BeckyPeculiar People
When I was growing up, a popular theme in church was the fact that we were a ‘peculiar people’, indicating a fulfillment of prophecy. What a lot of Mormons are not aware of is that Gordon B. Hinckley’s life’s work was to change all that. He understood that if the church seemed peculiar, it just made missionary work that much harder. You might call him the PR church president.
But it seems the rank and file of the church are not helping. A new book by LDS author Dr. Gary Lawrence shows why Hinckley, if not literally inspired, was certainly right. The Mormon church suffers from terrible negatives, and surprisingly, it has nothing to do with negative publicity about Mitt Romney or California’s Prop 8 so much as, well, people just don’t like them and because of “what are perceived as weird beliefs and secretiveness”.
Thirty-seven percent [of those surveyed] have a favorable impression of us and 49 percent have an unfavorable impression”. . .
It’s even worse when compared with how Americans view other religions. The ratio for people who view those of the Jewish faith in a positive light is nearly 3.5-to-1; the same for Baptists. Catholics’ enjoy a positive ratio of nearly 2-to-1; Mormons, less than 1-to-1.
“Thirty-seven percent of all Americans do not know a Mormon, 55 percent of all Americans do not know an active Mormon.
And probably the most telling fact of all:
. . . those who know one Mormon have a worse opinion of us than those who don’t know any Mormons,” Lawrence said.
Here in Utah, there is a lot of denial about this. Commenters on this blog have said that bad PR is a GOOD thing for the church (kind of a twist on there’s no such thing as bad press, just spell the name right).
And before you attack me for hating the Mormon church (I don’t, but you won’t believe that), I’m just the messenger here. Here’s a suggestion: Don’t make every relationship about spreading the gospel. Try being friendly and interested in neighbors, co-workers, and even strangers just out of a simple love for and appreciation of people of the non-Mormon variety.
November 20th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Becky,
Guess what… We agree!
I must say that things certainly have changed here in Utah since I want to school at USU in the early nineties. Back then I certainly was no friend of the Church. While I wouldn’t consider myself an enemy, I was no friend either. As an “outsider” I was ill equipped for the intense feelings of exclusion and discrimination that I felt from the Mormon community. While I had plenty of ex-Mormon drinking buddies that had plenty of stories to tell, I had zero active members as friends. I guess you could say that we moved in different circles. My exclusion from what you might call mainstream society was complete once I became a bar tender up here in Logan at the White Owl.
However, upon returning to Utah after many years to be closer to family, (my dad grew up here) I was delightfully surprised to find that things had changed considerably. My wife and I bought a house in River Heights and immediately all the neighbors came over with baked goods and offers to unload the huge semi trailer parked out front. In no time flat we became great friends with our neighbors, almost all of whom are Mormon. I had been told that this might be the case until they found out that I was not going to be converted, but have found those prophecies to be wrong. One older couple is so close that my kids look upon them as an extra set of grand parents. Also, I am sure that this winter will be no different than last with all the men in the neighborhood starting up their snow blowers at the crack of dawn, competing to see who will get everyone else’s walks and driveways done first.
Things certainly have changed in Utah and I will have to say that it was Hinckley that is likely most responsible for bring the LDS Church out of its shell. I love my Mormon neighbors and they love us. Still, I wrote an essay some time ago and sent it to the Governor’s office outlining how I felt that normalizing the existing liquor laws would go a long way to reducing animosity towards the church. I explained how the liquor laws in this state are the most overt sign of legislative discrimination by the Church. As proof, I invited the Governor to go into any bar and ask its patrons if they felt the liquor laws in Utah where discriminatory. I personally have yet to find a single person that has said no. When so many people feel this way, there must be something wrong. Finally, I expressed how such intense feelings of discrimination and alienation only leads to a negative image of the Church.
While I don’t expect the Church to throw away its beliefs and start partying at the bar, I am encouraged that so many members are now willing to be more tolerant of other cultures and traditions. This new direction can only help make the LDS faith more mainstream.
November 20th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Well see that? Even you and I can agree, Richard. I liked your story about your neighbors. I know there are many such neighborhoods in the state. And then there are the others. Sadly, far too many still feel the way that was expressed to me by someone whom I really liked and considered a friend, when I complained how Mormons just abandon you if you turn out not to be a good prospect. He said, “Time is short and we can’t waste our time on people who aren’t going to join us.”
On my RedStateBlues blog, the second most popular post I’ve ever written (by measure of hits) was on the Mormon hymn, A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief. So many still seem to be missing the point.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Becky,
As OneUtah’s sole inactive Mormon, I hereby anoint you the official OneUtah Lay Church Anthropologist and Historian.
In that capacity, I request official confirmation on two issues.
1. Is it true that the requirements for salvation are as follows:
a. For the living…baptism by a priesthood holder and that you remain a member in good standing in life and the hereafter?
b. For the dead……baptism by a priesthood holder?
Such that the only soles that will not be saved are those who have “heard the gospel” in life, and rejected it? i.e Okelberries can be saved through baptism after death, but you (Becky) are no longer salvageable?
2. The percentage of Temple Worthy is approximately 10% of the 13 million members?
Thanks
November 20th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Becky– You make a good point. For non-Mormons, the term “Mormon missionary” is redundant. All Mormons are missionaries. You can’t have a completely normal relationship with someone who never stops peddling religion.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Becky,
I love your suggestion. Whatever counsel we have received about “every member is a missionary” we have to realize that it is impossible to love people in order to convert them. We have to love them regardless of their status for the simple reason that all people are of infinite worth.
Cliff,
On your two questions - on #1 I don’t think any soles will be saved ;-) but as for souls it depends on your definition of salvation. The simplest explanation would be that all those who come to accept Christ and His gospel (including accepting the applicable priesthood ordinances) - in this life or the next - will be saved. Those who apparently accept in this life must stay true to those ordinances, but we are hardly qualified to make a blanket statement about the opportunities that will be available to those who die while they are not currently being true to what they had once accepted. The closest we come to a blanket statement on that issue is that we trust in the justice and mercy of Heavenly Father in His judgment. Those who do not accept until after this life - we assume that they stay true thereafter. On #2 I have heard that statistic but have no way to verify it.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Becky, Are you familiar with FeministMormonHousewives.org
They are what the name implies…tough, intelligent and liberal, but also loyal and housebound.
This confirms a truth about the larger blogosphere.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Last night I watched Law and Order, and it was about some mormon fundamentalists, and they kept referring to “mormons” and Salt Lake City.
If that’s how most people view us, I can understand why we’re looked at as weird. I’d think the same thing.
I have an online group of gardening friends- of which I’m the only mormon. I don’t preach to them, sometimes they ask questions, and I answer them, and sometimes I ask them questions about their beliefs, and we have a good discussion, then we get back to gardening, composting, and politics. That’s the way it should be.
I agree with Richard- you can’t have a real relationship with someone who’s always trying to convert you. I’d rather have lots of interesting friends than converts.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Thank you David,
By ’salvation’ I meant the Mormon definition.
What do you mean by, “on #1 I don’t think any soles will be saved ;-) “
November 20th, 2008 at 9:35 am
The funny thing about the Mormon definition of salvation is that - when properly understood - it seems to be more inclusive than most other definitions (because we believe in a God of perfect fairness who gives every possible opportunity and is not bound by the time line of mortality to extend those opportunities) contrary to what many people think.
I was teasing about the spelling of soles vs souls.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:38 am
We also believe that children who die young will be saved automatically, because they are innocent.
For the rest of us living, the following steps are necessary for salvation:
1. Faith in Jesus Christ
2. Repentance of sins
3. Baptism
4. The laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost
5. Remaining faithful for the rest of your life
November 20th, 2008 at 9:42 am
FeministMormonHousewives.org is an excellent website. It’s one of my favorites and I highly recommend it.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Easy for you to say Allie,
Since you don’t hold the priesthood, is it not true that you do not bear the same weight of responsibility to find and baptize new converts?
I understand baptisms count heavily in the place and authority men (accompanied by their wives) hold in the various Kingdoms of God.
I truly appreciate your thoughts on this issue, as a particularly introspective person.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Wow Cliff, I’ve never heard that one. I guess I’m in trouble with so few baptisms to my credit.
Women have the same responsibility for sharing the gospel that men do. Performing baptisms has no bearing on our salvation. It’s “hiding [our] light under a bushel” that can hurt us in that regard.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Cliff, thank you for the appointment, I’ll do my best to fulfill the duties of my calling.
To answer your first questions, if you want to reach the Celestial kingdom, or the highest degree of glory (heaven has three degrees), you must be baptized in this life and be faithful to the end, or you must be baptized by proxy after death and accept the gospel. The second degree, the Terrestrial is for the good people of the earth who didn’t accept the gospel, perhaps Mother Theresa. The lowest, the Telestial, is for those who rejected the gospel. Yes, if it turns out the Mormons are right (remember that old South Park episode about that?), that’s where I’ll be — with all my friends, and probably you Cliff. I don’t qualify for a son of perdition and outer darkness as that requires perfect knowledge which only a prophet or apostle might have, so there will be no women in that place.
I have seen the web site FeministMormonHousewives.org though I’ve only visited a couple of times.
And yes, I’m pretty much unsalvageable, but that probably applies in quite a number of categories besides church. It remains to be seen what degree RO will achieve.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Cliff, you might need to appoint someone with more accurate knowledge of church doctrine to be your “OneUtah Lay Church Anthropologist and Historian.”
A couple of corrections. On the Terrestrial kingdom and Mother Theresa, we can only guess whether someone will accept the gospel and ordinances after this life and I’m confident that people who are not nearly as selfless and kind as Mother Theresa will make it to the Terrestrial Kingdom - the standard is honorable men (and women) of the earth. On the son of perdition thing - the idea that perfect knowledge can only be had by a prophet or apostle and cannot be had by women is incorrect. Anyone can attain that perfect knowledge (assuming they make the choices that lead to it) regardless of gender or position within the church. If we were to guess who had achieved such knowledge it is natural that our first guesses would be among the prophets and apostles, but it is incorrect to think that only they can achieve that.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Like David said, the priesthood really doesn’t give someone more responsibility to convert others (or any more responsibility in general, aside from physically performing blessings I guess, women are just as responsible for how they serve others). I think missionaries have a responsibility to preach the gospel and baptize. I think the rest of us have the responsibility to live how we believe so that we are setting a good example to others. I know some people feel more of a need to preach actively, I don’t.
Also, as far as who will go to what “kingdom”, who knows. I think we do the best we can to live a good life, and we’ll be satisfied with where we end up, regardless of our religious beliefs. I don’t think the number of baptisms we’ve got under our belt is going to “bump us up to the next level”. I think how we treated each other, is way more important.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:04 am
David, I stand corrected on the Mother Theresa example (I was being glib). However, I’ll stay pat on the sons of perdition. It is my understanding that very few who walk on the earth can have that perfect knowledge–only those who see and talk to God, thus only top authorities in the church (which can never be women). But this is getting into the weeds, to borrow a favorite Orrin Hatch phrase. I’ll probably get blasted on this and end up having to concede the debate.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:21 am
David, You’ll notice I gave Becky the title of Lay Church Anthropologist and Historian in order to distinguish her from one whose authority on the Church is derived by their membership.
Often, former members offer a different perspective that can be of great value to both members as well as the intellectually curious.
As for designating a OneUtah’s Official ‘Active Member’ Authority on LDS Church Anthropology and History, the position is open.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Now I’m very confused. It has always been my clear impression that baptisms counted a lot. Perhaps I misunderstood.
So what I’m hearing is that, “as far as who will go to what “kingdom - Allie”, who knows” vs the explicitly stated, “Performing baptisms has no bearing on our salvation.-David”
So what does count for getting into the Celestial Kingdom and who is the arbiter of perfect knowledge?
Is “perfect knowledge” for LDS the related to the special knowledge thought to be possessed by the Gnostic’s?
November 20th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Sorry to confuse, I meant “who knows” as in- it’s hard to sit here and say such and such a person will go to this kingdom, while this person will only go to this kingdom.
It’s all speculation.
Our own baptism is important, for us personally, but we aren’t required to baptize x number of others to gain salvation. :)
To me, having a perfect knowledge of God would mean I had some kind of physical proof. That I saw him or heard his voice, and I could not question what I saw or heard. I would imagine it depends on the individual.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Just a small correction to what Kevin said above — children under the age of 8 are saved automatically by virtue of being innocent. After the age of 8, sins start counting against the kid (unless erased by repentance).
And a tinsy correction to what Becky wrote — you also have to be married (this life or after) to enter the Celestial Kingdom.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:49 am
I think Allie has explained it correctly.
Jenni, I had forgotten about that marriage thing. Ah well, no matter, neither of mine worked out anyway, I don’t think we’d be wanting to spend eternity together.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Technically true Jenni- although I have a hard time believing that God is going to punish an 8-year-old for stealing his brothers halloween candy.
Sometimes I think people don’t really understand repentance. It’s not about being punished. It’s about personal growth and letting go of things we do that cause us pain.
If your daughter broke something, would you be angry? Would you beat her up (emotionally, I mean) about it? Or would you talk to her about being more careful with breakable things?
I think Heavenly Father would be the same way.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Cliff,
I was not seeking the position - I now understand why you chose to make it a “Lay” position. I totally agree that non-members and former members can offer valuable outside (ans semi-outside) perspectives.
Being baptized counts, but performing baptisms does not help my salvation.
I don’t know enough about the gnostics to comment on that, but I can say that what counts for getting into the Celestial Kingdom is seeking knowledge of spiritual truths and applying that knowledge to the best of our abilities, including making and keeping covenants commensurate with our knowledge and opportunities on earth. The arbiter of perfect knowledge is the very person who has, and can give perfect knowledge - God.
Becky,
I don’t think that we are ever definitively told that seeing God is an absolute requirement of perfect knowledge, but even if we were told that: “every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:1)
That does not specify that seeing His face would be in this life, but it does not preclude the possibility either. It does specify that every soul has the opportunity.
In the end I agree with Allie:
November 20th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Allie,
The church may have softened it’s stance since I was a kid and as societal parental views have evolved. I haven’t been an active Mormon for almost 20 years now, so I’m not sure what is being taught at church now days.
I remember having it quite drilled into my head after the age of 8 that I was accountable for my sins and could only have them erased by repentance (and I don’t mean that in a harsh way). But it was quite clear to me that after age 8 and my baptism, I was no longer automatically innocent in the eyes of God.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Becky,
If you were worthy to enter the Celestial Kingdom, it wouldn’t matter if your marriages had ended — you would be married to a man who was worthy to enter the Celestial Kingdom. It’s not something that appealed to me as a young proto-feminist Mormon, since the time I learned that polygamy was practiced in the Celestial Kingdom and my job there would be to produce spirit children as part of the harem. I was resentful that the man got the cool job of creating the planets and being a god.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:21 am
I guess that the teachings are probably the same these days, I would hope that people are careful not to scare their children- I’ve never responded well to fear mongering-
I think it’s more about teaching children to think about their actions, and be responsible for the things they do. If they hurt someone, they should try to fix it, and apologize.
“my job there would be to produce spirit children as part of the harem. I was resentful that the man got the cool job of creating the planets and being a god.”
Jenni- I’ve never heard that before- I fully plan on working with my Mister to create whatever worlds we create- our home improvement projects always turn out better when I’m giving input. He’s also not allowed to be sealed to anyone else, because I’d have issues with that.
I really think that sometimes people get funny ideas that they teach as truth, which cause people pain, and lead them to leave. I also think, that the church as a whole is learning as it goes.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Marriage is not required for the celestial kingdom, it is required for “the highest degree of the celestial kingdom.” (See Doctrine and Covenants section 131 for the official doctrine on that.)
November 20th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Allie,
The way I learned it in Seminary was that the husband’s responsibility in the Celestial Kingdom was to be the God and create the planets and the bodies for the spirit babies to inhabit, and the wives’ responsibility were to bear the spirit babies.
I was also told in seminary that the reason for polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom was that a person couldn’t be in the Celestial Kingdom unless they were married, and that far more women were worthy of the celestial kingdom than men, so the only way for those women to be in the Celestial Kingdom would be to marry a God who already had a wife or wives.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:34 am
David –
That does sound right. I guess my brain has simplified it over the years to just the Celestial Kingdom.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:36 am
That would be easy to do. I think that happens a lot with doctrines (LDS and otherwise) which is why it is so easy for people to misunderstand each other. The thing that fascinates me about LDS doctrine as well as the doctrines of other churches is that the more I learn about any of them the more complete a picture I get about God as well as my fellow men.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Jenni-
If I had been taught that, I wouldn’t have been too thrilled about it either.
As for more righteous women in the Celestial Kingdom, I’ve heard that. I don’t really buy it. I think that’s a mormon lore sort of thing.
I’m still not sharing my Mister.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Allie, you seem set on that. Thankfully you are not in the FLDS church or you would have to share him. They use extra marriages in just the same way that it was earlier suggested that we use baptisms - the more you have the higher you can go.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:56 am
:)
Really, maybe if I had a “greater understanding”, it wouldn’t bother me, but with the understanding I have, it does.
Back to being a peculiar people- I find it amusing that people outside the church view me as peculiar because of my religious beliefs, and many people inside it find me peculiar, because, well, I’m not sure why exactly, (I blame my parents).
November 20th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Becky,
As a Lutheran I have long been taught that we witness to people in our daily lives, by the way we act, conduct business and generally treat each other. I imagine Cliff must think me a terrible witness for my faith. We are not charged with conversion, we consider that something that is the job of the Holy Spirit. We are only asked to make people aware that the Gospel exists if asked and try to live our lives in peace, love and according to God’s will. Something that I must say, we all fail at miserably. As such we don’t actively grow the church.
I would hope that more Mormons would learn that even if their goal is to recruit members, being kind and engaging with those that are not interested may ultimately lead to conversions down the road as those people convey positive experiences about their encounters with members.
Whenever people back in Nebraska learned that I once lived in Utah they ask first about the liquor laws then about polygamy. People are truly ignorant of the Mormon Faith, so it is incumbent on members to help dispel rumors and guide the church to be more open to other beliefs. The best way to do that is through one on one courteous interaction with those of other faiths and traditions. Also, people need to learn that not every contrary belief or lifestyle, like homosexuality is a threat as long as your faith is strong.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I was teasing, Allie, just in case that wasn’t clear. My wife has no interest in sharing me (unless a second wife would like to be the maid) and I have no interest in being shared (maid or not).
November 20th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I know you were teasing. That’s why I put the :)
:)
November 20th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Just making sure.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Cliff, I have to agree with you there (my response comes before your comment, am I on top of things or what!).
November 20th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Allie,
I think of the Church more as an enigma (than its members as ‘peculiar’).
Of all the major protestant religions, I think the Utah LDS culture, wins the contest for living a pretty strict doctrine supported by an incredibly successful organizational structure.
I’ve always said, my neighborhood is one of the few left in the US, where my 13-year-old niece may not be exposed to drugs, sex and/or alcohol…as long as she hangs out with the good LDS kids.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:01 am
Guys like Gary Lawrence are the problem, not the solution.
Gary Lawrence: Familiarity breeds contempt (for Mormons)
November 21st, 2008 at 5:41 am
Chino, thanks for the link to the excellent article at Daily Kos. I hope readers here will check it out. I agree that Lawrence is the problem, but he’s far from alone when it comes to Prop 8 — witness the many threads on that topic at this blog and elsewhere.
I am of the opinion that if the church were to suddenly reverse its position on Prop 8, the membership would suddenly do the same–including all those who have debated so passionately. The problem is that people are so willing to allow their own opinions to be dictated by the church. Not everyone, of course, but most.