Anyone Mormon on here (curious the way Mormons view relationships)? (call, divorce)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was just wondering, as someone who rarely drinks, doesn't smoke, prefers to steer clear of non-caffeinated beverages (primarily because it sometimes messes with my stomach and I don't need a stimulant as is), I feel there may be an advantage to looking into converting to Mormonism. It also seems like women in that religious culture are a little more laid back. I believe it is because they don't feel like they have to be on their toes worrying about guys just wanting to have sex with them and dumping them since Mormon culture also supports sex only during marriage. If anyone has insight into how Mormon women view relationships (similarities, differences) it would be much appreciated.
As someone who converted to the Mormon religion but dropped out, I have to tell you it's not as easy as you think. It's a demanding religion. For dedicated Mormons, it's not just about not smoking and drinking...It's all about work, church, family and having no time for anything else. It can be very bubble-like and there's always this pressure to do more, more, more (church activities, have more kids, etc.). Obviously, not all Mormons are hard core. I wasn't, but church and church activities still took up a fair amount of my time, so it's a demanding religion no matter which way you cut it. It's not all bad, but it just wasn't for me (for a lot of reasons).
I will also say that some of the Mormon cultural stuff just seems weird if you didn't grow up in the religion. They don't mean to be, but Mormons are pretty insular. If they hadn't been that way, the religion wouldn't have survived...but it leaves some odd/annoying side effects.
I like Mormons too. I used to be super close with one family that lived next door to me. I always
admired them but I didn't have the guts to join. Plus, I'm divorced now, I don't think they'd accept me.
I say go for it.
The part of Mormons not accepting you into the religion just because you're divorced is most definitely not true. Mormons have a lower than average divorce rate, but it's not super low.
Which is why I am doing research, and why I'm asking questions as well. They still do believe in the bible, from what I've read, they just also subscribe to the book of Mormonism. Their philosophy about life doesn't seem that far off from what Roman Catholicism is about. I was never planning on making a split second decision, just pondering it.
I grew up Catholic. Trust me. It's different. Most Catholics have a "pick from the menu" mindset as far as their religion goes (and trust me, you probably have that mindset much more than you think you do). The Mormon Church is really not into dissenting viewpoints of any kind on anything. Mormons aren't really very good at taking about controversial subjects. They avoid anything controversial like the plague. They don't like to have discussions about anything that might go against Church doctrine.
My own personal advice? Don't do it...they will never, ever treat you as a fellow member in equal standing, at their congregation. You will never be treated the same way as LDS members who are brought up from birth into the fold. A convert simply does not get the same kind of equal respect or regard, as those born into it. They will very likely always treat you as though you are "inferior" and "lesser", to those who have been in this denomination longer and/or all of their lives...there is a very noticeable difference.
This is absolutely NOT true. No one ever treated me as "less than" because I was a convert. However, I often did feel like an outsider...but that was because Mormons just make assumptions about life that non-Mormons don't....stuff they don't even realize unless it's pointed out to them.
I could not disagree more with your assessment of the book.
Krakauer refers to and cites Brodie repeatedly in his book. Enough so that I've added it to my cue for more reading on the subject. And I don't think Krakauer makes a vicious attack on the LDS church. He is definitely skeptical of organized religion, I'll give you that. But in the context of his book, he is taking a close look at an extreme branch of the LDS religion and giving a critique. He is not excoriating the religion as a whole. Rather he is making a commentary about how religion lends itself to extreme practices at times.
It is not a condemnation of the LDS faith. I do think he comes down hard on some of the practices of some extremists within that faith, but he is very clear that the mainstream LDS church denounces these practices. The work is a study on how these extreme practices evolved from the early days of the church. Furthermore I think it is fair to condemn an extreme branch of religion that allows for girls as young as 12 and 13 to be "given" in marriage, sometimes against their will, and for their 30 or 40 something husbands to exercise marital rights on them. "Under the Banner of Heaven" was published a few years before Warren Jeffs made the news. But it's not like Krakauer needs to publish an update with a few new chapters. What more can be said that he has not already said? "Prophets" misuse the scriptures of their faith to control people and do ghastly things. They are gifted and persuasive people who are able to deceive others. People like this exists everywhere, but sometimes they apply their "skills" to abusing faith and when they do the results are often disastrous.
I also doubt Krakauer would have been any more kind and gentle if this were an examination of any other extreme branch of any religious organization. And furthermore as I was reading it I found a few similarities with extremists in my own faith. If I were to elaborate I would hijack this thread. Those comments are for the religion forum.
My disenchantment with the book was that he kept switching back between these extremists and the darkest parts Mormon history to try to convince the reader, i thought, of some inherent evil in the religion. Perhaps I read too much into that. As I recall, he left Smith pretty much alone, but Smith was far from a Saint and had raised a large militia, preparing to take on the US Army in Missouri, although he backed down when he reached a compromise with the governor that he was happy with. You should read the book I referenced. Smith was a fascinating creature, a relatively uneducated huckster who started to write a book about the history of native Americans and ended up creating an enduring religion, its theology, liturgy and practice, none of which has changed very much.
As someone who converted to the Mormon religion but dropped out, I have to tell you it's not as easy as you think. It's a demanding religion. For dedicated Mormons, it's not just about not smoking and drinking...It's all about work, church, family and having no time for anything else. It can be very bubble-like and there's always this pressure to do more, more, more (church activities, have more kids, etc.). Obviously, not all Mormons are hard core. I wasn't, but church and church activities still took up a fair amount of my time, so it's a demanding religion no matter which way you cut it. It's not all bad, but it just wasn't for me (for a lot of reasons).
I will also say that some of the Mormon cultural stuff just seems weird if you didn't grow up in the religion. They don't mean to be, but Mormons are pretty insular. If they hadn't been that way, the religion wouldn't have survived...but it leaves some odd/annoying side effects.
My neighbors tried to convert us, but failed. Missionaries came by, too. I put them to work shucking corn and made them listen to my own religious philosophy. They fled, glad to get away. But I do respect many of the aspects of their community culture. I don't like the constant watchfulness, nor their attitudes toward the role of women in society. However, this can be changed. All that has to happen is that the President has to have a revelation from God and make a new pronouncement based on that, which is how the softening of their treatment of blacks occurred. Smith created that "loophole" and used it often to modify the church's practice to fit closer together with the events whirling around the church and its members in the early days.
My disenchantment with the book was that he kept switching back between these extremists and the darkest parts Mormon history to try to convince the reader, i thought, of some inherent evil in the religion. Perhaps I read too much into that.
The jumping back and forth between the historical segments and the more recent narratives did make it difficult to follow at times. There were a lot of names whose descendants popped up later in the book and it was hard to keep track of who was who. But I don't think he was trying to convince anyone of inherent evil within the religion. He gave a history of how some groups splintered off from the mainstream church, and described how these extreme groups lay claim to being the one true church. However, he also points out this is common among many extreme offshoots throughout world religions, so it's not like he is picking on Mormons as being the only religion to ever spawn extremists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frihed89
As I recall, he left Smith pretty much alone, but Smith was far from a Saint and had raised a large militia, preparing to take on the US Army in Missouri, although he backed down when he reached a compromise with the governor that he was happy with. You should read the book I referenced. Smith was a fascinating creature, a relatively uneducated huckster who started to write a book about the history of native Americans and ended up creating an enduring religion, its theology, liturgy and practice, none of which has changed very much.
No, Smith was a saint. A Latter Day Saint! Ah? Ah? See what I did there? Okay, sorry for the sophomoric pause in the discussion. I think he was pretty fair with Smith. The early church did face a lot of persecution and Krakauer was very deliberate in spelling this out. I think this set the stages for some of the later atrocities, like the Mountain Meadows massacre.
One thing that I had never considered is his point that Mormonism is the only major religion to be born in the literary age that actually got off the ground and stayed in flight. A lot of other major religions existed for centuries as oral traditions with little or no record keeping available to verify stories. I suppose this is where faith plays a major role in believers to fill in the blanks for themselves. Mormons do not have this problem to the same extent of other religions because there is so much print available from the early days of their church. (Print extolling and excoriating them. Let one believe what he will.) For the church to survive such scrutiny in its early days has got to be a source of assurance to a practicing Mormon today.
One thing that I had never considered is his point that Mormonism is the only major religion to be born in the literary age that actually got off the ground and stayed in flight. A lot of other major religions existed for centuries as oral traditions with little or no record keeping available to verify stories. I suppose this is where faith plays a major role in believers to fill in the blanks for themselves. Mormons do not have this problem to the same extent of other religions because there is so much print available from the early days of their church. (Print extolling and excoriating them. Let one believe what he will.) For the church to survive such scrutiny in its early days has got to be a source of assurance to a practicing Mormon today.
Yes, i find that of great interest. Smith created the religion and pulled his flock together, although there were major ups and downs in membership. Brigham Young got them safely "the hell out of town" and consolidated what Smith had created.
This is absolutely NOT true. No one ever treated me as "less than" because I was a convert. However, I often did feel like an outsider...but that was because Mormons just make assumptions about life that non-Mormons don't....stuff they don't even realize unless it's pointed out to them.
Maybe it was not true and not applicable for you in your own case, but that doesn't make the reality and events that I actually experienced any less true, for me. Like I said earlier, I have personally seen and witnessed converts being treated poorly, harshly, and outright discriminated against, vs. the insiders and the powers that be, within the church.
They're exceedingly legalistic. You want to 'live' that way?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, sorry for the sophomoric pause in the discussion. 
I think he was pretty fair with Smith. The early church did face a lot of persecution and Krakauer was very deliberate in spelling this out. I think this set the stages for some of the later atrocities, like the Mountain Meadows massacre. 
