LDS If the LDS religion is not legalistic and overbearing, then what's up with...

[Rescued One]

For most of us, the idea of interviewing members' personal lives is....overbearing, yes. Even aside from abuses that this can entail, the very premise itself comes across as invasive, scrutinizing, and unhelpful. Regardless of the purpose of such an interview might entail.

If my pastor called me up to sit in with him, so he could interview me, and investigate my private and personal life, that would be a massive breech of boundaries--it would be completely unacceptable behavior on his part. To be perfectly blunt, it's none of his business.

-CryptoLutheran

The Bishop doesn't normally call members. The member calls the Bishop to get a temple recommend. To get one, you go to the Bishop for an interview. That's when the questions require answers. Most members hardly know their Bishop at all. He doesn't invite you to dinner, you don't know how many children and grandchildren he has, what his home looks like, etc.

 

[Rescued One]

My lone encounter with the LDS was due to a free bible offer on television. The commercial appeared late at night and I called and made a request. I’d been away from church a few years and felt good about reading the bible once more.

I expected a package in the mail and was met by a man wearing a black suit. He introduced himself and stated he came by to talk and received my information from the bible request. Did I have a moment?

Irrespective of his dress and candor I had no intention of inviting him in. I was home alone and unsettled by his sudden appearance. I told him I couldn’t talk.

Then he came again. And again. And again for one month straight! He wouldn’t stop until I told him I wasn’t interested in joining their church and asked him to stop appearing unannounced. I never received the bible or dealt with them from that point.

I don't think he was a Mormon! They would have sent 2 young missionaries. It's a good thing you never let him in.

 

[Rescued One]

This is very interesting. Thank you. I'm not sure how to phrase this follow-up question, but one thing I've noticed in watching the testimonies of ex-Mormon women is they often refer to their uncovered shoulders (as when wearing spaghetti strap tops or dresses) jokingly as "inappropriate content shoulders" (if that gets auto-censored, then...uh..."adult movie shoulders"?). Do think that this tells or should tell us something about the LDS stance on this sort of topic?

I have never seen a Mormon woman or girl wearing spaghetti straps. The dress should cover the temple garments. No deeply plunging necklines, etc. The temple garments have changed over the years, requiring less modest clothing than in the nineteenth century. Mormon men love to play basketball and are not required to wear their garments when they play (at least not in the seventies). Do you remember the Donny and Marie Show? Marie's clothing shocked me! Apparently, exceptions are made for TV and movie stars. Mormon women did not wear shorts and probably still don't.

 

[ViaCrucis]

2. Church policy is that if you're an unmarried couple living together, you need to get hitched to join the church. I think this is pretty standard across many, many religions.

The ELCA tends to have a firm, but gentle and nuanced approach to such topics:

"As trust and entrusting are established in a relationship, physical expression naturally becomes more intimate. That is, sexual intimacy would be expect-ed to follow the same pattern of growth marked by the other dimensions of mutual self-understanding.

For this reason, this church teaches that degrees of physical intimacy should be carefully matched to degrees of growing affection and commitment. This also suggests a way to understand why this church teaches that the greatest sexual intimacies, such as coitus, should be matched with and sheltered both by the highest level of binding commitment and by social and legal protection, such as is found in marriage. Here, promises of fidelity and public accountability provide the foundational basis and support for trust, intimacy, and safety, especially for the most vulnerable.

This is why this church opposes non-monogamous, promiscuous, or casual sexual relationships of any kind. Indulging immediate desires for satisfaction, sexual or otherwise, is to “gratify the desires of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16–19). Such transient encounters do not allow for trust in the relation-ship to create the context for trust in sexual intimacy.Such relationships undermine the dignity and integrity of individuals because physical intimacy is not accompanied by the growth of mutual self-knowledge. Absent the presence of physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual trust and commitment, such sexual relationships may easily damage the self and an individual’s future capacity to live out committed and trustworthy relationships. Fleeting relationships misuse the gift of sexual intimacy and are much more likely to be unjust, abusive, and exploitative."

Continuing,

"Because this church urges couples to seek the highest social and legal support for their relationships, it does not favor cohabitation arrangements outside of marriage. It has a special concern when such arrangements are entered into as an end in themselves. It does, however, acknowledge the social forces at work that encourage such practices. This church also recognizes the pastoral and familial issues that accompany these contemporary social patterns.

In cases where a decision is made for cohabitation, regardless of the reasons, this church expects its pastors and members to be clear with the couple regarding the reasons for the position of this church and to support the couple in recognizing their obligation to be open and candid with each other about their plans, expectations, and levels of mutual commitment. ... This church believes, however, that the deepest human longings for a sense of personal worth, long-term companionship, and profound security, especially given the human propensity to sin, are best served through binding commitment, legal protections, and the public accountability of marriage, especially where the couple is surrounded by the prayers of the congregational community and the promises of God." - The ELCA's Social Statement on Sexuality

In other words, it's not really just a simple black and white issue, but rather a broader matter of responsibility and relationship, and thus concerns matters of pastoral and congregational discretion and care--taking into consideration many factors well beyond the simple fact that a couple is not married.

Such an approach seems holistically Christian to me, not reducing everything to mere moralistic enterprise, but being concerned with both maintaining the right order which God desires for us, His creatures and people, as well as ministering compassionately in regard to the circumstances and situations of real people.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bèlla]

I don't think he was a Mormon! They would have sent 2 young missionaries. It's a good thing you never let him in.

Seriously. I was a teen and he was relentless and always appeared when I was home alone. He introduced himself as Brother something. I can’t recall if there was someone with him. I was too freaked out.

I was reared in a patriarchal environment. I have no horror stories to tell. Nevertheless, I don’t believe that’s an ideal setting for me. There’s a lot of room for abuse and manipulation. And I could be susceptible to the wrong attention because of my makeup.

 

[JacobKStarkey]

1) Context
2) See my posts about pastoral responsibility toward the well-being of the community.
3) Note that Peter didn't investigate, scrutinize, and invade Ananias and Sapphira's personal lives.

-CryptoLutheran

Nope, he only asked the Lord to end them.

 

[Rescued One]

Unfortunately, no. Sorry.



What does that mean? Is the individual authority free to stray from the prepared questions, and if so, what does it mean that it's "on him" that he does? Is there some way of disciplining him if he asks questions that are invasive and leading, as your own leaders said should not be done? (in the first clip)



Yes, but what business is it of missionaries to already be passing judgment on this couple? As one of the missionaries admits, they didn't even realize at the time that the man was looking into the LDS religion...and then after they did, it seemed like it became "Oh, they might not be living up to our moral standards." Duh! They're not a member of your church! So it seemed weird. (I don't think this is necessarily reflective of the LDS religion as a whole -- though again, I don't know; that's why I'm asking --- but I do wonder if it says something about the missionary training process.)

The missionaries can't baptize people who aren't living the law of chastity. So they pretty much have to find out the investigator's lifestyle. However these potential members can lie. Certain sins are considered more serious than others (such as Catholics' mortal and venial sins). To get baptized you have to agree to keep the commandments even though they don't inform you of each one.

Sacrament Prayer:
“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine [water] to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen” (D&C 20:79).

The ordinance of the sacrament is performed very simply and reverently.

The Covenants We Renew during the Sacrament

• 
  What covenants do we renew during the sacrament? What blessings does the Lord promise us as we keep those covenants?
  

Each time we partake of the sacrament, we renew covenants with the Lord. A covenant is a sacred promise between the Lord and His children. The covenants we make are clearly stated in the sacramental prayers. It is important to know what those covenants are and what they mean.

We covenant that we are willing to take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ. By this we show we are willing to be identified with Him and His Church. We commit to serve Him and our fellowman. We promise that we will not bring shame or reproach upon that name.

We covenant to always remember Jesus Christ. All our thoughts, feelings, and actions will be influenced by Him and His mission.

We promise to keep His commandments.

We take these obligations upon ourselves when we are baptized (see D&C 20:37; Mosiah 18:6–10). Thus, when we partake of the sacrament, we renew the covenants we made when we were baptized. Jesus gave us the pattern for partaking of the sacrament (see 3 Nephi 18:1–12) and said that when we follow this pattern, repenting of our sins and believing on His name, we will gain a remission of our sins (see Joseph Smith Translation, Matthew 26:24).

The Lord promises that if we keep our covenants, we will always have His Spirit to be with us. A person guided by the Spirit will have the knowledge, faith, power, and righteousness to gain eternal life.
Chapter 23: The Sacrament

 

[Rescued One]

Seriously. I was a teen and he was relentless and always appeared when I was home alone. He introduced himself as Brother something. I can’t recall if there was someone with him. I was too freaked out.

I was reared in a patriarchal environment. I have no horror stories to tell. Nevertheless, I don’t believe that’s an ideal setting for me. There’s a lot of room for abuse and manipulation. And I could be susceptible to the wrong attention because of my makeup.

Oh, okay. Their rules are that they can't go in your house if you're alone unless a third person goes with them.

 

[Rescued One]

This is very interesting. Thank you. I'm not sure how to phrase this follow-up question, but one thing I've noticed in watching the testimonies of ex-Mormon women is they often refer to their uncovered shoulders (as when wearing spaghetti strap tops or dresses) jokingly as "inappropriate content shoulders" (if that gets auto-censored, then...uh..."adult movie shoulders"?). Do think that this tells or should tell us something about the LDS stance on this sort of topic?

Thank you for your answers.

I dressed modestly before becoming a Mormon (personal preference unlike my family) and still dress modestly. They are strict but Amish, of course, are stricter.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I don't think he was a Mormon! They would have sent 2 young missionaries. It's a good thing you never let him in.

Yeah that's right, Mormons always wear a white shirt with the black name tag and they tend to travel in twos.

 

[dzheremi]

The missionaries can't baptize people who aren't living the law of chastity. So they pretty much have to find out the investigator's lifestyle.

I feel like I should clarify here that I don't think it's strange that they have requirements of people prior to baptism, including requirements that they live according to how the religion wants them to live (you would think if they were going to get baptized they would be at least striving towards living that anyway), but that they would begin to apply them so early on in the person's investigation strikes me as very strange.

The Coptic people love to have visitors, but they know the Church can appear very demanding from the outside (with its fasts, its long liturgies, its daily prayers, etc.), so usually they will refrain from any such personal talk with you (outside of how you came to find out about the Church, of course, since it's not very well-known in the west) unless you make a habit of continuously showing up. Granted, in my case I made it clear beforehand that I had been doing a lot of studying so I already knew I was interested in it before I was able to actually come to a liturgy (I left the Roman Catholic Church around July of 2009, but wasn't able to go to my first Coptic liturgy until September of 2011 or so), and could read and speak the languages we used other than English (to whatever degree I can!), so I think they might've looked at me a little bit differently. But I saw up close how gentle they were with the Jordanian brother and sister who came to us for several months in a row...some even asked our priest if he would just commune them anyway, even though they were Catholics and hence not a part of our communion (the answer was no, of course), just because they loved them that much. But in the end the Jordanians moved on without baptism, hopefully enriched by the time we spent together. And then there was the time when a random white guy showed up who nobody had ever seen (he had apparently converted to the Coptic Orthodox faith several decades ago, but was passing through the area and had no idea there was a church in New Mexico), and everyone immediately started looking at me and whispering "Do you know this guy?", "Hey, who's your friend?", etc. Ahhhh, yes...I am the White People Whisperer! Like Cesar Milan, but...you know...not.

The point is, under no circumstances would it be considered appropriate for anyone from church to start asking someone who is just starting out in investigating the faith about their personal living situation, their sexual history, or any of this stuff. Those are things that God-willing are dealt with in consultation with your priest, after the baptism which has washed away the old man/woman so that you are a new creation in Christ. Perhaps this is an idea that Mormonism is missing due to its dedication to not really having clergy? (I know they say they have a non-paid clergy, but it seems more honest an accurate to say that they have a group of volunteers who are given the 'priesthood' because it is something given to boys at a certain age as more or less a rite of passage, regardless of their actual level of theological acumen or even interest in being 'priests'.)

I don't know...I have a feeling that if instead of having the traditional "Come and see" attitude that all Orthodox people have (where you learn what we are about by first-hand experience, by coming to some of our services and seeing what and how we pray), the Coptic people had begun grilling me on my sexual sins or other types of sins or other aspects of my personal life, then whether or not I was found to be 'up to code' would be very irrelevant, because I would've never come back for a second visit.

So maybe there is something in these converts where they must respond well to that. Otherwise, I don't how they could ever win over anyone (since I don't entertain the Mormon explanation that it's the Holy Spirit, obviously). Although now that I think about it, my ex-LDS ex-stepmother was very attracted to it at the time by the picture of happiness that the carpenter who introduced her to the religion painted when talking about his family, so there are obviously many different ways by which a person may get in to the religion. (No surprise that this was during a period of great unhappiness in her marriage to my father. Probably the Mormon idea of "happy families living forever together in heaven" or whatever is a very strong motivation for many.)

 

[He is the way]

My lone encounter with the LDS was due to a free bible offer on television. The commercial appeared late at night and I called and made a request. I’d been away from church a few years and felt good about reading the bible once more.

I expected a package in the mail and was met by a man wearing a black suit. He introduced himself and stated he came by to talk and received my information from the bible request. Did I have a moment?

Irrespective of his dress and candor I had no intention of inviting him in. I was home alone and unsettled by his sudden appearance. I told him I couldn’t talk.

Then he came again. And again. And again for one month straight! He wouldn’t stop until I told him I wasn’t interested in joining their church and asked him to stop appearing unannounced. I never received the bible or dealt with them from that point.

I very much doubt he was a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. It is against our policy to visit people alone, especially someone of the opposite sex.

 

[He is the way]

1) Context
2) See my posts about pastoral responsibility toward the well-being of the community.
3) Note that Peter didn't investigate, scrutinize, and invade Ananias and Sapphira's personal lives.

-CryptoLutheran

It did cause a great fear to come upon the people of the church.

 

[Not David]

It did cause a great fear to come upon the people of the church.

What's the point?

 

[He is the way]

What's the point?

Most likely they feared being questioned by Peter. Sin causes fear.

 

[Rescued One]

I very much doubt he was a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. It is against our policy to visit people alone, especially someone of the opposite sex.

She said that someone may have been with him. Two missionaries couldn't visit her either. Since he never brought a Bible, I wonder if he was a JW.

 

[Not David]

Most likely they feared being questioned by Peter. Sin causes fear.

Or they feared deceiving the Holy Spirit and suffering death.

 

[bèlla]

Oh, okay. Their rules are that they can't go in your house if you're alone unless a third person goes with them.

Thank you for clarifying. I’ll keep that in mind if I encounter others in a similar position. God bless.

 

[bèlla]

I very much doubt he was a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. It is against our policy to visit people alone, especially someone of the opposite sex.

I’m happy I followed my gut. Thank you for your feedback.

 

[He is the way]

She said that someone may have been with him. Two missionaries couldn't visit her either. Since he never brought a Bible, I wonder if he was a JW.

That is what I was wondering.