the Mormon church doesn't have -- lots of salaries to pay. For each church, they pay for a minister, and assistant minister or two, a youth director, an organist, a church secretary, a maintenance worker, etc. You can Google "[denomination] church budget" and get lots of sample budgets for individual churches.

A fair question is that given the reduced expenses of the LDS church (due to "callings" and other volunteered labor,) where is all that money going? No one knows. At least, no one outside of the COB.

So the Mormon church talks a good game in terms of frugality for their members, but apparently spends its own money profigately on malls, hotels, and other "investments." Sorry, but I can draw no other conclusion. The LDS church should have an exceptionally strong presence in the wider community in terms of charitable aid (hospitals, clinics, food banks, soup kitchens, medical research, clean water projects overseas, etc.) and it simply doesn't -- because that is NOT its priority.

I am at a loss as to why the membership doesn't DEMAND that the church open its books. Honesty and transparency should start at the top.

You said:
"Temples are huge moneymakers for the church."

Interesting--maybe the Church should have invested in temples instead, because the return on increased tithing from more temples would be greater than the return on investment realized from the city creek real estate project.

That's entirely possible. You should suggest it to the Church. That they do some internal accounting to figure out if the religious investments have a greater ROI that non-operational ones.

On the other hand, that still might be a big problem during an economic recession for the Church. A wise portfolio manager will have more than one type of asset class in the portfolio. Since temples are still considered core operational "spiritual" investments that might happen to "return" increased revenue through donations, in the event of a downturn, a wise portfolio manager will hedge risk by having some assets with a negative beta that will perform well while core assets/revenues are experiencing a decrease.

Maybe you have a problem with the type of investment? Would the Church have been better off had it invested the money in something you find more morally appealing? Farmland for example? Or maybe just putting it in a mutual fund?

How about investing in people through charitable endeavors? The church gets a huge tax break from the American public each year because it is allegedly a charity. However it behaves more like a real estate investment corporation than an actual charity.

How many members lost their homes while the Temple to Material Acquisition was being built with money that had been extorted from them?

You said:
> How about investing in people through charitable endeavors? The church gets a huge tax break from the American public each year because it is allegedly a charity. However it behaves more like a real estate investment corporation than an actual charity.

> How many members lost their homes while the Temple to Material Acquisition was being built with money that had been extorted from them?

You bring up an interesting point. Why doesn't the Church or why shouldn't the Church take it's non-operational investment money and give it straight to members in need?

In my mind, the answer is simple. It would certainly help a lot of people in need, but what would it do for the long-term ability of the Church to continue it's core operations and help people?

If it used all it's reserves, one example of a negative consequence would be that it might have to lay off far more people the next time a recession came around because it didn't have reserves to draw from on a rainy day.

The overall ability of the Church to respond to humanitarian crisis or continue its aggressive meetinghouse and temple building probably would be decreased as well; and, in your other post, you pointed out that there is a good ROI on building temples (you said temples are a huge money maker), that would mean less potential expansion of the Church as a whole due to fewer temples and decreased donations--therefore less growth, fewer converts, and less ability to help people.

So I guess there is legitimate reason for disagreement on how the general funds of the Church should be spent. Much like every individual in this world has a different level of tolerance for risk in their personal finances or what constitutes a good investment. Heck, even the professional investors can disagree highly.

I personally like my charities to think long-term, save reserves for rainy days (and try to get a good return on those savings). But I respectfully acknowledge that people have different viewpoints on that.

miketay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> In my mind, the answer is simple. It would
> certainly help a lot of people in need, but what
> would it do for the long-term ability of the
> Church to continue it's core operations and help
> people?

>
> The overall ability of the Church to respond to
> humanitarian crisis or continue its aggressive
> meetinghouse and temple building probably would be
> decreased as well; and, in your other post, you
> pointed out that there is a good ROI on building
> temples (you said temples are a huge money maker),
> that would mean less potential expansion of the
> Church as a whole due to fewer temples and
> decreased donations--therefore less growth, fewer
> converts, and less ability to help people.

>
> I personally like my charities to think long-term,
> save reserves for rainy days (and try to get a
> good return on those savings). But I respectfully
> acknowledge that people have different viewpoints
> on that.

I think you're missing the main point, miketay. Your charity acquires its funding by promising spiritual benefits. Have you ever heard talks about the benefits of tithing? The Church claims that God doesn't need our tithing money, but we need the blessing of paying it. In fact, your favorite charity does claim that it is perfect - "The Church is perfect, the people aren't" - and that it is led by a prophet who cannot lead them astray. In fact, Christ Himself is the head of the church. So really, all the Church has to do is ask Christ how to invest his money, and it should be invested perfectly. Or don't they know how to pray for inspiration on how to best invest the Lord's money any more?
The Church doesn't claim to be either a business or a charity. It claims to be the Restored Gospel, the only way to exaltation. If those claims are false, then their tithing money is fraudulently obtained, and it makes no difference how the money is invested. The problem is that they should allow members to keep their money to spend on their families, instead of forcing them to choose between meeting temporal needs (food, housing) and their eternal family (tithing to be worthy of a temple recommend).
One other point: tithing money is not used for humanitarian assistance at all. Only fast offerings are used as humanitarian assistance, which is a much smaller fund.
I realize that the Mormon church has been able to get away with labeling itself as a charity for tax purposes. On moral grounds, I object to any charity which extorts money from people and then fails to provide assistance when needed.

I was thinking about what you said here:
"it behaves more like a real estate investment corporation than an actual charity"

I don't think that's fair at all. With that statemetn you've started to be a little unrealistic. I think a lot of people fail to understand the major difference between charity and for-profit corporations. If you take a look at the financials of lots of charities, the kind of activity the Church is doing is not unusual at all compared to other charities and churches.

I recommend taking a look at the balance sheets and statements of revenue of several charities. There is a good website called Charity Navigator where you can see this. Look at the big ones. Lots of charities invest their money in big projects like malls, real estate, banks, etc. They do this, and then "live" off of the proceeds plus their traditional annual donations. Big schools like Yale, Harvard, etc. do it too. Lots of them have endowments and trusts that get invested into all kinds of things unrelated to the charity. Most of the larger ones with endowments have hired portfolio managers that are charged with getting a good return on the money, this non-operational investment has nothing to do with the charities.

In fact, I've seen charities that have been criticized just like the Church because one the one hand, maybe a charity is set up to help people quit smoking. Their endowment manager then has reserve funds invested in a mutual fund that holds Phillip Morris stock, a cigarette company. It's not intentional, and it's several layers removed, but it's an example of how difficult it is to make investments as a charity that everyone can agree are perfect.

The biggest thing to keep in mind between favored non-profits/churches/charities and for-profit corporations is the ultimate result of the money. That's what really tells you if an organization is behaving like a corporation or a charity. Does the money at the end of the day get used to return to the shareholders a profit, or does it get either fully donated or used for the organizational mission? There are charities that abuse their status while still being legal, such as charities that pay their CEO's exorbitant amounts of money.

While it's possible there is abuse in the Church, the top brass is not seeing a return on the assets of the Church, and the salary remuneration is quite modest.

Interesting conversation. However, because the mormon church doesn't reveal its financial statements, we can only speculate that the mall serves some greater, long-term charitable purpose. We just don't know how much comes in and how much goes to helping people. We do know what Jesus would do with a basket of fish, but let's not bring his philosophy into the discussion.

Miketay, so what exactly is that salary remuneration of all the top brass in LDS Inc.? Please share that privileged information with us.

If they are a truly charitable organization, they should be uninhibited about sharing that. Why is it not disclosed? What is it, for Mission Presidents on up to the Head Honcho aka TSM? Inquiring minds wish to know.

Good point.
I think materialism may be a symptom of our society as a whole and it isn't mormonism that necessarily sparks it within its members. Although there does seem to be the mentality within mormonism that those with wealth have been blessed with it, inferring that the wealthier you are the more righteous you may be.
I value asceticism and believe that we need nothing in our lives; we don't need air, food, family, love, gold, property. Realising this frees one from all worries and fears. Okay, end tangent.
Mormonism says to be perfect, and people measure themselves against their peers. Perhaps the reflection of our society upon the members results in the correlation of wealth with perfection. Perhaps there is a view that a perfect life is one of luxury and abundance, hence the accumulation of wealth in some way satisfies the need to feel that there is progression toward some end of the rainbow goal.

Reading these two posts was like having a bowl of syrup with a waffle floating in it.

Perthguy loves his adult style so much, and so refined and well-educated, "Perhaps there is a view..." and "...this frees one..." he felt the need to answer himself after he posted as miketay.

Or there are two such pompous hypocrites among the Mormon defenders. Tell you what, you gave me a list, I'll give you one:

1. Do I truly need this FIVE BILLION DOLLAR MALL, or do I merely want it? MORE THAN KEEPING THOUSANDS OF LOW INCOME JANITOR MEMBERS EMPLOYED AS JANITORS.

2. What is enough? MEMBERS WHO HAVE SERVED MISSIONS SHOULD NOT BE CALLED TO SENIOR MISSIONS. What is sufficient? ALLOW MEMBERS TO WILL THEIR ASSETS TO THEIR CHILDREN INSTEAD OF GUILT-MINING EVERY REMAINING DIME FOR YOURSELVES.

3. What standard of living is appropriate for my current income? IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD JANITORS, DON'T BUILD HIGH PRICED CONDOS and A RIDICULOUSLY OVERPRICED SHOWY SHOPPING MALL just to make a materialistic worldly statement.

4. Remember you are a church dedicated to doing the work of the Lord. Your job is not to maximize cashflow and increase revenues.

Now get off our board.

Anagrammy

Actually I am exmormon and despise the church. It brainwashes children and the vulnerable into giving up their lives for its shallow imitation of one. I extend this view to pretty much all religions.
Sorry you found me to be a pompous hypocrite. First, you don't know me at all so cannot claim with any real basis that I am a hypocrite. Second, I shall work to make my writing style less pompous.
I agree with you regarding the spending of money by the mormon church.

My reaction was a little over the top toward the posters, my anger being kindled by the hypocrisy of preaching penny-pinching methods while spending lavishly on outward displays of wealth and success. Who would defend that?

The principles taught are helpful--Mormons should practice them and quit spending the money donated on PR, unnecessary temples, the mall and other displays meant to hide the truth of dwindling membership.

I have always maintained the church is using unnecessary temples as demonstrations that they are a "presence" and are growing while keeping their money in a tax-free religious building which is appreciating in value.

I can't wait for the next City Creek flood. After all, God will not be mocked.

Anagrammy

Anagrammy

You said:
1. Do I truly need this FIVE BILLION DOLLAR MALL, or do I merely want it? MORE THAN KEEPING THOUSANDS OF LOW INCOME JANITOR MEMBERS EMPLOYED AS JANITORS.

Well that's not a good analogy. You shouldn't equate the mall to a purchase of a consumer item. Instead, equate the mall to a savings account, money you've set aside to try to grow, sacrificing the benefit of the money today for the greater return in the future. The Church isn't building a mall because it wants to consume investment money it has, but rather because it wants to do the equivalent of saving the money in an interest-bearing savings account with the intent to use that interest in pursuit of the greater goal.

The exact balance of how much money should be saved in savings versus used today in the benefit of people in need is what you seem to take issue with. Maybe the Church should contribute a higher percentage of it's money to employing people that need it, but I don't think many would argue that at some level the Church, like any organization, needs to have SOME level savings and investment activity.

Also, even if the Church doesn't have the right balance of saving/investment vs. spending on immediate spiritual or physical needs of people, one can argue that the investment activity properly done will in the long-run further increase the ability of the Church to provide those spiritual and physical needs to a greater number of people.

I think it's OK to question those things. This is like the argument that goes on in government. How much money should be invested into say, science research and education when there are poor/starving people that need medical dollars and food dollars today. I don't think anyone would argue that ALL the money should go into welfare and getting that balance right isn't easy for any organization. The Church has imperfect people running it that may not always make the right decisions. We've all seen the effects of bureaucracy to make things inefficient in government, an organization like the Church is not different even when people at all levels of the organizations are trying their best to get it right.

You said:
2. What is enough? MEMBERS WHO HAVE SERVED MISSIONS SHOULD NOT BE CALLED TO SENIOR MISSIONS. What is sufficient? ALLOW MEMBERS TO WILL THEIR ASSETS TO THEIR CHILDREN INSTEAD OF GUILT-MINING EVERY REMAINING DIME FOR YOURSELVES.


Seniors generally volunteer for missionary service. Some genuinely love it, why would you not want someone to do something they would enjoy? If you don't want to do it, don't do it. The great thing about life and the Church is that you can choose for yourself what you want to do. There are plenty of worthy causes to engage yourself in. You can volunteer for the Red Cross. You can volunteer in your community. You can teach at a local school. The possibilities for good are endless.

Does the Church encourage not leaving your family money when you die? Haven't heard that one before.


YOU SAID:
3. What standard of living is appropriate for my current income? IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD JANITORS, DON'T BUILD HIGH PRICED CONDOS and A RIDICULOUSLY OVERPRICED SHOWY SHOPPING MALL just to make a materialistic worldly statement.

So the mutual fund or savings account investment of money is preferrable than hands-on investment? See point above in #1. Who's to say that the janitors can't be afforded? Maybe they can be. Finances aren't opened up so we don't really know.


4. Remember you are a church dedicated to doing the work of the Lord. Your job is not to maximize cashflow and increase revenues.

Again we don't know finances, but my guess would be that the majority of the funds are spent on things that don't have any tangible financial returns but the Church considers spiritual in nature. Some level of investment in any organization is always wise. I don't know all the reasons for the investment, but a strategy of using these kinds of investments to balance out fluctuations in donations seems reasonable to me. Also, using a portion of funds for investment means the Church can expand it's reach outside the United States where most of the donations are sparse, so meetinghouses, temples, etc., aren't able to be paid for with local donations since they are so small.

It sounds like you probably just have a disagreement over the level of said investment. By the way, the money at city creek also generated jobs and economic development.

Jesus had a hot dog stand.

YOU SAID:
Seniors generally volunteer for missionary service....blah, blah, blah.....

I agree, a few souls may ACTUALLY want to, why they would, I know not. The majority, though have brainlessly followed the dictates of the ruling church for so long, they just do what they are "supposed" to do for the billionth time. They know they don't want to, but they need to show an example to thier kids, or they must follow the profit, they need to store up blessings in heaven (since they can't practice polygamy), they are trying to mitigate their responsibility for their wayward exmo children. They could potentially want to volunteer for a real charity, as you suggest. But who ever heard of a Moron actually doing that...unless it did support their LD$ agenda. Morons, in general can't support a cause other than the LD$ Church unless supporting that cause in some way promotes the LD$ church.


I think this lovely Church News Article sums it up:
http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/61277/BYU-Education-Week-Senior-missionary-work.html
It even, along with the usual drivel, lets you know the god ordained rules and how you can pay for your blessings. All in all, a heartwarming and lovely prospect...especially since that service can "save" your family.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2012 08:51PM by goatsgotohell.

I did feel judged at church all the time. What I said, what I wore, what I did - it was all scrutinised.

We were constantly told not to judge others, however the lesson manuals were filled with stories about Norman Nonmormon making wrong choices and Molly Mormon making the right choices.

As young women, we were aware that we had to make the most of our looks and appear as pretty Molly's, or else we would not attract an RM.

We were supposed to get our Young Woman medallions, graduate seminary and Institute, fulfil our callings and be oh so bubbly yet spiritual all the time. The girls who didn't fit the mould missed out on the RMs.

If anything, those are probably the ONLY two that positively connect Mormonism with mainstream Western culture.

Jedediah Purdy, Zygmunut Bauman, and Mark Edmundson are only three of many authors who have identified and written about these two attributes of modern life.

The most materialistic and judgmental person I've ever known is one of my cousins who is a Presbyterian. Neither she or her husband have ever had anything to do with Mormonism.

However, I do wonder if the pressure on Mormons to tithe may cause a somewhat higher incidence of materialism than among other populations. I would imagine that if Mormons do *not* appear materially successful, their ability to give 10% of their income might be called into question by their fellow church members. Just speculating.

YOU WROTE:
I do wonder if the pressure on Mormons to tithe may cause a somewhat higher incidence of materialism than among other populations. I would imagine that if Mormons do *not* appear materially successful, their ability to give 10% of their income might be called into question by their fellow church members. Just speculating.

That is an interesting point. There may even a cultural Mormon reason for being materialistic. But that certainly isn't supported by the doctrine. But then again, when has the Mormon culture ever exactly matched the doctrine?

We have become a country of gatherers and collectors and hoarders. We have so much stuff we fill up thousands of storage units, for instance.

(I don't personally, but there are some in every town.)

I am convinced that religion has nothing to do with the level of collecting of stuff that goes on. Some of it is a mental disorder (extreme hoarding for instance), and some of it is the appreciation of historical stuff as we see in shows like American Pickers.

People live in larger and larger homes also. What was sufficient for a four person family (1000 to 1200 sq ft) is now way over twice that amount of space. More space = more stuff!

I don't think we can make a blanket statement about why people are materialistic or judgmental. Some people just are!

There us also a new trend on the opposite end - to downsize, to live in much smaller spaces.

No, LDS are not anymore materialistic and judgmental than the rest of the country or any other religion.
They are just like everyone else usually.

I was born and raised Mormon (but never really a part of it) in other parts of the U.S., and I had no concept of prejudice and materialism UNTIL I moved to Utah. It's everywhere here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2012 10:26PM by happyexmormon.

An example: When you travel to China, the Maldives or somewhere else in the world because everybody else is doing it, do you travel really because you want to or that you have to because everybody else is doing it?

Most globetrotters I know travel a lot but they never come home to tell something introspective about the people they visited.

Most of it can be cooked down to - I have been there, and you have not!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2012 02:13AM by volrammos.

Wow that's a lot of mall-apologetics up thread. Somebody likes shopping?