The lowdown on us Mormons... (Price, Heber: maintenance, living in, price)

[osugirl2]

Originally Posted by kaytidid

Because it is a "Stake" (steak) house, of course. If you aren't familiar, a Stake House is a building for the purpose of religious gathering.

Good post, Katzpur. I am going to see if I can come up with a good question for you.

Ah yes I get it now, just a little slow.....lol I am familiar with the ward and stake terminology

[eggalegga]

Originally Posted by markg91359

The Word of Wisdom which appears in Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants, speaks of not consuming alcohol, tobacco, or "hot drinks". In fact, it also speaks of eating meat sparingly and only consuming it during the winter months.

The "hot drinks" thing has been mentioned before under another heading. Some have contended this could even mean hot chocolate if taken literally. What these people fail to understand is that the Word of Wisdom appeared in the 1830's when there were no other hot drinks, but tea and coffee. It is pretty clear that its a proscription against consuming tea and coffee. Most people believe that the consumption of coffee and tea was prohibited because they contain caffeine. I've never been totally sure that is accurate. It may have been something as simple as the fact that coffee and tea were expensive at the time and church leaders in the 1830's and 1840's didn't want members spending scarce money on things that had to be imported from other areas. There is very little scientific evidence that coffee and tea are bad for people. Although, I choose not to consume them primarily because I have acid reflux disease and both tea and coffee make it worse. By the way, some LDS people drink herbal tea because there is no caffeine in it.

What I do find a bit ironic is the de-emphasis that seems to have been placed on consuming meat sparingly. The obesity epidemic affects Utah as severely as other parts of America. Consuming fat and cholesterol has got to be more of a dietary issue than drinking a few cups of coffee is.

Yet, I will also see some LDS families refuse to let their children drink a coke or pepsi because of some minor caffeine content (other soda pop seems to be ok). Obviously, because soda didn't exist at the time its not covered in the Word of Wisdom either.

Very informative post. Tried to rep you but I have to rep others before I can rep you again. Thanks for the info. I a Utah, (non LDS) native & never knew the story behind the no coffee thing. Never knew it ever had anything to do with being hot.

[Trotter67]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Probably at least two thirds of the threads in the Utah (including the Salt Lake City and St. George forums) are from people considering a move to Utah but who are afraid to take the leap because they are not LDS. Granted, I am LDS and have never lived outside of Utah, so I will admit that maybe my perspective is probably pretty one-sided. On the other hand, when 9 out of 10 of the posters in those threads ask for help in finding a place to settle where there aren't too many of those dreaded Mormons, I have to wonder if it's something other than our horns that everybody is afraid of.

Anyway, this thread is for all those folks who want some accurate information straight out of the horse's mouth so to speak about Mormon doctrine, culture and history. I know I could have started this thread in the religion subforum but it's not my intent to start a debate on "Are Mormons Christians?" (although it's a valid question) or to initiate a sounding board for people to trash Mormonism. My hope is that it will be a thread used primarily by people who are thinking about moving here, people who are new here and are confused about why they can't order prime rib at the Stake House or for long-time non-LDS Utahns who have questions about the faith that they don't dare ask their next-door neighbor for fear of getting a visit from the missionaries the next day.

So if there is anything about Mormons or Mormonism that you have always wanted to know but were afraid to ask, "This is the Place!"

Didn't a lot of Mormons immigrate from Britain?

[markg91359]

Didn't a lot of Mormons immigrate from Britain?

Indeed, my mother's side of the family were Mormons who converted to the church and immigrated here from Scotland.

The immigrants who joined the early church from Europe were largely either Scandinavian or were from Britain.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming

I was told that the strictures against coffee, tea and other drinks containing caffeine became part of the Canon in the early part of the Twentieth Century. Is this not true?

It was not until some fifty years after the Word of Wisdom was first given to Joseph Smith that the Lord revealed to John Taylor that from that time forth, the Word of Wisdom was to be considered a commandment and not until 1919, at which time Heber J. Grant was the President of the Church, and 86 years after the revelation was first given to Joseph Smith, that obedience to the Word of Wisdom was made a prerequisite for receiving a temple recommend.

For those who don't know, the LDS canon is comprised of four books, all of which we believe to be scriptural in nature: The Holy Bible (we generally use the KJV), The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. Of these, The Doctrine and Covenants is the only one subject to change, as it is a compilation of modern-day revelations given to men we believe to be living prophets. Most of those revelations were given to Joseph Smith, but a few were given more recently. Any time a new doctrine is established, it is included in The Doctrine and Covenants. The World of Wisdom is found in Section 89 of The Doctrine and Covenants.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...?

I believe that it is the chapels in individual neighborhoods and communities that I am referring to. Don't get me wrong, they are well built and have some great linear and what I would call contemporary lines.

But they seem to lack individuality and a certain amount of character. Mostly single story structures, pared down linear steeples, a LOT of brown and liver colored brick, sleek, narrow metal silver lettering on exterior nice looking but lacks flair.

I'd say your observation is right on the mark. All chapels that were built within roughly the same time frame are very much alike, inside and out. They are attractive, but definitely not showy. "Lacking in flair" would be a nice way to describe them.

In your initial post, you said something that kind of made me think you were of the impression that it is the members of the Church that decides that they want a new chapel and goes to the Church leadership for approval and to select a design. Maybe I misunderstood you. If so, I apologize. Just to clarify, it doesn't work that way at all. All decisions about when and where to build a new chapel come from the Church leadership itself. The decision is based upon need, i.e. on how many LDS people live in a given area. Mormons attend church at a chapel to which they are assigned, based on where they live. Of course they are free to visit other chapels, but their membership records, etc. are based upon where they live. Each congregation is called a "ward." It's more or less like a parish.

[ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...?]

So the decision on when and where to build a chapel comes from high command, not the members. May I respectfully suggest they consider engaging the members more at least on design aspects? An archtectural think tank or review board of sorts. Just a suggestion.

Certainly very nice folks who attend these chapels though....

Thanks for clarifying this...

[Lmejh]

I think the reason all the more recent chapels are so cookie cutter is because the Church needed a cheap way to build a lot of chapels fast, with little maintenance involved later on. I must admit, the chapels built before the '90s (I'm estimating) are all more original and have more flavor.

[Lamborgotti]

Actually, it's a bit of both. Sometimes, if it's a new area like Daybreak UT, the church will reserve space and plan to build meetinghouses. However, there are times when the decision is left to the Stake President of an area to decide when and where a replacement is needed, although he needs approval from a general authority of some sort (I'm not sure which, exactly). The wards that use the building are always asked to donate money, and sometimes time or other resources, for the construction of a meetinghouse. Some people choose to give monthly donations called fast-offerings, which are used by the individual ward and often go towards the building.

There are hundreds of different design combinations and variations I've seen, and I think most of them are chosen specifically by the leaders of the specific ward or stake. Occasionally you'll see one with completely off-the-wall decorations, so you know something's up. Temples are only built by the will of the president of the church. Occasionally congregations will request that a temple be built in their vicinity, and are usually asked to fast, pray, and donate resources that would help in the building of a temple. The Newport Beach temple is one example of where the members were very involved in the construction of their temple.

About 8 years ago the decision was made (I don't know who made the suggestion) to do something about our existing meetinghouse because of age, wear-and-tear, plumbing problems, and the fact that it is one a fault line without being able to withstand an earth-quake very well. The Stake President had the option of either retrofitting the existing building or building a new one for slightly more money. He made the decision to build a new one, and the stake held a "vote" to sustain his decision. I don't know how much of a role he had in choosing the design, it's the first example I remember of the current general design used for most current churches. The only major unique thing about it is that it has a custom, 16-rank pipe organ, with exposed decorative pipes. I think it was a gift from someone in the ward because it is abnormally large for an organ in an LDS meetinghouse. Members of the stake (as this was a stake center) were invited to take anything they wanted from the ward, such as folding chairs, tables, furniture, hymn books, signs, etc. before they tore it down. Some people actually took the grass sod and put it in their own yards.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Lmejh

I think the reason all the more recent chapels are so cookie cutter is because the Church needed a cheap way to build a lot of chapels fast, with little maintenance involved later on. I must admit, the chapels built before the '90s (I'm estimating) are all more original and have more flavor.

I don't know about that. I was growing up in the '50s and I can spot chapels all over the valley that look almost exactly like the one I went to.