What kind of Mormon are you?

[UtahDan]

Okay then. Let's kick this pebble down the hill. I want to get a sense of where people are on the faith spectrum. My assumption is that there is going to be talk about Mormonism. Honest but respectful is what I am shooting for, with heavy emphasis on respectful. Let's see who came to the party.

[UtahDan]

Did I leave off any important categories? I tried to make them broad.

[Diehard Ute]

As the only person, so far, to vote no connection whatsoever, I'd just like to point out I'm a NATIVE Utahns with no LDS ties. I want a prize :D

[UtahDan]

As the only person, so far, to vote no connection whatsoever, I'd just like to point out I'm a NATIVE Utahns with no LDS ties. I want a prize :D

No one believes you. That is not even possible.

[LA Ute]

Did I leave off any important categories? I tried to make them broad.

Maybe "I'm not a Mormon" and "I profess a different faith" could be added?

[Uncle Ted]

Did I leave off any important categories? I tried to make them broad.

Mormon Fundamentalist.

[SoCalCoug]

I have serious questions about the foundations of the faith. But, I think it's still possible for the church to be the best way for us to fulfill the purpose of our being here, and to prepare for what comes afterward. I think the LDS understanding of reality is kind of like a kindergartener trying to understand how an engine works. It's given to us in a way that we can accept, but it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.

[cowboy]

Did I leave off any important categories? I tried to make them broad.
A category that isn't there, but is in my opinion fairly significant is 'believe whole-heartedly, but struggle to live it.' Reminds me of a time my grandfather got a call from the bar, telling him to get down there because he had a sheepherder in there that was beating the crap of four other herders (it was tradition for all the herders to go on a 2-week drinking binge when the sheep came off the mountain.) This was a guy who hadn't darkened the door of a church in years, and pretty much ignored the word of wisdom altogether. Still, when somebody called him a damn Mormon, he came unglued and started beating them with a pool cue. When my grandfather got there, the herder turned to my grandfather and apologized saying "They can cuss at me all they want, but nobody cusses my religion."

[big z]

I'm catholic

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[clackamascoug]

You know you can quit. It's been done before. (j/k)

[UtahDan]

So far skewing heavily to active members. Interesting.

[Expat]

I'm with DieHard and LA Ute. The poll seems to be a little bit "you're either with us or you're against us." How about adding "I practice another faith" or something similar?

BTW, yes, I am a born-and-raised native Utahn, and I have never been Mormon.

[Diehard Ute]

I'm with DieHard and LA Ute. The poll seems to be a little bit "you're either with us or you're against us." How about adding "I practice another faith" or something similar?

BTW, yes, I am a born-and-raised native Utahn, and I have never been Mormon.

ah, the best kind of Utahn! ;)

[UtahDan]

I'm with DieHard and LA Ute. The poll seems to be a little bit "you're either with us or you're against us." How about adding "I practice another faith" or something similar?

BTW, yes, I am a born-and-raised native Utahn, and I have never been Mormon.

Because I was trying to take the temperature on Mormonism. The option that describes you is the last one. The reason I did it that way is if I didn't lump everyone who is a nevermo into one category, I would need dozens of additional categories.

[Expat]

I understand what you were trying to do. I was only offering an opinion on the wording, and how it might have been presented differently to be less exclusionary.

If you're trying to take a sample of the board, I think you'll miss some non-mormons who will not even bother to click the link because of the wording of the title. But again, I know that wasn't your goal, to take a survey of non-mormons.

[Pheidippides]

So far skewing heavily to active members. Interesting.

Curious indeed. Any conventional wisdom of Ute fans as the less Mormon or less devout Mormon community vis a vis their Cougar brethren seems to be taking a nasty knock compared to TAFKACUF (double so because I voted in this poll).

[UtahDan]

I understand what you were trying to do. I was only offering an opinion on the wording, and how it might have been presented differently to be less exclusionary.

If you're trying to take a sample of the board, I think you'll miss some non-mormons who will not even bother to click the link because of the wording of the title. But again, I know that wasn't your goal, to take a survey of non-mormons.

Fair enough, not looking to leave anyone out. I don't consider myself Mormon so I am definitely sensitive to the us v. them stuff. Maybe I'll do a poll directed a non-Mormons.

[BYU71]

I believe enough to accept the leadership of the church and the rules and regulations they lay down whether they actually come from God or not. Not enough to follow all of them, but enough that I wouldn't ask them to change the rules to make me feel comfortable.

Therefor on occasion I play golf on Sunday with my boys and grandson and don't worry I am destroying their testimonies. I don't go to Sunday School or Priesthood even though some of my Bishops won't let me get a TR or bless grandkids because of it. I say my prayers every night and thank God as strongly as I can for all he has blessed me with and ask for blessing on others. Especially blessings for my kids and grandkids.

I really hope my parents are with God right now because they sure as heck deserve to be.

[Moliere]

Hmmm, I am inbetween two of those options and UD probably knows which ones. I live the Mormon way enough to have a calling that puts me in Ward Council but am honest enough with myself to recognize that some of it (including some important parts or the restoration narrative) was just plain made up. That's about as far as I'll go in this open forum.

[Rocker Ute]

Hmmm, I am inbetween two of those options and UD probably knows which ones. I live the Mormon way enough to have a calling that puts me in Ward Council but am honest enough with myself to recognize that some of it (including some important parts or the restoration narrative) was just plain made up. That's about as far as I'll go in this open forum.

Curious about the bolded statement. Does that mean you believe, but have problems with some of the restoration narrative, or you don't believe but like the outcome, or maybe something in between. If the latter, are you being honest enough with yourself but not honest enough with the church?

I'm not trying to call you out, it just piqued my interest. I'll put myself as a true believer yet natural skeptic if that is possible to be one and the same.

In my ward we had two guys who fell in the category of not really believing in it fully, but lived the rules for a variety of reasons. One guy was open about it, was pretty open about what his problems with it were, but also was a Gospel Doctrine teacher (Sunday School teacher for those not up on the lingo). Pretty good teacher really. The other guy, same sort of boat, but also living a ruse. Wanted, for reasons unbeknownst to me, to have leadership positions so he said what he needed to to get there.

Latter guy flamed out spectacularly eventually, former guy is still plugging along.

For me, if I didn't believe I'd be out... some friends who don't believe and stay talk about how they like the culture or the outcome of it all, for me, the culture is my main sticking point. Never liked being around mormons, never felt comfortable.

[smokymountainrain]

Option two describes me nearly perfectly. Nice job, UD!

[Pheidippides]

Curious about the bolded statement. Does that mean you believe, but have problems with some of the restoration narrative, or you don't believe but like the outcome, or maybe something in between. If the latter, are you being honest enough with yourself but not honest enough with the church?

I'm not trying to call you out, it just piqued my interest. I'll put myself as a true believer yet natural skeptic if that is possible to be one and the same.

In my ward we had two guys who fell in the category of not really believing in it fully, but lived the rules for a variety of reasons. One guy was open about it, was pretty open about what his problems with it were, but also was a Gospel Doctrine teacher (Sunday School teacher for those not up on the lingo). Pretty good teacher really. The other guy, same sort of boat, but also living a ruse. Wanted, for reasons unbeknownst to me, to have leadership positions so he said what he needed to to get there.

Latter guy flamed out spectacularly eventually, former guy is still plugging along.

For me, if I didn't believe I'd be out... some friends who don't believe and stay talk about how they like the culture or the outcome of it all, for me, the culture is my main sticking point. Never liked being around mormons, never felt comfortable.

I am exactly your former guy. I'm not super public about it but my bishop knows and is cool, and in the meantime I go off the script a lot in my classes. There are many reasons to stay involved for the semi or non believer (just as there are many reasons to leave).

[Moliere]

Curious about the bolded statement. Does that mean you believe, but have problems with some of the restoration narrative, or you don't believe but like the outcome, or maybe something in between. If the latter, are you being honest enough with yourself but not honest enough with the church?

I believe in enough to be a card carrying member, but I wouldn't be shocked if the BoM was just made up (that doesn't make it any less scripture), the canonized first vision takes incredible liberty on what actually happened, the church has no more authority to perform ordinances than the Catholic Church, etc.

I stay in because the church brings me happiness, especially the theology, of which most is marvelous even if the church is trying to move away from some of it. Of course no one in my ward knows any of this, but I'm not hiding it, they just never ask. They just assume I'm all in on everything because I participate and because my wife is orthodox (she knows where I stand mostly). It's amazing what people just assume if you don't just start spouting off.

[midnightversion]

I'm a Mormon Fundamentalist and the title bothers me a bit. I claim to believe in true Mormonism, as established by Joseph Smith. I claim to be more Mormon than Mormons.

Most of them don't like it when I say that.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I'm a Mormon Fundamentalist and the title bothers me a bit. I claim to believe in true Mormonism, as established by Joseph Smith. I claim to be more Mormon than Mormons.

Most of them don't like it when I say that.

I think I have an idea of what you are saying here, but could you expand on this a little? I hate putting thoughts into other people's mind.

[midnightversion]

The LDS Church has made several changes in doctrine, practice and ordinances. I don't agree with the changes. If we define Mormonism by what was taught and practiced by Joseph Smith, then the LDS Church only remotely resembles Mormonism. I believe in ALL that he taught, established and restored.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The term 'LDS Church' (or more accurately 'L-dS') refers to the SLC branch because it is the largest. But there are very many offshoot, and I am fascinated by divergent histories. Frankly the SLC version is most comfortable because that is how I was raised, but other branches are very interesting and doubly so due to our shared history.

The CoC (RLDS) for instance are a modern evolution of pre-Nauvoo Mormonism, while the Fundamentalist groups are evolved from groups that split off around the time of the Manifesto. Interestingly this was also before the Word of Wisdom was considered to be mandatory, but rather was still a suggestion similar to the Seventh Day Adventists. MV, correct me if I am wrong.

I have a coworker who belongs to what is essentially a non-denominational bible study group that actually descended from one of the post-1843 splinter groups, I believe it was the Bickertonites.

As for me: I am fully active and enjoy the sense of belonging, but I don't follow all of the prescribed behaviors, and I do not believe much of the doctrines, theology, and am essentially an agnostic Deist.

ETA: I dislike much of what I call the culture of Mormonism. But I love the people and the great sense of community present at the local level.

[Pheidippides]

The term 'LDS Church' (or more accurately 'L-dS') refers to the SLC branch because it is the largest. But there are very many offshoot, and I am fascinated by divergent histories. Frankly the SLC version is most comfortable because that is how I was raised, but other branches are very interesting and doubly so due to our shared history.

The CoC (RLDS) for instance are a modern evolution of pre-Nauvoo Mormonism, while the Fundamentalist groups are evolved from groups that split off around the time of the Manifesto. Interestingly this was also before the Word of Wisdom was considered to be mandatory, but rather was still a suggestion similar to the Seventh Day Adventists. MV, correct me if I am wrong.

I have a coworker who belongs to what is essentially a non-denominational bible study group that actually descended from one of the post-1843 splinter groups, I believe it was the Bickertonites.

As for me: I am fully active and enjoy the sense of belonging, but I don't follow all of the prescribed behaviors, and I do not believe much of the doctrines, theology, and am essentially an agnostic Deist.

ETA: I dislike much of what I call the culture of Mormonism. But I love the people and the great sense of community present at the local level.

I wouldn't call the CoC "Pre-Nauvoo". I would call them a "Nauvoo-period public theology offshoot". Certainly their theology has changed over time, as has ours (meaning the LDS SLC branch) but their roots are very much in Nauvoo. They simply rejected the private and secretive side of the Nauvoo practice (largely polygamy and temple endowment). Admittedly this is my opinion based on my readings.

I would not be at home in a CoC congregation but I would feel better about the theology and practice thereof. There is much to admire there.

I don't think Joseph Smith would recognize either of them as the successor to his Nauvoo-era church. Not without a lot of explanation and history, anyway.

[NorthwestUteFan]

By time frame they obviously grew out of Nauvoo. Emma knew she couldn't go west with the Brighamites because she didn't want to marry Brigham Young and also disliked much of the Nauvoo-era teachings that BY would continue.

My comment referred to theology. That which I have learned by reading John Hamer, it seems the CoC was heavily influenced by those who were 'left behind' at various places: Kirtland, Missouri, and eventually Nauvoo. For instance the temple was a special place of worship, but was not secretive and didn't include the Masonic ties nor the theology of the current post-Nauvoo temples. In Kirtland, for instance, they alowed ministers from other local congregations to teach and preach at the pulpits.

The CoC famously tried to prove that polygamy was introduced by BY. Joseph Smith III travelled to SLC in the late 1800s to interview people who knew his father, etc. Perhaps the biggest change introduced by BY was the open (some would say flamboyant) practice of polygamy, while Joseph Smith was highly secretive about it and even denied it publically when at the time he in fact had over a dozen wives ("people say I have many wives, when I can see only one! ").

[Ma'ake]

I think Joseph Smith was a believer, had a very fertile imagination, and became to believe in what he created in greater amounts, as the reaction and followers increased. I don't think he was a garden-variety con artist, only bent on accumulating money & power for himself. (The issue with young brides may have betrayed a weakness, but I can't honestly say I wouldn't have fallen into the same trap.)

I have a son on a mission, though I haven't been active for about 35 years, and following the admonition of my son, wife, the neighbors, my 85 year old aunt and I'm sure many who have gone on before, I've attempted to read the BOM. In terms of reading it cover to cover, I always get stuck on the Sword of Laban story, and have to set it aside. This is supposed to be historic. I just don't buy it, I'm sorry, but the God I believe in wouldn't instruct somebody to decapitate someone else.

Anyway, this morning my wife had be skip ahead to another part of Nephi where instruction is given on baptism; just as Jesus was baptized, everyone else needs to be baptized.

Here's my question - there's supposed to be some eternal truths, the ordinances are eternal, with really no wiggle room for deviation in how they're carried out. If a young Priest mangles the blessing of the sacrament or leaves something out, the Bishop has him do the prayer over again. I presume the same thing is true for baptism. If the wording in the baptism was "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, amen", it would have to be done again, because the Holy Ghost was left out.

So, when John the Baptist baptized Jesus, did he say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, in... uh... in your name, and also the name of the Holy Ghost"? Exactly how did that ordinance go?

Also, we read another part that where Jesus says something like "if you turn your back on me, you would have been better not to ever know me", or something like that. I remember as a kid being taught that Outer Darkness was the place for people who had a testimony and then claimed to not have one. Today the teaching is that almost nobody goes to Outer Darkness, maybe not even Hitler. Like the change in teaching about skin color being a curse, it seems like this is a case of cherry-picking to create a more attractive message for potential members.

The claim is that the gospel is timeless and doesn't change, but I think everyone can agree the teachings have evolved quite a bit over the years. This just doesn't square up, with me.

[midnightversion]

To turn your back on the Savior is to know that he exists and to deny him. It's equivalent to going outside at noonday, looking up at the sun and saying, "That's not the sun." It takes a complete knowledge and then complete denial.

Not very many people fall into that category.

[Pheidippides]

By time frame they obviously grew out of Nauvoo. Emma knew she couldn't go west with the Brighamites because she didn't want to marry Brigham Young and also disliked much of the Nauvoo-era teachings that BY would continue.

My comment referred to theology. That which I have learned by reading John Hamer, it seems the CoC was heavily influenced by those who were 'left behind' at various places: Kirtland, Missouri, and eventually Nauvoo. For instance the temple was a special place of worship, but was not secretive and didn't include the Masonic ties nor the theology of the current post-Nauvoo temples. In Kirtland, for instance, they alowed ministers from other local congregations to teach and preach at the pulpits.

The CoC famously tried to prove that polygamy was introduced by BY. Joseph Smith III travelled to SLC in the late 1800s to interview people who knew his father, etc. Perhaps the biggest change introduced by BY was the open (some would say flamboyant) practice of polygamy, while Joseph Smith was highly secretive about it and even denied it publically when at the time he in fact had over a dozen wives ("people say I have many wives, when I can see only one! ").

Ah. Then we are agreed. I feel so badly for poor Joseph Smith III, who seems to have been a pretty decent fellow but couldn't get a straight answer out of his mom about his day's involvement with polygamy.

[LadyUte]

I attend church every Sunday. Hold a calling. But, I do have a problem sticking to all the rules. I have been pretty vocal on uf.n about some of the rules I do not follow. Most of the people close to me do not know about this however.

[Mrs. Funk]

I attend church most weeks, teach the young women (occasionally while wearing pants :)), and have lots of questions and unorthodox beliefs/viewpoints. The past five years have brought many transitions in my faith. So far I've weathered the storm but sometimes I wonder why I stick around.

[Utahute72]

I probably approach this question from a different point of view than most on here. Having been raised and trained as a skeptic I will never fully accept anything on faith. I have remained active enough to teach Gospel Doctrine, be a member of branch presidencies and priesthood presidencies, although I'm less so now. I do think that the base Mormon theology and doctrine most closely dovetails with science of any of the faiths I've studied. I think the promises are intriguing. I will say that I've been involved with a number of multifaith discussion groups and each time they have sent me in quest of an answer about the basics of doctrine I have been able to find an answer that satisfied my curiosity. To me the most powerful promise is that if you really want to know and ask with a sincere desire and true intent an answer will be provided. I do think the church works less well in areas where it is the dominant religion because you have too many who only attend because of social pressures. I am particularly distressed by those that display neither humility or charity.

[LadyUte]

I attend church most weeks, teach the young women (occasionally while wearing pants :)), and have lots of questions and unorthodox beliefs/viewpoints. The past five years have brought many transitions in my faith. So far I've weathered the storm but sometimes I wonder why I stick around.
I am in YW as well. And I also wonder what keeps me going. Part of that is my children. I have a 16 year old and she is overboard as far as the gospel goes. Always talking about it. I am not ready to have any sort of discussion with her. Especially not the I am not sure if I really believe the church is true. It would devastate her. Maybe when she is older.

[Newbomb Turk]

I have a hard time believing any of it. That said, if believing it helps someone in their life, then I am all for it. It's just not for me.

[Mrs. Funk]

I endured a lesson today by a member of the YW presidency that had me ready to run out of the room. The topic of was why we should treat our bodies like temples, which is all right of itself. The lesson seriously was 35 minutes about how tattoos and piercings make you ugly and then another 15 minutes about how if you dress like a whore you'll be treated like a whore.

Maybe others were as upset as I was, but most people were nodding right along. I felt like an ostrich at a turkey farm. Days like today leave me feeling very alone at church.

[IdahoUteTroutHead]

In my opinion the church needs to be 100% honest about the pock marks of it's history. Full disclosure of "actual" history and doing away with the sugar coating may affect some hard core member at the outset but in the long run I think it would really improve how people view the church and relate to it and it's background.

[Newbomb Turk]

That attitude of "if you dress like a whore you'll be treated like a whore" really makes me angry. To me, it's the same as saying that a women is inviting rape if she dresses a certain way.

On a lighter note, I do treat my body like a temple......a temple of doom......

[IdahoUteTroutHead]

I endured a lesson today by a member of the YW presidency that had me ready to run out of the room. The topic of was why we should treat our bodies like temples, which is all right of itself. The lesson seriously was 35 minutes about how tattoos and piercings make you ugly and then another 15 minutes about how if you dress like a whore you'll be treated like a whore.

Maybe others were as upset as I was, but most people were nodding right along. I felt like an ostrich at a turkey farm. Days like today leave me feeling very alone at church.

It is opinion and ridiculous conjecture like that, judging a book by it's cover, which ends up driving more people away from the church than people to it.

[Mrs. Funk]

That attitude of "if you dress like a whore you'll be treated like a whore" really makes me angry. To me, it's the same as saying that a women is inviting rape if she dresses a certain way.

I agree completely.

[Utahute72]

I endured a lesson today by a member of the YW presidency that had me ready to run out of the room. The topic of was why we should treat our bodies like temples, which is all right of itself. The lesson seriously was 35 minutes about how tattoos and piercings make you ugly and then another 15 minutes about how if you dress like a whore you'll be treated like a whore.

Maybe others were as upset as I was, but most people were nodding right along. I felt like an ostrich at a turkey farm. Days like today leave me feeling very alone at church.

Hence the reason for the comment about humility and charity, or compassion. There is a better way to encourage youth to make correct choices without a demeaning, condescending attitude about it.

[Moliere]

Here's my question - there's supposed to be some eternal truths, the ordinances are eternal, with really no wiggle room for deviation in how they're carried out..

If ordinances are eternal, than the LDS church is in trouble. We've changed them quite a bit since the 1840s, including the most recent change to the initiatory ordinance. I bet in 100 years we'll be sprinkling kids heads with water for baptism.

[LA Ute]

Hence the reason for the comment about humility and charity, or compassion. There is a better way to encourage youth to make correct choices without a demeaning, condescending attitude about it.

So true. There are lots of reasons within LDS teachings for dressing modestly without going the "dress like a slut, be treated like a slut" route.

[IdahoUteTroutHead]

Hence the reason for the comment about humility and charity, or compassion. There is a better way to encourage youth to make correct choices without a demeaning, condescending attitude about it.


It is hard for mainstreamers of the church to do that when they think they are exclusive to what is right and are absolved from any judgment due to their jusitifcations that they are absolutely "right" and in their rightul place for teaching/saying things like this.

[Jarid in Cedar]

If ordinances are eternal, than the LDS church is in trouble. We've changed them quite a bit since the 1840s, including the most recent change to the initiatory ordinance. I bet in 100 years we'll be sprinkling kids heads with water for baptism.

Blasphemy

[Scratch]

That attitude of "if you dress like a whore you'll be treated like a whore" really makes me angry. To me, it's the same as saying that a women is inviting rape if she dresses a certain way.

On a lighter note, I do treat my body like a temple......a temple of doom......

I think it's very fair to say that the way you present yourself (whether it's dress, grooming, body art, hygiene, weight, etc.) will affect the way others treat you and interact with you. I also think it's important for people, including youth, to understand that. The problem, as pointed out here, is taking that message too far as an extreme scare tactic.

[Utah]

I think Joseph Smith was a believer, had a very fertile imagination, and became to believe in what he created in greater amounts, as the reaction and followers increased. I don't think he was a garden-variety con artist, only bent on accumulating money & power for himself. (The issue with young brides may have betrayed a weakness, but I can't honestly say I wouldn't have fallen into the same trap.)

I have a son on a mission, though I haven't been active for about 35 years, and following the admonition of my son, wife, the neighbors, my 85 year old aunt and I'm sure many who have gone on before, I've attempted to read the BOM. In terms of reading it cover to cover, I always get stuck on the Sword of Laban story, and have to set it aside. This is supposed to be historic. I just don't buy it, I'm sorry, but the God I believe in wouldn't instruct somebody to decapitate someone else.

Anyway, this morning my wife had be skip ahead to another part of Nephi where instruction is given on baptism; just as Jesus was baptized, everyone else needs to be baptized.

Here's my question - there's supposed to be some eternal truths, the ordinances are eternal, with really no wiggle room for deviation in how they're carried out. If a young Priest mangles the blessing of the sacrament or leaves something out, the Bishop has him do the prayer over again. I presume the same thing is true for baptism. If the wording in the baptism was "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, amen", it would have to be done again, because the Holy Ghost was left out.

So, when John the Baptist baptized Jesus, did he say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, in... uh... in your name, and also the name of the Holy Ghost"? Exactly how did that ordinance go?

Also, we read another part that where Jesus says something like "if you turn your back on me, you would have been better not to ever know me", or something like that. I remember as a kid being taught that Outer Darkness was the place for people who had a testimony and then claimed to not have one. Today the teaching is that almost nobody goes to Outer Darkness, maybe not even Hitler. Like the change in teaching about skin color being a curse, it seems like this is a case of cherry-picking to create a more attractive message for potential members.

The claim is that the gospel is timeless and doesn't change, but I think everyone can agree the teachings have evolved quite a bit over the years. This just doesn't square up, with me.

So you don't believe in the Bible?

[norm]

I endured a lesson today by a member of the YW presidency that had me ready to run out of the room. The topic of was why we should treat our bodies like temples, which is all right of itself. The lesson seriously was 35 minutes about how tattoos and piercings make you ugly and then another 15 minutes about how if you dress like a whore you'll be treated like a whore.

Maybe others were as upset as I was, but most people were nodding right along. I felt like an ostrich at a turkey farm. Days like today leave me feeling very alone at church.

i think you'd be surprised at how many others probably share your feelings. my wife is always outspoken about this kind of stuff and will usually say something about it if somebody says ridiculous stuff like this. most of the time multiple people will thank her afterwards for speaking up.

[480ute]

I think it's very fair to say that the way you present yourself (whether it's dress, grooming, body art, hygiene, weight, etc.) will affect the way others treat you and interact with you. I also think it's important for people, including youth, to understand that. The problem, as pointed out here, is taking that message too far as an extreme scare tactic.
I cannot get over the fact that the average 18 year old nowadays thinks a neck, facial, hand, or even lower arm tattoo is a good idea. Even at the height of my youthful reckless behavior I still had the foresight to see how it might limit my job options some day. Absolutely baffling.

[IdahoUteTroutHead]

The Bible is as pourus a work of analogous literature as they come. I am not saying it isn't a worthwhile work for some but it is a loose and shaky base to determine some people's foundation of belief.

[IdahoUteTroutHead]

On the flip side I wouldn't think twice about giving a job to someone who has a tattoo, facial har or more than two piercings........

[480ute]

On the flip shide I wouldn't think twice about giving a job to someone who has a tattoo, facial har or more than two piercings........
Depends on the job though, doesn't it?

I have multiple tattoos (all from when I was between 18-21), but all are easily covered up. I have nothing against tattoos, just knew when I was getting them that some people would not hire me if I had tats on my neck, lower arms, or face.

[IdahoUteTroutHead]

I think it does depend on the job to a degree, but then again it is form of self expression that doesn't necessarily reflect on one's ability to perform or "not" perform their chosen profession.

[480ute]

I think it does depend on the job to a degree, but then again it is form of self expression that doesn't necessarily reflect on one's ability to perform or "not" perform their chosen profession.
I have no doubt that twenty years from now my cardiologist will have facial tattoos, and gauges in his ears.

[IdahoUteTroutHead]

I actually think I would rather go to a Dr. that has a nice tattoo and a nose ring.

[Mrs. Funk]

Hence the reason for the comment about humility and charity, or compassion. There is a better way to encourage youth to make correct choices without a demeaning, condescending attitude about it.

I agree. Things got pretty bad during the part of the lesson where the young women began telling pious stories about their slutty immodest friends and saying they saw this fat person with a stretched out tattoos and how ugly it was, blah blah blah. I kept waiting for the teacher to correct the course but she kept validating the judgment and meanness. I wouldn't want to join the church if I heard this kind of stuff.

I made a couple of comments but it wasn't enough to change the course of the lesson.

[480ute]

I agree. Things got pretty bad during the part of the lesson where the young women began telling pious stories about their slutty immodest friends and saying they saw this fat person with a stretched out tattoos and how ugly it was, blah blah blah. I kept waiting for the teacher to correct the course but she kept validating the judgment and meanness. I wouldn't want to join the church if I heard this kind of stuff.

I made a couple of comments but it wasn't enough to change the course of the lesson.
"Tell us more about the slutty friends," said the teacher.

[Mrs. Funk]

"Tell us more about the slutty friends," says the teacher.

Not in so many words and no one ever said slutty, but the teacher asked several more times if anyone else has had similar experiences.

[IdahoUteTroutHead]

I don't know about any of you but the sluttiest gals I grew up with looked like the Mother Mary.......no tattoos, no piercings and not one condom in their dress pockets.

[LadyUte]

I agree. Things got pretty bad during the part of the lesson where the young women began telling pious stories about their slutty immodest friends and saying they saw this fat person with a stretched out tattoos and how ugly it was, blah blah blah. I kept waiting for the teacher to correct the course but she kept validating the judgment and meanness. I wouldn't want to join the church if I heard this kind of stuff.

I made a couple of comments but it wasn't enough to change the course of the lesson.
What I want to know is what is considered slutty? I have never been one to tell my girls they can't wear tank tops, sleeveless shirts or shorts that go above your knee. All of which I don't find slutty. But I am sure they would be considered immodest by some people. One of my daughters had someone comment about her sleeveless dress one time and she will no longer wear dresses like that.

AS far as tattoos go, I have several of them. I actually like them and plan on getting a few more.

[480ute]

What I want to know is what is considered slutty? I have never been one to tell my girls they can't wear tank tops, sleeveless shirts or shorts that go above your knee. All of which I don't find slutty. But I am sure they would be considered immodest by some people. One of my daughters had someone comment about her sleeveless dress one time and she will no longer wear dresses like that.

AS far as tattoos go, I have several of them. I actually like them and plan on getting a few more.
I was kicked out of the cafeteria at BYU (I was there attending a baseball camp when I was around 14) for wearing shorts that were too short. I guess I'm a slut.

[IdahoUteTroutHead]

Lady, I think the problem lies within a few select group of people pushing a "modesty" agenda and the rest falling in line with what that is.....I think modesty falls more in line with how one presents themselves and less about what one dresses in.

[Utah]

I was kicked out of the cafeteria at BYU (I was there attending a baseball camp when I was like 14) for wearing shorts that were too short. I guess I'm a slut.

Heellllluuuuooooo.

[macktruck32]

I was kicked out of the cafeteria at BYU (I was there attending a baseball camp when I was around 14) for wearing shorts that were too short. I guess I'm a slut.

Well.....

[480ute]

Well.....
They were two-tone black and blue Umbros. Take a seat before you picture me in those, Mack.

[Utah]

I probably ought to say what I am.

It is tough to say. I do believe it all. I believe in modern revelation, believe that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God, just like Moses, etc.

I believe all the tenets and follow all the rules.

I try to read my scriptures every day, and pray as well.

I worked my tail off on my mission, and do my best to fulfill all my callings.

Now, all of that being said, I do appreciate a good joke, maybe even a slightly dirty one. ;)

I pay my tithing and fast offerings and when I can, toss in extra for the PEF, and other things (your welcome BYU).

I work my tail off, and that has meant for the last six months or so, my church attendance has been spotty.

That has made some of our ward members think I am inactive, and that makes me chuckle, because I do more/live it more than a lot of them do (self-righteous on my part, right?), I just have to work some weeks and can't make it to church.

[IdahoUteTroutHead]

Utah, no worries man.

We are all entitled to believe what we chose to.

Thanks for that.

Now get to church next Sunday.

[GUBA]

With regard to the modesty issues. My mother was pretty strict with my sisters. She reasoned that they should wear clothing as young women that they could wear if they were wearing temple garments. Her reasoning was the notion of why get used to wearing clothing styles that they would have to give up once they went through the temple. I don't pay much heed to what others consider "slutty" or immodest. I think if the woman feels comfortable wearing it then why not wear it? Frankly I think far too much importance is placed on outward appearance and this seems especially true in the wards I have attended here in Utah.

[Moliere]

The LDS Church has made several changes in doctrine, practice and ordinances. I don't agree with the changes. If we define Mormonism by what was taught and practiced by Joseph Smith, then the LDS Church only remotely resembles Mormonism. I believe in ALL that he taught, established and restored.

Do you believe all that Jospeh Smith practiced and preached? If so, you better stay away from my wife!

[LadyUte]

Lady, I think the problem lies within a few select group of people pushing a "modesty" agenda and the rest falling in line with what that is.....I think modesty falls more in line with how one presents themselves and less about what one dresses in.
I agree with you. Clothing really isn't that big of a deal.

[LadyUte]

With regard to the modesty issues. My mother was pretty strict with my sisters. She reasoned that they should wear clothing as young women that they could wear if they were wearing temple garments. Her reasoning was the notion of why get used to wearing clothing styles that they would have to give up once they went through the temple. I don't pay much heed to what others consider "slutty" or immodest. I think if the woman feels comfortable wearing it then why not wear it? Frankly I think far too much importance is placed on outward appearance and this seems especially true in the wards I have attended here in Utah.
WE had a lesson about modesty a few weeks ago and my teacher said the same thing. I told my girls afterward I don't believe this is how you need to dress. This seems a little overboard to me. I say let girls have fun with their clothes while they are young. Doesn't hurt anything.

[LadyUte]

I was kicked out of the cafeteria at BYU (I was there attending a baseball camp when I was around 14) for wearing shorts that were too short. I guess I'm a slut.
Your sexy 14 year old legs must have been to much for them. ha ha ;)

[480ute]

Your sexy 14 year old legs must have been to much for them. ha ha ;)
This is going way off course, and treading into creeeeepy territory (like 72 kind of creepy).

As a non-Mormon parent, actually non-religious in general, I do set some boundaries for the way my daughter's can look before they leave the house. At the same time, I'm somewhat lucky that my girls seem to prefer pants to shorts, and t-shirts to tank tops.

[LadyUte]

This is going way off course, and treading into creeeeepy territory (like 72 kind of creepy).

As a non-Mormon parent, actually non-religious in general, I do set some boundaries for the way my daughter's can look before they leave the house. At the same time, I'm somewhat lucky that my girls seem to prefer pants to shorts, and t-shirts to tank tops.
My girls are pretty good as well. No booty shorts or bare midriffs. One of my daughters had a thing for the boy swim trunks that girls like to wear to the pool. I had to veto that. Thought it looked ridiculous.

[Mrs. Funk]

What I want to know is what is considered slutty? I have never been one to tell my girls they can't wear tank tops, sleeveless shirts or shorts that go above your knee. All of which I don't find slutty. But I am sure they would be considered immodest by some people. One of my daughters had someone comment about her sleeveless dress one time and she will no longer wear dresses like that.

AS far as tattoos go, I have several of them. I actually like them and plan on getting a few more.

The slutty girls wear short skirts and shorts and spaghetti strap tanks, apparently. Oh, and strapless or backless dresses to prom.

I found it disturbing when the teacher talked disdainfully about little girls wearing sleeveless dresses, as if they're even capable of being immodest.

[LadyUte]

The slutty girls wear short skirts and shorts and spaghetti strap tanks, apparently. Oh, and strapless or backless dresses to prom.

I found it disturbing when the teacher talked disdainfully about little girls wearing sleeveless dresses, as if they're even capable of being immodest.
Oh jeez. I find that ridiculous. Especially about the little girls. There is nothing wrong with a sleeveless dress. I am not going to tell my 8 year old, or my 16 year old, she has to dress as if she had been to the temple. Silly.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If ordinances are eternal, than the LDS church is in trouble. We've changed them quite a bit since the 1840s, including the most recent change to the initiatory ordinance. I bet in 100 years we'll be sprinkling kids heads with water for baptism.

The current LDS concept of ordinances = baptism, endowments, etc. and that these ordinances are both eternal and essential for salvation is another example of doctrine evolving over time. The term "ordinances" when used in the bible does not refer to priesthood ordinances, but had a more general definition as a belief or practice. This was also the definition used in the early LDS church.

From the original Wentworth letter:



[3] We believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
[4] We believe that these ordinances are 1st, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; 2d, Repentance; 3d, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; 4th, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Note that in article three we are saved by obedience to ordinances. We never use that language anymore. We talk about obedience to commandments. Also note that the four items in article four are called ordinances, including faith and baptism.

Now compare to the current articles of faith:



[3]We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
[4]We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

They inserted the term "principles and".

[midnightversion]

I sure hope when my daughter is 16 that she dresses like she's been to the temple.

[Moliere]

The current LDS concept of ordinances = baptism, endowments, etc. and that these ordinances are both eternal and essential for salvation is another example of doctrine evolving over time. The term "ordinances" when used in the bible does not refer to priesthood ordinances, but had a more general definition as a belief or practice. This was also the definition used in the early LDS church.

From the original Wentworth letter:



Note that in article three we are saved by obedience to ordinances. We never use that language anymore. We talk about obedience to commandments. Also note that the four items in article four are called ordinances, including faith and baptism.

Now compare to the current articles of faith:



They inserted the term "principles and".

Hey, stop crapping away time over here and get CS up and running. I'm tired of talking about slutty women on this board!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Hey, stop crapping away time over here and get CS up and running. I'm tired of talking about slutty women on this board!

lol.

Sorry man. We went from v3.84 -> 3.87. Then from 3.87 -> 4.22. Now they are installing v5. For some reason you have to go through the entire sequence in order.

[LadyUte]

I sure hope when my daughter is 16 that she dresses like she's been to the temple.
That is fine. i just don't think there is anything wrong with a teenage girl if she wants to wear a tank top.

[Ma'ake]

The Bible is an interesting collection of stories, wisdom, direction. It's written by so many different people, in different periods, in different languages. Do I think there was a great flood, the literal version of the Noah's Arc story? No. Do I think Solomon had a lot of sage advice, especially for that period? Yes.

I can see where the Gnostics, the early Christian group that got snuffed out soon after Jesus was gone, got their idea that there were two distinct Gods - the rather stern, uncompromising, vengeful God of the Old Testament, and the benevalent, loving, forgiving God represented by Jesus' teachers. The Gnostic thesis makes sense, based on the distinct "tones".

The Bible has archeology going for it - the places are there, most of them.

The fascinating part of the Bible are the parts that were thrown out at Nicea that we're recently discovering. From a LDS standpoint, some aspects of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene parallel LDS thought. Why wouldn't Jesus have a wife?

I know the jury's still out, but the most explosive of the lost gospels is the Gospel of Judas. If it really was a setup, an agreement between Jesus and Judas for the betrayal to occur, it turns a lot of Christian thought on it's head.

Not Biblical, but there's another lost part of Christianity that lives on today, namely the 7 Christian churches founded by the Apostle Thomas in South India. A colleague of mine is Hindu, her husband is Christian, from a church founded by Thomas. Much of their teachings and scriptures were destroyed by the Catholics once they were discovered, but it's a branch of Christianity that is distinct. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants & Restorationists (ie, Mormons). Where do you put these Indians with lineage back to Thomas? Does the LDS view of Apostacy automatically cover these folks, too? Or could they have carried the Priesthood keys (at least until the Catholics got to them)?

In my book you don't need to be Christian to be saved, and I don't know that I believe in the devinity of Jesus. Great teacher, sure. Son of God? I dunno about that. So, for me, it's all kind of academic.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I cannot get over the fact that the average 18 year old nowadays thinks a neck, facial, hand, or even lower arm tattoo is a good idea. Even at the height of my youthful reckless behavior I still had the foresight to see how it might limit my job options some day. Absolutely baffling.

A friend of mine here in Eugene owns a Pita Pit downtown that has a tattoo shop right next door. He told me that the owner of the tat shop has told him that he won't give someone under 30 a neck or hand tat, because he doesn't think that a college kid is ready to make a life altering decision like that.

Since this is a Mormon thread I'll note that neither are Morms, nor likely have an opinion on them.

[LA Ute]

I probably ought to say what I am.

It is tough to say. I do believe it all. I believe in modern revelation, believe that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God, just like Moses, etc.

I believe all the tenets and follow all the rules.

I try to read my scriptures every day, and pray as well.

I worked my tail off on my mission, and do my best to fulfill all my callings.

Now, all of that being said, I do appreciate a good joke, maybe even a slightly dirty one. ;)

I pay my tithing and fast offerings and when I can, toss in extra for the PEF, and other things (your welcome BYU).

I work my tail off, and that has meant for the last six months or so, my church attendance has been spotty.

That has made some of our ward members think I am inactive, and that makes me chuckle, because I do more/live it more than a lot of them do (self-righteous on my part, right?), I just have to work some weeks and can't make it to church.

It's OK, Utah, there's a big tent here on UB5. You and I can hang out together in the corner for "People Who Buy It All and Are In With Both Feet, But Are Still Cool Because We Are Utah Fans." We'll have some company there and we'll share our Diet Cokes with the rest of the folks in the tent.

[San Diego Ute Fan]

It's OK, Utah, there's a big tent here on UB5. You and I can hang out together in the corner for "People Who Buy It All and Are In With Both Feet, But Are Still Cool Because We Are Utah Fans." We'll have some company there and we'll share our Diet Cokes with the rest of the folks in the tent.

Since there's so much room in that corner, you can add me to the group.

[Utah]

Sweet. See you guys there...when the Utes travel to Cali.

[LA Ute]

Since there's so much room in that corner, you can add me to the group.

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

[SeattleUte]

I teach a church class faithfully every week (7-8 year old kids). That being said, I would probably classify myself as a New Order Mormon or Cafeteria Mormon.

You're a progmo. Progressive Mormon.

I'm an apostate Mormon.

[Utahute72]

A friend of mine here in Eugene owns a Pita Pit downtown that has a tattoo shop right next door. He told me that the owner of the tat shop has told him that he won't give someone under 30 a neck or hand tat, because he doesn't think that a college kid is ready to make a life altering decision like that.

Since this is a Mormon thread I'll note that neither are Morms, nor likely have an opinion on them.

I love the Jimmy Buffett song that talks about a tattoo as being, "A permanent reminder of a temporary feeling."

[Jarid in Cedar]

I love the Jimmy Buffett song that talks about a tattoo as being, "A permanent reminder of a temporary feeling."

The other one from the master that is Jimmy Buffett. "There is a fine line between Saturday night and Sunday morning"

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

You're a progmo. Progressive Mormon.

I'm an apostate Mormon.

I came very close to checking to see if the domain ProgMoBlog was open after you suggested it on CUF for the name change. If I knew how to make a website I'd want that to be mine.

[Drunk tank]

I chose option 2. But am more of a hybrid between 1, 2, 3. I believe most doctrine, but don't regularly attend or follow all the rules. I've been working on being more active and getting the kids more involved, but still have a ways to go. Even if I were fully active, I'd still have a hard time following all the rules. My willpower is too weak!

[clackamascoug]

I'm a bit of a whack job. I believe the LDS Church holds Priesthood Keys important to exhaltation, but I don't think that everybody else is inferior, or in danger of not receiving what they expect come eternity. If you make a covenant with God, I believe he will honor it, if you were sincere and held true to the end. What does it matter to him? I also believe that the LDS Church as we know it will not exist in the hereafter. It will be more inclusive than imagined, but Priesthood will be the prevaling governing body. On a personal level, I've almost convinced myself that String Theory and Quantum Mechanics come into play and that we exist in dimensions other than this one, where we live out the consequences of all our decisions. With every decision you spin off a life and live out the consequence. I can't say how often this happens, but this theory resolves a lot of issues that concern a lot of people.

If part of the purpose of coming to earth is to gain experience, living out the consequences of all your actions, and compiling all the condensed data of a million dimensions of life experience back into a single being, sounds a lot more efficient at becoming omniscient than observing the trait in a supreme being. I could go on, but as you can see..... its late.

[Virginia Ute]

Since there's so much room in that corner, you can add me to the group.

I'd probably gravitate toward that corner as well...and I love to throw down the Diet Cokes!

[LA Ute]

I'd probably gravitate toward that corner as well...and I love to throw down the Diet Cokes!

With lemon or lime? We have both!

[Virginia Ute]

With lemon or lime? We have both!

Can't go wrong with either of those! I usually go with the lime, though.

[San Diego Ute Fan]

Ok, some snobbery here...

I'm above the diet coke with lemon or lime or anything built in. SDUF uses strictly fresh lemons and limes, usually right off the tree in the back yard. Ah, it's good to be king.

[SoCalPat]

I put myself down for option 3 (I'd love to know who the other person is who chose that option). At the same time, my level of belief in its teachings has dwindled significantly over the years. The idea that it's the one and only true church -- something I was adamant about when on my mission -- is insulting because history has shown the LDS Church to be on the wrong side (only changing them out of expediency toward a better end) of some very key teachings over the years. From a principle standpoint, I find it largely acceptable. It's led by imperfect men whose relationship with God is no different than yours or mine -- it's all relative to where you stand personally with your Savior. If the church could acknowledge this and admit it's no different than any other church, I'd probably at least attend Sunday services.

[FMCoug]

The results of this poll show why we Cougars and Utes are so darn similar and interested in these communities amongst each others. As much as some like to smack talk, when it comes down to it, most of as are just two sides of the same homogeneous Mormon coin.

[FountainOfUte]

I'm a tithe-paying, WoW living (I realize this could be its own thread), RM, temple married, temple-recommend holding, calling-holding, crappy-but-trying home teacher, not-Utah-born-but-Utah-raised, life-long Mormon.

I believe the LDS church is what it claims to be -- I'll call that "Point A." I am "Point B," and there are a lot of things as I grow older that I don't understand, have grown skeptical of, get annoyed by, etc. that fall in between Points A and B. But I believe fully in Point A and I have total peace in it. My faith in Point A helps me ultimately come to peace with questions, annoyances, weirdness, apparent wrongs, etc. that occur between the two points. Does that make sense? I'm more open minded religiously than I was as a kid. My parents weren't dogmatic, but when you're young you see things as black and white. I think that's how a less mature brain digests stuff like religion; at least speaking for myself.

As I get older, I have more life experience and see my imperfections more clearly and watch them grow daily, I feel like the lens that I see Christ's gospel through has changed. Slowly, very, very slowly, I'm starting to understand the Atonement of Christ and its importance, depth, and breadth. It is the bottom line. I'm in my late 30s and figure I'm just scratching the surface of learning about Christ, his sacrifice for us, and what that means I should do about it for myself, in my marriage, for my kids, and for mankind. Some points of LDS doctrine that I thought were paramount to me at say 16 are not as important to me now. And there are some LDS teachings that I didn't think much about as a youth that are absolutely precious to me today now that I see and experience them in a different context.

I'm not really bothered by inconsistencies and "changes" to Mormon doctrine, practices, and ordinances as some people point out. I think Christ is at the head of this thing and bringing us all along a path to enlightenment that doesn't always add up to us here on the ground. I just have to put some faith in Him and then worry about myself and if I feel like I'm living life in a way that's pointed toward Him or not. I struggle. I have weaknesses. I sin. I give into temptations that I know I shouldn't. My spirituality is a nasty roller coaster. I try to acknowledge these things to God and do better (and more often than not fail).

Ultimately, I think this mortal journey is about all of us as a human family. It's about loving each other, being patient with one another, and trying as best we can to turn each other to Christ and allowing him to take over. Sounds easy, but it's not, and I'm nowhere near doing it successfully.

[LA Ute]

I'm a tithe-paying, WoW living (I realize this could be its own thread), RM, temple married, temple-recommend holding, calling-holding, crappy-but-trying home teacher, not-Utah-born-but-Utah-raised, life-long Mormon.

I believe the LDS church is what it claims to be -- I'll call that "Point A." I am "Point B," and there are a lot of things as I grow older that I don't understand, have grown skeptical of, get annoyed by, etc. that fall in between Points A and B. But I believe fully in Point A and I have total peace in it. My faith in Point A helps me ultimately come to peace with questions, annoyances, weirdness, apparent wrongs, etc. that occur between the two points. Does that make sense? I'm more open minded religiously than I was as a kid. My parents weren't dogmatic, but when you're young you see things as black and white. I think that's how a less mature brain digests stuff like religion; at least speaking for myself.

As I get older, I have more life experience and see my imperfections more clearly and watch them grow daily, I feel like the lens that I see Christ's gospel through has changed. Slowly, very, very slowly, I'm starting to understand the Atonement of Christ and its importance, depth, and breadth. It is the bottom line. I'm in my late 30s and figure I'm just scratching the surface of learning about Christ, his sacrifice for us, and what that means I should do about it for myself, in my marriage, for my kids, and for mankind. Some points of LDS doctrine that I thought were paramount to me at say 16 are not as important to me now. And there are some LDS teachings that I didn't think much about as a youth that are absolutely precious to me today now that I see and experience them in a different context.

I'm not really bothered by inconsistencies and "changes" to Mormon doctrine, practices, and ordinances as some people point out. I think Christ is at the head of this thing and bringing us all along a path to enlightenment that doesn't always add up to us here on the ground. I just have to put some faith in Him and then worry about myself and if I feel like I'm living life in a way that's pointed toward Him or not. I struggle. I have weaknesses. I sin. I give into temptations that I know I shouldn't. My spirituality is a nasty roller coaster. I try to acknowledge these things to God and do better (and more often than not fail).

Ultimately, I think this mortal journey is about all of us as a human family. It's about loving each other, being patient with one another, and trying as best we can to turn each other to Christ and allowing him to take over. Sounds easy, but it's not, and I'm nowhere near doing it successfully.

Beautiful. Thanks.

[Virginia Ute]

I'm a tithe-paying, WoW living (I realize this could be its own thread), RM, temple married, temple-recommend holding, calling-holding, crappy-but-trying home teacher, not-Utah-born-but-Utah-raised, life-long Mormon.

I believe the LDS church is what it claims to be -- I'll call that "Point A." I am "Point B," and there are a lot of things as I grow older that I don't understand, have grown skeptical of, get annoyed by, etc. that fall in between Points A and B. But I believe fully in Point A and I have total peace in it. My faith in Point A helps me ultimately come to peace with questions, annoyances, weirdness, apparent wrongs, etc. that occur between the two points. Does that make sense? I'm more open minded religiously than I was as a kid. My parents weren't dogmatic, but when you're young you see things as black and white. I think that's how a less mature brain digests stuff like religion; at least speaking for myself.

As I get older, I have more life experience and see my imperfections more clearly and watch them grow daily, I feel like the lens that I see Christ's gospel through has changed. Slowly, very, very slowly, I'm starting to understand the Atonement of Christ and its importance, depth, and breadth. It is the bottom line. I'm in my late 30s and figure I'm just scratching the surface of learning about Christ, his sacrifice for us, and what that means I should do about it for myself, in my marriage, for my kids, and for mankind. Some points of LDS doctrine that I thought were paramount to me at say 16 are not as important to me now. And there are some LDS teachings that I didn't think much about as a youth that are absolutely precious to me today now that I see and experience them in a different context.

I'm not really bothered by inconsistencies and "changes" to Mormon doctrine, practices, and ordinances as some people point out. I think Christ is at the head of this thing and bringing us all along a path to enlightenment that doesn't always add up to us here on the ground. I just have to put some faith in Him and then worry about myself and if I feel like I'm living life in a way that's pointed toward Him or not. I struggle. I have weaknesses. I sin. I give into temptations that I know I shouldn't. My spirituality is a nasty roller coaster. I try to acknowledge these things to God and do better (and more often than not fail).

Ultimately, I think this mortal journey is about all of us as a human family. It's about loving each other, being patient with one another, and trying as best we can to turn each other to Christ and allowing him to take over. Sounds easy, but it's not, and I'm nowhere near doing it successfully.

Amen. Well said!

[LA Ute]

By the way, we have caffeine free Diet Coke and sparkling water available in our corner of the UB5 tent, for those so inclined. Also diet A&W root beer.

[FMCoug]

By the way, we have caffeine free Diet Coke and sparkling water available in our corner of the UB5 tent, for those so inclined. Also diet A&W root beer.

You need to step up the offerings. Henry Weinhard's root beer at least.

[LA Ute]

You need to step up the offerings. Henry Weinhard's root beer at least.

Fine with me. "Big tent" means big tent!

[Rocker Ute]

I'm a tithe-paying, WoW living (I realize this could be its own thread), RM, temple married, temple-recommend holding, calling-holding, crappy-but-trying home teacher, not-Utah-born-but-Utah-raised, life-long Mormon.

I believe the LDS church is what it claims to be -- I'll call that "Point A." I am "Point B," and there are a lot of things as I grow older that I don't understand, have grown skeptical of, get annoyed by, etc. that fall in between Points A and B. But I believe fully in Point A and I have total peace in it. My faith in Point A helps me ultimately come to peace with questions, annoyances, weirdness, apparent wrongs, etc. that occur between the two points. Does that make sense? I'm more open minded religiously than I was as a kid. My parents weren't dogmatic, but when you're young you see things as black and white. I think that's how a less mature brain digests stuff like religion; at least speaking for myself.

As I get older, I have more life experience and see my imperfections more clearly and watch them grow daily, I feel like the lens that I see Christ's gospel through has changed. Slowly, very, very slowly, I'm starting to understand the Atonement of Christ and its importance, depth, and breadth. It is the bottom line. I'm in my late 30s and figure I'm just scratching the surface of learning about Christ, his sacrifice for us, and what that means I should do about it for myself, in my marriage, for my kids, and for mankind. Some points of LDS doctrine that I thought were paramount to me at say 16 are not as important to me now. And there are some LDS teachings that I didn't think much about as a youth that are absolutely precious to me today now that I see and experience them in a different context.

I'm not really bothered by inconsistencies and "changes" to Mormon doctrine, practices, and ordinances as some people point out. I think Christ is at the head of this thing and bringing us all along a path to enlightenment that doesn't always add up to us here on the ground. I just have to put some faith in Him and then worry about myself and if I feel like I'm living life in a way that's pointed toward Him or not. I struggle. I have weaknesses. I sin. I give into temptations that I know I shouldn't. My spirituality is a nasty roller coaster. I try to acknowledge these things to God and do better (and more often than not fail).

Ultimately, I think this mortal journey is about all of us as a human family. It's about loving each other, being patient with one another, and trying as best we can to turn each other to Christ and allowing him to take over. Sounds easy, but it's not, and I'm nowhere near doing it successfully.

I'd like to consider what you are saying, but you have a mustache and so I find it hard to trust you.

[Dawminator]

I'm a tithe-paying, WoW living (I realize this could be its own thread), RM, temple married, temple-recommend holding, calling-holding, crappy-but-trying home teacher, not-Utah-born-but-Utah-raised, life-long Mormon.

I believe the LDS church is what it claims to be -- I'll call that "Point A." I am "Point B," and there are a lot of things as I grow older that I don't understand, have grown skeptical of, get annoyed by, etc. that fall in between Points A and B. But I believe fully in Point A and I have total peace in it. My faith in Point A helps me ultimately come to peace with questions, annoyances, weirdness, apparent wrongs, etc. that occur between the two points. Does that make sense? I'm more open minded religiously than I was as a kid. My parents weren't dogmatic, but when you're young you see things as black and white. I think that's how a less mature brain digests stuff like religion; at least speaking for myself.

As I get older, I have more life experience and see my imperfections more clearly and watch them grow daily, I feel like the lens that I see Christ's gospel through has changed. Slowly, very, very slowly, I'm starting to understand the Atonement of Christ and its importance, depth, and breadth. It is the bottom line. I'm in my late 30s and figure I'm just scratching the surface of learning about Christ, his sacrifice for us, and what that means I should do about it for myself, in my marriage, for my kids, and for mankind. Some points of LDS doctrine that I thought were paramount to me at say 16 are not as important to me now. And there are some LDS teachings that I didn't think much about as a youth that are absolutely precious to me today now that I see and experience them in a different context.

I'm not really bothered by inconsistencies and "changes" to Mormon doctrine, practices, and ordinances as some people point out. I think Christ is at the head of this thing and bringing us all along a path to enlightenment that doesn't always add up to us here on the ground. I just have to put some faith in Him and then worry about myself and if I feel like I'm living life in a way that's pointed toward Him or not. I struggle. I have weaknesses. I sin. I give into temptations that I know I shouldn't. My spirituality is a nasty roller coaster. I try to acknowledge these things to God and do better (and more often than not fail).

Ultimately, I think this mortal journey is about all of us as a human family. It's about loving each other, being patient with one another, and trying as best we can to turn each other to Christ and allowing him to take over. Sounds easy, but it's not, and I'm nowhere near doing it successfully.


This is me too. Very well said and I think it describes most active LDS members. I think sometimes we get a bad rap about being blind sheep and all that cognitive dissonance stuff. Thanks for typing that out FoU.

[San Diego Ute Fan]

By the way, we have caffeine free Diet Coke and sparkling water available in our corner of the UB5 tent, for those so inclined. Also diet A&W root beer.

Pellegrino or Perrier? That makes a huge difference, LA.

[FMCoug]

This is me too. Very well said and I think it describes most active LDS members. I think sometimes we get a bad rap about being blind sheep and all that cognitive dissonance stuff. Thanks for typing that out FoU.

One thing that I have learned from these boards over the years is that there is much more diversity of thought and beliefs than it appears. I don't know that there is any description of "most active members" that would be accurate. Not to mention that life is about progress and our attitudes change over the years.

[LA Ute]

Pellegrino or Perrier? That makes a huge difference, LA.

Both. Like I said, when we ALUFs say "big tent," we mean it!

[Scorcho]

I've had a few major trials over the past few years that have forced me to make a choice, either draw closer to my Heavenly Father or withdraw further away from him. I hate that I need "wake up calls" in order to become more humble and spiritual, but that's seems to be my pattern. I've found great solace during those trials in the LDS Faith. Prayer, reading scriptures and attending church and the temple have helped me endure those dark times.

There are certainly many aspects of LDS Doctrine that are a head scratcher to me (views on homosexuality, polygamy, etc.) and perhaps I'm just naive, but I'm not going to let those few things that I don't understand interfere with the benefits and blessings I receive by embracing Mormonism.

[LA Ute]

I've had a few major trials over the past few years that have forced me to make a choice, either draw closer to my Heavenly Father or withdraw further away from him. I hate that I need "wake up calls" in order to become more humble and spiritual, but that's seems to be my pattern. I've found great solace during those trials in the LDS Faith. Prayer, reading scriptures and attending church and the temple have helped me endure those dark times.

There are certainly many aspects of LDS Doctrine that are a head scratcher to me (views on homosexuality, polygamy, etc.) and perhaps I'm just naive, but I'm not going to let those few things that I don't understand interfere with the benefits and blessings I receive by embracing Mormonism.

Wthout "wake-up" calls, Scorcho, I'd be a lump of useless slovenliness sitting in the corner. I need them too. Hang in, brother.