LDS culture problem

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I do not agree with some of the LDS posters on this thread but I do agree with others. And as been observed on many threads in this forum, not all LDS agree about everything "Mormon" either.

Yup. So true. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bad Karma said:

I've never really thought about it. We live in the mountains, often when we get a real heavy snow, the power goes out. We light the lanterns and play games, often "Go fish" or blackjack. I've only ever glanced at the faces on the cards and never gave it a second thought.  It's been some time since I've played poker, and even then, I've only ever played for simple poker chips bought at Rite Aid. 

What do you think of face cards?

Well, since you asked . . . 

If there is a true prohibition against playing cards (and honestly I really do not know), I can sort of see why.  

When I was a kid I thought gambling addiction was a made up thing, the providence of people with way too much time on their hands.

Now that I am an adult, I actually know some compulsive gamblers.  One of my attorney friends loses at least $600 every month on gambling (the amount he is "supposed" to be limited to by his wife).  Gambling addiction may not receive as much press as pornography addiction, but it is a real evil thing that destroys lives.

I think any prohibition on facial cards would be to try and keep people from going down this road.

That said, I don't know if there is a current prohibition against cards or what is up with it.  Unlike diet coke, I also don't really have a dog in the fight - the most advanced card game I can play is Battle and I have absolutely no talent at facial expression control.

Edited July 27, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, DoctorLemon said:

The prophet has specifically counseled against double earrings as being against gospel standards.  Therefore, it will have to be given up and repented of.  I agree with you on this one.  

 

Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”—one pair.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/great-shall-be-the-peace-of-thy-children?lang=eng

 

 

I think your description is a bit extreme: "gospel standards" and "repented of." 

Discouraged is not the same as forbidden.

 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

 

Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”—one pair.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/great-shall-be-the-peace-of-thy-children?lang=eng

 

 

I think your description is a bit extreme: "gospel standards" and "repented of." 

Discouraged is not the same as forbidden.

 

Agreed!  I used a poor choice of language in this post.  I certainly would never judge someone by their piercings, nor would I ever want to alienate someone who happened to have an eyebrow piercing or something by calling them a sinner.

Edited July 27, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Bad Karma]

26 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Now that I am an adult, I actually know some compulsive gamblers.  One of my attorney friends loses at least $600 every month on gambling (the amount he is "supposed" to be limited to by his wife).  Gambling addiction may not receive as much press as pornography addiction, but it is a real evil thing that destroys lives.

I don't know any gamblers minus my mother's ex boyfriend (Prior to her having been baptized), I do not know if he had a problem or not, I never had an affinity for him to ask, he was had other issues more acute IMHO. Now, pornography I understand being verbotten, it destroys on the human level in so many ways, also giving the viewer unrealistic perceptions what women and men are supposed to look like, encourages extramarital activity, etc. I would see where gambling addictions are destroyers family, etc.

The faces of the cards though, I looked them over, they are really unremarkable except that when you flip the card, the opposing face is up ended. 

[SpiritDragon]

1 hour ago, DoctorLemon said:

Here is a controversial one for all of you... What do you think of face cards, the kind used in poker, blackjack, etc?

(These were discouraged back in the 1800s but I am not sure if they were actually forbidden or not...)

I grew up with a family in my ward where the family didn't play with face cards. They could play all the same games with Rook cards, but the face cards were prohibited. I'd never heard such a teaching in the church and they were the only people I knew who abided by this rule. Interestingly enough face cards have been spoken against much more recently than the 19th century. I believe the following quote is from Joseph F. Smith:

“One’s character may be determined in some measure by the quality of one’s amusements. Men and women of industrious business-like, and thoughtful habits care little for frivolous pastimes, for pleasures that are sought for their own sake. It is not easy to imagine that leading men in the Church would find any pleasure that was either inspiring or helpful at the card table” (Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939, p. 329). 

Other thoughts of President Smith's are available in Gospel Doctrine Volume 2: A course of Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums 1971-1972,

"I have heard that some who are called to officiate in the holy ordinances have, when absent from the house of the Lord, or when tardy in arriving, excused themselves because of the time occupied in giving or attending a card party. Those who indulge are not fit to administer in the sacred ordinances. They are not more worthy than others who violate good morals in any respect. They should be excused."

"I am told that young people offer as an excuse for such questionable pastime the accusation that cards are played in the homes of certain leading men in the Church.Bishops, however, ought never to be deterred in their efforts to suppress the evil by counter complaints of this kind. The bishop has the same right to inquire, through the means of his teachers, into the pleasures of the homes of the highest authorities of the Church as he has into those of the most humble members. If it be true that card playing is prevalent in the Church, bishops are charged with the responsibility for the evil and it is their duty to see that it is abolished or that men and women who encourage it be brought to account before their brethren and sisters for the pernicious example they are setting before the youth in Zion. Certainly no bishop can report his ward in good condition where such practice prevails."

Knowing that the father of the aforementioned family was a former bishop, likely in the era that this manual was in use, I can see why in his family these cards were not used. What I don't fully understand is the silence on the matter in more recent years. Why such strong teaching on a topic that would clearly lead a family to operate in the manner they did and likely still do, when in my generation not a word seems to have been said on the manner. The closest I can think of is some teachings on gambling in general.

[SpiritDragon]

1 minute ago, SpiritDragon said:

 

"I have heard that some who are called to officiate in the holy ordinances have, when absent from the house of the Lord, or when tardy in arriving, excused themselves because of the time occupied in giving or attending a card party. Those who indulge are not fit to administer in the sacred ordinances. They are not more worthy than others who violate good morals in any respect. They should be excused."

"I am told that young people offer as an excuse for such questionable pastime the accusation that cards are played in the homes of certain leading men in the Church.Bishops, however, ought never to be deterred in their efforts to suppress the evil by counter complaints of this kind. The bishop has the same right to inquire, through the means of his teachers, into the pleasures of the homes of the highest authorities of the Church as he has into those of the most humble members. If it be true that card playing is prevalent in the Church, bishops are charged with the responsibility for the evil and it is their duty to see that it is abolished or that men and women who encourage it be brought to account before their brethren and sisters for the pernicious example they are setting before the youth in Zion. Certainly no bishop can report his ward in good condition where such practice prevails."

@DoctorLemon as far as actually forbidden? I can't say but the bolded parts suggest a seriously unfavourable light.

[eddified]

3 hours ago, a mustard seed said:

Yeah! Just because God's mouthpiece here on Earth told you not to, doesn't mean doing it is disobedience!

I honestly can't tell what you mean. Can you please clarify? If I had to guess, this is a sarcastic statement basically saying what an unbeliever might say: "just because you're disregarding the prophet's teachings, doesn't mean you're disobeying!!" .. which from a believing perspective makes no sense. 

3 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

Here is a controversial one for all of you... What do you think of face cards, the kind used in poker, blackjack, etc?

(These were discouraged back in the 1800s but I am not sure if they were actually forbidden or not...)

My mom taught face cards are evil. One time on a young men's high adventure activity (I was a youth at the time ) the Young Men's leader pulled out face cards and encouraged us to play poker using candy instead of poker chips. That made me really uncomfortable. 

But when I came of age, I concluded that face cards themselves don't pose a problem (and I play with them with my children ). I decided this because I had never heard any counsel from the church otherwise. What does make me uncomfortable is the playing of betting-style games like poker. I do not play such games. I like to steer clear of all such games so much that I do not know the rules of any of them. 

If the spirit of betting sounds like a negative influence to you, the reader, then I would encourage you to follow suit -- in spades. (Ok, ok, lame joke I know )

[askandanswer]

3 hours ago, mirkwood said:

 

Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”—one pair.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/great-shall-be-the-peace-of-thy-children?lang=eng

 

 

I think your description is a bit extreme: "gospel standards" and "repented of." 

Discouraged is not the same as forbidden.

 

I'm looking at the link here in the above post. It almost reads great shall be the piercings of thy children, which would be kind of funny given the actual text of the message

[Sunday21]

Things lds people have told me are sinful,

not attending all activities

missing RS and Sunday School to work when things get crazy at work

not doing genealogy (told I would burn in hell)

not bringing home cooked offerings to activities

not dating

not being married with children

not having a two year supply of food

not accepting callings when I already have all the callings that I can handle

not giving 'till it hurts'

not watching all sessions of general conference at the chapel

driving in a car with a member of the opposite sex without a chaperon

going to a restaurant with nonlds family members from out of town on the sabbath

reverting to my atheist vocab when I drop something on my foot. I am working on this!

questioning a proposed change in policy presented by the stake president in a Sunday school teachers meeting

not attending a stake visit for RS teachers. 

Why would anyone want to hang around with these cranky holier than thou people? 

I am a former aethist. My ways are not the lds way of doing things. So? Frankly lds people could use a cold wind up their tidy skirts! Some of the new members ask me if I am going to attend an activity before they decide to attend because I seem more normal. Stop being such a bunch of self satisfied little toads that people do not wish to be in your presence. Stop looking for opportunities to criticize others.

Smile. Introduce yourself. Be pleasant. No one wants to join a church full of grumpy people!

Edited July 27, 2017 by Sunday21

[The Folk Prophet]

*shrug* I dunno. Seems to me like it's just as unpleasant to be around those who view others as self-satisfied little toads.

[The Folk Prophet]

13 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The subject of contention is the counsel of prophets.  Every Mormon agrees (or should) that we must heed the counsel of prophets.

So I've been thinking a bit about contention lately. I know some people define the command to not have contention as related to how things are said. I'm not sure I buy that entirely. Others, still, define not having contention as never disagreeing. I know I don't buy that.

Sometimes I wonder if the command is simply the same as the command to repent. it is the same command as to be one with Christ as He is one with the Father. He is one with the Father by doing His will just as we should be one with Him by doing His will, and just as we should be one with each other by doing His will. If someone isn't willing to do His will then they cannot be one with Him, and we who strive to do His will cannot be one with them. The command to be one, accordingly, is directed at all who would choose anything that is not one with the Savior -- it is a directive to repent and to become one with the Savior, by which means we become one with each other -- and by which means we have no more contention.

[person0]

25 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So I've been thinking a bit about contention lately. I know some people define the command to not have contention as related to how things are said. I'm not sure I buy that entirely. Others, still, define not having contention as never disagreeing. I know I don't buy that.

I agree with you 100%.  Sometimes contention, in terms of disagreeing and debating is a good thing.

Quote

Doctrine and Covenants 112:5

Contend thou, therefore, morning by morning; and day after day let thy warning voice go forth; and when the night cometh let not the inhabitants of the earth slumber, because of thy speech.

Doctrine and Covenants 18:20

Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil.

1 Ne. 14:10

And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whoreof all the earth.

Doctrine and Covenants 136:23

Cease to contend one with another; cease to speak evil one of another.

I think from these verses it is clear that there is an appropriate time and place for contention, just as there is an appropriate time and place for killing.  There is also an inappropriate and sinful time for both.  The difficult thing is deciding for ones self what the line is, and I'd say the line is when you cease to contend in a logical, reasonable, or civil manner, and it becomes a battle of insults and name calling, etc.  I know someone who was raised in a home where they were taught essentially that all contention is bad, and that family has some of the worst communication problems I have ever seen from a righteous gospel centered family.

[estradling75]

46 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

*shrug* I dunno. Seems to me like it's just as unpleasant to be around those who view others as self-satisfied little toads.

Indeed...  Funny how those that scream the loudest about how we shouldn't they should not be judged are all so quick to render such cruel, hurtful and unrighteous judgements of their own.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, person0 said:

I agree with you 100%.  Sometimes contention, in terms of disagreeing and debating is a good thing.

I disagree with that.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Why would anyone want to hang around with these cranky holier than thou people? 

 

AMEN.

99% of the time it's the people who preach the loudest about the flaws of others who are unable to see their own. They realize (perhaps subconsciously) that if they did look inward, they wouldn't like what they see. 

 Just speaking as a convert, before I joined the church in my younger days I was so severe in my judgments. I was totally unforgiving (more so than I am today) about peoples flaws, weaknesses, and what I viewed as "sinful" behavior. I really was obnoxious. No I wonder I had no friends. Like most people in that situation I deluded myself by saying "I don't care what others think.", but I did of course. I just said it to make myself feel better. 

 After the joining the LDS church I've become more "tolerant: of other peoples failures because I'm able to look inward and see my own. 

Edited July 27, 2017 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

32 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 

99% of the time it's the people who preach the loudest about the flaws of others who are unable to see their own. They realize (perhaps subconsciously) that if they did look inward, they wouldn't like what they see.

You do realize that you just preached loudly about the flaws of others... just now right?

 

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, estradling75 said:

You do realize that you just preached loudly about the flaws of others... just now right?

 

Of course I see that. Doesn't mean I'm not onto something though. I get it, the classic comeback of "You are judgmental" is of course to say, "That a judgement too! You fool! Haw haw haw I am so brilliant". I've used it too, don't worry. 

But that doesn't take away from the fact that yes, the other person might indeed be "too judgmental." If I smoke three packs a day I can still say smoking is wrong and be onto something. 

[a mustard seed]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Of course I see that. Doesn't mean I'm not onto something though. I get it, the classic comeback of "You are judgmental" is of course to say, "That a judgement too! You fool! Haw haw haw I am so brilliant". I've used it too, don't worry. 

But that doesn't take away from the fact that yes, the other person might indeed be "too judgmental." If I smoke three packs a day I can still say smoking is wrong and be onto something. 

That last bit contradicts what you said above, though? Because if you can still be in the right when you have flaws and yet point out other people's flaws....then what's the problem? Attitude is everything and I think it is an example of love to try to help others who are also struggling on the path of being perfected in Christ. Just because someone points something out, does not mean they're ignoring their own flaws or not working on them and I think pride makes us say things like, "You don't have a right to tell me anything. Look at what you're doing!"

[estradling75]

14 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Of course I see that. Doesn't mean I'm not onto something though. I get it, the classic comeback of "You are judgmental" is of course to say, "That a judgement too! You fool! Haw haw haw I am so brilliant". I've used it too, don't worry. 

But that doesn't take away from the fact that yes, the other person might indeed be "too judgmental." If I smoke three packs a day I can still say smoking is wrong and be onto something. 

Of course... but everyone thinks that they are on to something.. that is the Core of the problem.  If you tell me smoking is wrong you are of course on to something.  You think you are being helpful by telling me this.  But chances are I already know and I have made my choice.  So I fire back that you are being unrighteously judgemental, and nosy because you are.   And I think I am being helpful by telling you this because I am onto something.  And the cycle continues  Because my comments are also unrighteous judgemental and you are onto something by calling me out on it.

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by estradling75

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

You do realize that you just preached loudly about the flaws of others... just now right?

Do you realize that your calling @MormonGator out for judging others who were being judgmental about others being judgmental about people who are judgmental -- was also being judgmental?

...Was I just being judgmental?

Edited July 27, 2017 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Of course... but everyone thinks that they are on to something.. that is the Core of the problem.  If you tell me smoking is wrong you are of course on to something.  You think you are being helpful by telling me this.  But chances are I already know and I have made my choice.  So I fire back that you are being unrighteous, judgemental, and nosy because you are.   And I think I am being helpful by telling you this because I am onto something.

 

Yup we agree. Life is not as linear and black and white as a freshmen logic course in college would make it out to be. All of us are full of contradictions, paradoxes and inconsistencies. From the smoker telling people not to smoke to the preacher lecturing us about forgiveness who hasn't spoke to his brother in 25 years. 

Edited July 27, 2017 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Do you realize that your calling @MormonGator out for judging others who were being judgmental about others being judgmental about people who are judgmental -- was also being judgmental?

...Was I just being judgmental?

Yes. you were and so was/am I 

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Yup we agree. Life is not as linear and black and white as a freshmen logic course in college would make it out to be. All of us are full of contradictions, paradoxes and inconsistencies. From the smoker telling people not to smoke to the preacher lecturing us about forgiveness who hasn't spoke to his brother in 25 years. 

Yeap and it would be nice if everyone minded their own business but we also Christ's commands to fellowship, support, and even call to repentance.  Balancing those are hard and we screw it up all the time, and even when we think we have it right and have the most noble intent behind our words and actions... it does not mean it is received that way

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, estradling75 said:

Yeap and it would be nice if everyone minded their own business but we also Christ's commands to fellowship, support, and even call to repentance.  Balancing those are hard and we screw it up all the time, and even when we think we have it right and have the most noble intent behind our words and actions... it does not mean it is received that way

We agree again. Run to the hills everyone, @estradling75 and I agree on something. 

You need to pick and choose your battles. If you preach all the time and never shut up, eventually you'll turn into a more pathetic, self righteous version of Cassandra. Sure, you might be right but if everyone ignores you you eventually are doing it to show how righteous you are.