1) Why is it so hard, when it comes to women, for Mormons to understand that being valued is not the same as being equal?
2) If King Benjamin were put in charge of church finances, how would he spend the money? If the church were a gated neighborhood, how much money would he spend inside the gates (on landscaping, improving the golf course, expanding the swimming pool, putting new playground equipment in the park, etc.)? How much would he spend helping the poor on the other side of the gate? From 1984 to 1997, the church allocated a total of $30.7 million to non-Mormon charity work–approximately 0.2% of its assets.
3) What should missionaries tell people who have had meaningful spiritual experiences in their own faith, and who–although they are uncomfortable with certain doctrines and practices–have decided that they “don’t need to understand everything” and that they “just need to have faith” and continue to live their religion (because they’ll figure it out eventually)? What should bishops tell members who have had meaningful spiritual experiences, but who are uncomfortable with certain doctrines and practices? Should the advice in the former case be the same as in the latter? If not, then why not?
4) We believe in “teaching men correct principles and letting them govern themselves.” We also believe in “exact obedience.” We believe in the divine gift of agency–and in the necessity of “following the prophet” (even if we don’t understand why). We believe in the principle of stewardship and that men should not be commanded in all things, but then routinely consult a 403-page Handbook (formerly the Church Handbook of Instruction) to answer questions like “should I get vasectomy?” We believe that the internationalization of the church has made it even more important to focus on general principles–that’s why the 14-page Handbook, first published in 1899, has been reduced to 403 pages. [Is there a question here?]
5) How much longer would the Handbook have to be before it qualified as pharisaical?
6) Who is more arrogant? An individual that believes he or she has found the truth (and that everyone else on the planet has settled for partial truth, is mistaken, or is misguided), or an individual that acknowledges that he or she really doesn’t know anything? How can otherwise intelligent individuals honestly believe that it is the latter?
7) If we believe that the “truth will set us free,” why are we afraid of our own history? How many members of the church know that Joseph Smith dictated the BoM with his head (and a seer stone) buried in a hat? If most members aren’t familar with the origins of the BoM, why aren’t they? When does intentionally withholding “the meat” (while doing our best to sell “the milk”) become a lie of omission? How can we expect others to recognize “the truth” when we withhold it?
8) If tithing money is deposited in the church’s corporate bank accounts because God isn’t around to collect it himself, then don’t members have a responsibility to make sure tithing money is spent in a way that they believe God would want it spent? Shouldn’t members, therefore, demand a transparent accounting of the use of tithing funds? If the church produced detailed financial reports until 1959, why did it stop? If the church produces detailed financial reports for its operations in Canada and the United Kingdom, why don’t they do so in the United States? Would members pay more or less tithing if they had a better understanding of church finances?
9) Is God a polygamist?
10) Could a successful church (in terms of number of members, assets, influence, etc.) be built with members that retain control of their spiritual beliefs (and lives)? If you get what you pay for, is it also true that you’ll pay more if you think you’re getting more? Is there is a lesson here?
11) Why is the growth of the church so important to members? Why won’t the church publish simple metrics that would reflect real growth trends, like total tithing paid by geographic area? According to several metrics, the real growth rate of the church in the U.S. has been close to zero since the mid-nineties. Why does that make members uncomfortable? Should it?
12) Why does the universality of religious experience make church members uncomfortable? Why do the overwhelming majority of individual religious experiences confirm the religious traditions in which individuals were raised? What does this say about the nature of religious experiences?
13) Why is the “difficulty” of writing the BoM often used as evidence of its divinity? Quick, which of the following is the most miraculous: a) Memorizing and then reciting 22,000 digits of pi (without making a mistake), b) Learning a new language in a week, c) Composing the Messiah, by hand, all 260 pages of it, in 24 days, d) Surviving for 1 hour, 13 minutes and 48 second immersed in ice by using meditation techniques to control one’s body temperature, or e) Dictating 531 pages of scripture with one’s head buried in a hat? Is the process of attributing meaning to these “feats” really a simple black-and-white, either-he-was-a-prophet-or-a-fraud, exercise?
14) Why are church lessons so boring (and often indistinguishable from standard call-and-response liturgies)?
15) Why do church members seem to believe that the church is either hated or loved? Why is it so hard to see that most people are indifferent?
16) Is Christ a Republican? If not, then why are most church members Republicans?
Anyone want to add a few more? The floor is now yours. . .
[Last Post: 22 Look Mom, No Hands!]
;
Why can only married men teach Seminary as a full time CES Employee and not Women. Why does a Seminary teacher get fired if the couple divorces. With this policy in place with the Church Educational System, how can they say that women and those who never marry or are divorced are treated equally?
Why do the men have a priesthood session every 6 months, where the First Presidency always speaks, including the prophet, and the women have only a once-yearly general meeting, a week before Conference, and the prophet himself rarely to never addresses the women, or even attends the meeting? Why are women not allowed to give prayers in General Conference? Why do the leaders all talk with the same sing-songy voice, pausing in the same way, and drawing out the same vowels in Conference? (do they take a class on how to invoke spiritual goosebumps through the tone of one’s voice?)
Actually, on that same idea, why do we need a member of the First Presidency to speak at all? I haven’t heard of a member of the General Relief Society Presidency speak at a priesthood session. And why are the women separated from the young women when the men are not divided by age? Do the differences between the messages to young women and those over 18 not correspond to the differences between young men and the men over 18? Why don’t they just refer to the Women’s meetings as part of general conference? Why don’t they actually talk about how women do hold the priesthood as obvious in the temple?
BTW- Brent I really like question 1.
why is a woman required to hearken to her husband, who hearkens to the Father? Why, if we are all able to receive revelation, would mine have to go from God through my husband and to me. Why not through me to my husband?
Why if a little child shall lead them are we being led by men up till their death?
If we believe in continuing revelation—that the heavens are open, that we are led by living prophets, and that God will “yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God”—-then why don’t the brethren ever teach anything new? Why isn’t God speaking about the thorny, controversial issues of our day?
Priesthood leaders are only human, and when one makes a mistake why do the other priesthood leaders support
Them?
Why is there nothing in place to hold a priesthood leader accountable? Why are we taught to obey them no matter
What? Why do we worship priesthood leaders and hero worship the prophet?
If we believe that people leave because they are offended why don’t we work on being less offensive ?
AMEN!!!
Why can’t families be together to see, witness, participate in family weddings?
Why can’t they just get married first than go to the temple?
Other than to show how righteous we are or that we’ve been to the temple, why do we wear garments?
One last one and than I’ll stop. Why is the church afraid of women, sexuality, femininity?
Yes, indeed. If we are a “family” church, why would we exclude parents in the U.S. (this doesn’t happen in Europe–couples are married civilly first, then immediately allowed to go to the temple to be sealed) from one of the most important events of their (and their children’s) lives? This policy leaves emotional scars that often last a lifetime. . .
If we are a pro-family church, why are church meetings so darn NOT child-friendly? (it’s NOT developmentally normal or appropriate to ask a child under about 6 to sit still for an hour, let alone three!) Why do mothers get called into the bishop for breastfeeding in sacrament meeting (would you rather I let the baby scream? Or disrupt the meeting by hauling three children out to the teeny weeny stinky “mother’s room”? Or leave my kids alone in the meeting?!)
I can attest to the emotional scars of not having my parents present while being “sealed” in the temple. What’s more, it was a double whammy for them since I am their only child. Which means that barring divorce, or my husband and I renewing our vows outside of the temple, they will not ever see me married outside of the rather lame ring ceremony that our Bishop at the time rather reluctantly performed. Kind of a sad thing since society marks it as such an important milestone and I didn’t even have my own flesh and blood there to celebrate with me
.
Lexi, thanks for the comment. This is a policy that I have a really hard time with. Clearly it is a policy, given that things are done differently in Europe, for example, yet the church keeps it in place despite the obvious damage it leaves in its wake. I have a very difficult time respecting leaders that see the damage this policy does to people (and to family relationships) and then don’t do everything they can to change it. There are very few things that make me as angry (or sad) as the party line on this that goes something like this: “Well, everyone CAN go to the temple, they just have to live up to standards that God has set, so if they can’t see their son or daughter get married then it’s THEIR fault.” This is, of course, self-serving, intellectually-dishonest, horseshit. The primary purpose of this policy is to maintain control and leverage over people’s lives based on emotional and familial blackmail. This policy is one of the primary reasons why I have elected not to participate in the temple as part of my religious practice. I don’t want anything to do with this policy, even indirectly.
EVERYONE should read this: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2011/02/go-ahead-and-skip-that-temple-wedding.html. It’s a great post on the topic.
Why are LDS members so willing to accept Joseph Smith as the chosen, most important and amazing, honorable prophet of the entire last dispensation of time (out of all of the people on earth who could have been chosen) despite well known facts; such as
1. Purposefully deceiving his wife and the church members about “marrying” several women, including young girls, teenagers and previously married women. I use the word “marrying” loosely because the marriages were not legally recognized by anyone and he might not have had sex with all of them (but he is forgiven even if he did) and he didn’t support them financially or live with them. He was also publicly accused of sexual harrasment on more than one ocassion.
2. That he was known as a con-man and taken to trial as such on numerous occasions. That he used the same ordinary stone that he found outside in the dirt to “translate” the Book of Mormon also as a pretend tool to con people to pay him to find buried treasure and of course never finding the treasure. He also prophesied that the Kirtland bank would never fail and then it did, bankrupting thousands of members. On January 12, 1838, he faced a warrant for his arrest on a charge of illegal banking.
3. That he wrote so many errors in the Book of Mormon such as: KJV errors, anachronisms, Lamanites (who he said were American Indians) are from Israel, dark skinned people are dark because of a curse and they turn white when they are more righteous, etc
4. That most of his prophecies were never fullfilled.
5. That he translated parts of the forged Kinderhook plates and said they were real.
You can google any of these things to read more about them. However, if I bring these up to people they say things like:
God works with imperfect people
I’ve decided that prophets can be fallible
FAIR: Joseph Smith didn’t act in prophet’s role during translation of Kinderhook plates
Yet – if a person lived today with this same track record we wouldn’t give that person the time of day- let alone dedicate our lives to whatever that person decided to preach to us. We also would not believe him if he said he talked with angels and God. We would not trust him with anything of importance to us. So why are so many people willing to today?
To clarify on my earlier comment – I don’t know exactly how many members were bankrupted by the Kirtland bank, but I am fairly sure there were about 2,000 members at the time and many, if not most invested in the bank that failed.
B.B.
Here’s a cartoon for ya.
http://www.nakedpastor.com/2012/03/20/firing-squad/
Michael
Brent, can you provide info on how you came up with that 0.02% of assets number? I’d like that info!
Oh, and really poignant questions.
Very interesting questions. Here’s another:
Women were able to exercise the priesthood in the early days of the church (along with African-Americans). Why are they no longer able to do so (except in the temple)?
I also loved question #1. And #6.
If the church just released a statement declaring all previous statements about African Americans were personal opinions and not prophetic, then what is to stop them from saying the same thing about our gay brothers & sisters a few years from now?
Exactly . . . which is why I’m going with my conscience on this one. I don’t want my kids to ask me later, “Hey, Mom–what were YOU doing back then . . .?” and have to shrug my shoulders and say, “following the prophet–even though it went against everything I believed to be true about god . . .”
why are we asked to abstain from sex before marriage, then asked to keep our eye single to our spouse, but are put into the most unflattering 24 hour a day garments? How is a woman supposed to feel sexy and attractive to her husband (which we all know is a huge part of a woman’s intimate experience) when she is required to wear frumpy, male-designed underwear around her husband? As my husband and I freely admit, the Mormon adage that “garments are sexy because they mean the person wearing them is worthy” is ridiculous. They aren’t sexy, no matter how you look at them, and they rob a woman of all femininity.
my husband has commented that sometimes garment (tops at least) have some of that thin-white-shirt-without-a-bra thing going on…but in general, I agree with you.
Adding from a woman’s perspective, the majority of women are endowed right before their weddings. Assuming she has waited and not had sex with anyone, then her first sexual experience–her first time when it’s “ok to be sexy”–will be on her wedding night. With her brand new ugly garments. I can tell you *I* did not feel sexy in the least. My solution? I had other undies (white, but much more sexy) which I wore under the garments. And then I got the garments out of the way as quickly as possible.
Incidentally, there’s an interesting discussion of the female perspective on garments here http://daughtersofmormonism.blogspot.com/2012/03/episode-33-garmentsto-cover-our.html (the podcast is fairly short, and the comments are interesting).
@Fran, that information is taken from the book “Mormon America: The Power and the Promise,” by Richard N. Ostling and Joan K. Ostling, published in 2007. They got their numbers from the church itself (see pg. 131). Keep in mind that this is a constrained number (it is cash donations to non-Mormon humanitarian aid). The 0.2% of assets figure is derived by taking a fairly low estimate of church holdings during this time period ($15 billion) and dividing. Keep in mind that church assets were almost certainly MORE than $15 billion, so the actual percentage is almost certainly lower (i.e. the church donated even LESS as a percentage of assets than I’ve indicated here).
Why can’t I get a temple divorce from my ex-husband even though he cheated on me without having to get remarried and go through some bretheren for permission to remarry even though I’ve done nothing wrong? What if I never desire to remarry, why do I have to be connected to that jerk in any way?
He didn’t get excommunicated? What gives? (not that I’m a fan of excommunication, but your situation seems more than a bit unjust . . .)
Rebecca – you can get a sealing cancellation. I was married in the temple and divorced. I have since remarried, but to a non-member, who is not interested in converting. I have a sealing cancellation. Good luck!
My bishop said “No”.
Stake President said no too.
Their solution is to get me remarried in the temple and then go through the rigamarole of writing yet another letter to get some kind of permission. No thank you. Spent 5 years in and out of court trying to get a civil divorce.
Rebecca, when was this? I got my cancellation in Summer/Fall 2010. I ask because several years ago, the First Presidency circulated a letter stating that cancellations would not be given to women unless there was a replacement sealing to take its place. A few years ago, that policy changed, *but no letter of the change was sent to Stake or Ward leaders.* I only knew about it because my mom’s bishop (and my dad’s old mission companion) had handled one or two cancellations-without-replacement. At the time, my old bishop was willing to go along with it, even if there was no chance of it working – because I told him it was important to me that the First Presidency know that the question was important to me even if the answer was no. My Stake President spent months trying to talk me out of it and eventually saying no – until I could finally point to the policy change and give him the phone number of someone in the COB confirming that the policy changed. I will defend my SP’s position here: he had been told that cancellations were not granted without a replacement no matter what. He was trying to save me from pain and heartache, especially after I had to go through a long and painful divorce (though not as painful as yours). He was only willing to submit the paperwork after: 1) he had confirmation that the policy had changed, and 2) I assured him that I would not be bitter or angry if I got a “no” anyway. (I should point out that it helps that I waited 4 years to request a cancellation; they liked that I said the cancellation was in no way rash or done in retaliation.)
I hope this helps.
Love these!
Why did you baptize Hitler? Do you think he accepted the Gospel?
Why do you have inverted pentagrams on the temple and church history museum?
Cuz mormons are the pagans of christianity. We’re polytheistic and believe in theosis, why not pentagrams?!
Is it possible to believe in continuing revelation without believing our current leaders can be wrong?
Good question, Jim H.
The intellectualization of religion — I love it! Or “How to compare an apple to an orange by asking lots of brainy questions” — well done! :)
@Trevor, I guess it just comes down to whether you believe that a) God was just joking when he gave us brains (because what he really wanted us to do was just accept the religious tradition into which we happen to be born–and if we don’t understand it, just go with the flow, take it on faith, wait for answers in the next life, etc., or b) God expects us to use our brains to actively engage the world around us (and to do our best to figure things out). As you might have guessed, I’m in the latter camp.
How much do orthodoxy and orthopraxy matter? Is one more important than the other?
Brent, I totally agree with you that the Good Lord gave us all brains with a greater purpose than simply to separate our two ears. As you well know, we’re admonished to “study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people”, so on, and so forth. So, in your words, should we “actively engage the world around us”? Absolutely! One of the dangers in said engagement, however, is that “When they are learned they think they are wise”, etc., etc, and I don’t have to tell you that learning and wisdom are not synonymous. Sometimes smart-mindedness leads to high-mindedness, which in turn, leads to pride, which “bringeth a snare upon [our] souls.” And don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying this is where you’re at — all judgement has been reserved for Someone much smarter than you and me. It’s just that I’ve seen these “question” posts before, many times, in fact — i.e., “my list of questions is bigger and longer and stronger and more powerful than your list of answers, and if I can come up with even a single question that you can’t answer than Ha! What do you think of that?!” It’s called “Stump the Mormon,” a game that some people love to play. Let’s take a quick look at your “Joseph Smith and how he translated the Book of Mormon” question. So, did Joseph Smith look inside a hat and the words appeared to him? Or did he do something else? What if he had to hoola-hoop and hop on one foot, simultaneously, and then the inspiration came? What if he had to crawl around backwards and moo like a cow, and then he was able to translate? Two things: 1) the proper person to ask would be Joseph Smith himself, he would probably remember how it all happened, but he’s not here to ask so we have a problem on our hands. And 2), who flippin’ cares anyway?!? The thing is, we have the Book of Mormon — have you read it lately? Studied it? Prayed about it? In short, regarding this and all of your other strong and powerful questions, “Have ye inquired of the Lord?” If you see yourself in the “latter camp,” that’s fine, no problem, go for it, more power to you. Just don’t let your long list of all-powerful questions squeeze out the need for all-powerful faith because, by definition, religion is faith! You can’t truthfully extract the meat from a hamburger and still call it a hamburger!! Peace, out, brother.
@Trevor, two quick points, and then we’ll probably have to agree to disagree: a) Does the process matter? Not really, but then why not represent that process accurately (if it is going to be represented)?, an b) Faith? Yes, absolutely, and that is the problem with claims to unique and absolute truth–particularly when those claims are based on spiritual experiences which do not appear to be unique in the sense that individuals across all cultures and religious traditions experience them. So that leaves us with some interesting questions (and no real way to answer them definitively, hence the need for a rather arbitrary decision to believe–if that’s what one wants to do–and the recognition that religion is ultimately and unavoidably based on the desire to believe).
well said.
Why is the church so far behind on all social issues? Women’s rights, black rights, gay/lesbian rights, science and medicine, etc. Why is “God’s prophet” the last to catch on? Why isn’t he leading the way?
Why is Heavenly Mother never mentioned? Why does a Goddess need to be hidden and protected from men? Why can’t her children (here on earth) pray to her and speak to her and receive guidance? Why is she not present in the temple? Or in the BoM? Or ANYWHERE?
I have some thoughts for you about Mother Goddess Jen. Mother IS in the temple, actually, I’ve found here there and so have some others. She’s hidden in symbols, in code if you will, but She can be found there. If you are on facebook (and anyone else who is interested in this topic as well) look me up: Jenni Brighton. I have some things I can share that might be encouraging on this issue.
@Jen, good questions. Particularly the first one. Given what we now know, for example, about the civil rights movement (looking back on it forty years later), church leaders not only didn’t provide any useful guidance, they were part of the problem (and many used their authority to delay changes within the church that should have been made sooner than they were). The church is just now, more than 40 years later, just starting to catch up on race issues. I think it’s reasonable to ask, therefore, why the church has been on the wrong side of different social issues in the past and to ask some hard questions about whether those same mistakes are being repeated today with regard to different social issues (like homosexuality, same-sex marriage, etc.).
@Jen, didn’t mean to slight the second question. . . (It’s a great question–I just don’t have much to add to it).
Um, I think the “agree to disagree” part was implied early on, ha ha. But I think you’re on to something here — the problem with religion is faith! If only we could extract the need for faith from religion (somehow remove the meat from the hamburger and still call it a hamburger), then all of our problems would be solved! :) Ok, seriously, I guess we could dissect this further in true epistemological fashion, searching for truth and discussing how we know it and what it feels like, etc., etc., but that road normally leads to a place called “nowhere.” Again, religion, by definition, is the observance of faith. Perhaps you’re thinking that stone-cold logical facts will always trump the soft, mushy, warm and fuzzies of faith, when in actually, the very opposite is true! Faith permeates everything we do, much more than logic does, that’s for darn sure. Every action and everything that was ever created by mankind had an undercurrent of faith. If you’re looking for logic, then religion is certainly not the place to be looking for it. Tell me, what’s logical about a staff turning into a serpent and then changing back into a staff, a burning bush that isn’t consumed, a talking donkey, the sun standing still, a metal ax head that floats, containers of oil and corn meal that never run out, water being changed into wine, someone bringing another person back to life after they had died, men walking on water, someone causing a blind person to see, etc., etc.?? The list is long and extensive of all the many illogical activities and experiences that have been well-documented from the past. And illogical experiences cannot not be proven with logic, facts, science or whatever else you can come up with. For example, how can logic prove that an ax can float? It can’t. I get that your list of questions are designed to demonstrate the illogical nature of the LDS church and its leaders, but sometimes that’s where the beauty of religion is at its peak, when it defies logic, not when it embraces it. Don’t be afraid of the illogical — it could be argued that every great discovery throughout history was initiated, at least in part, because someone defied the widely-accepted logic of their day. Ok, well, I’ve rambled on long enough. You can have the last word — I’ve got to paddle out and catch another wave. :)
Peace out, brother.
one last question that plagues me: why does my husband get to know my new name, but I can’t know his? I felt like it was the first submissive act I was forced to do as a new bride, and it had to be done before I would be allowed to marry this man in the temple. It put a strange dark vibe on the entire ceremony for me, though at the time I was still in a bit of a Mormon tradition fog.
Why are we told nothing about what goes on in the temple our entire young lives, and then when we go to get our endowments we are asked to engage in serious (and sometimes sexist) covenants without an opportunity to really consider the eternal implications of what we’re about to do? In the temple you are allowed to decline, but who really is going to stand up and say, “No, I don’t think I’m going to do this,” and walk out on the spot?
I think that there is a point to #2, but the church is doing a lot for charity. when any disaster happens the church is there. Another problem Brent stated was that the church spent too much money “inside the gate”. this is true, but when you think about what they are spending money on, it doesn’t seem so selfish. a lot of the churches money is going to church growth: building meetinghouses, temples, doing live broadcasts throughout the world. and a good part of the money goes to missionary causes, trying to bring others to the gospel. the church may spend a lot on temple building, to make them look good, but it’s not like we’re selling indulgences.
on #6, I think Brent missed something. The fact that we believe heavily in humility. Some members of the church may give off the impression that they think they are better than you, but they don’t understand that we only know a fraction of “the big picture”. We try not to teach the gospel condescendingly, but we want others to know what we know, because we love it. That is why we spend two years of our life teaching it, not because we want to feel elite.
on #7 the truth of it is that our religion completely relies on faith, if Joseph Smith had shown everybody a holy artifact, no person on earth would doubt him. If Jesus Christ came out from the heavens and pronounced the gospel it would serve the same purpose. We believe that our mortal life is a test of our faith, and that would defeat the whole purpose.
as for #8, we pay tithing because it is a commandment, not because the church needs it.
That’s all I have to say, and I may not have answers to all of your questions, but maybe (if you really want to know and aren’t just asking to prove that my beliefs are wrong) you could ask on a forum at LDS.org or someone in authority on the matter. yes, I am a republican, and yes, I live in Utah. I recognize that there are a lot of inactive people (even in this forum) who probably became that way through a small disagreement or misunderstanding.
I try to refrain from criticizing other peoples beliefs, whether it be gay people or heathens, so I would appreciate it if you would do the same.
Actually, by trying to “refrain from criticizing other peoples’ beliefs” you managed to post a very passive-aggressive post. I don’t see any posts where someone has tried to “prove that your beliefs are wrong” in the preceding comments. Your answers are all pretty by-the-book, and exactly what we hear over and over from church leaders and “someone in authority”. I’m not entirely sure why you visit this site, as it is a place for those who have alternate ideas and opinions about church topics, not just what’s in the CHI and preached from pulpits. Asking in LDS.org or an “authority” kind of defeats the whole purpose of this forum. Most of us here don’t see things quite as black-and-white, rely-on-faith, and do-it-because-it’s-commanded as you seem to. It’s a great place to discuss civilly and respect and appreciate others’ opinions.
Why is the reference to “fiery indignation” in the 10th chapter of the book of Hebrews almost identical to the one found in Alma 40? Did Joseph Smith use the New Testament while translating the Book of Mormon?