9 ms·

I am not Mormon, but I am mystified why a Mormon would not understand why their church hoards money rather than giving it away. It makes complete sense to anyon

by gregw2 3y ago

I am not Mormon, but I am mystified why a Mormon would not understand why their church hoards money rather than giving it away. It makes complete sense to anyone who understands their peculiar doctrine. One of those peculiarities as a religion born in America is the prophecy that when the US Constitution is hanging by a thread, the Mormon Elders will be asked to step in and save it. Saving up a ton of money for that day is in complete alignment of what they (quietly) preach. There is a prepper mindset fairly deeply attached to Mormonism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy

crabkin 3y ago
Having been a seminary class president, scout, priesthood holder, just not a missionary or really active member, born and raised in Utah, I will tell you one interesting contradiction about Mormons is the extent to which they disown their past and at the same time still have many ideas from that time circulating around in a particular way. I would think it's similar to say how some Catholics may be down with the whole thing right now and yet still aren't "up-to-date" with the Catholic church's official position on things, for instance post Vatican II. Some not all. I would doubt that this sort of prophesy is a genuine front-of-mind-concern today by the people running this operation at the church. Preparing for the second coming could be a more sincere answer coming from them, but if such an event were to occur I think it would make money worthless, so that doesn't make sense to me.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > I would doubt that this sort of prophesy is a genuine front-of-mind-concern today by the people running this operation at the church. The concern is keeping the tribe going, and doing whatever it takes to optimize the tribe’s performance. Holding contradictory thoughts is just an inconvenience that can easily be tolerated, or even serve a purpose to weed out those less committed to the tribe. Note that even within the tribe, there can be multiple tribes, for example those of the leaders and those of the followers, who might have different goals.
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  > I will tell you one interesting contradiction about Mormons is the extent to which they disown their past and at the same time still have many ideas from that time circulating around in a particular way. I would think it's similar to say how some Catholics may be down with the whole thing right now and yet still aren't "up-to-date" with the Catholic church's official position on things, for instance post Vatican II. As I don't know what you mean about the LDS in your first sentence, I don't know what you mean here. Where the Catholic Church is concerned, no change in doctrine can occur; it would invalidate the Church's claim of religious and moral authority. Doctrine can develop, of course. Analogically, I like to characterize this as something like an increase in clarity and depth of prior teachings, or deductions that follows from them, but never anything that innovates or contradicts prior comprehension. We could say that development is monotonic. However, doctrine is one thing, but things like liturgical practice and canon law are another (and still another are the private opinions of prelates, which less educated people may confuse with magisterial Church teaching). These can be adapted in changing circumstances, though obviously not with infinite flexibility. In the case of Vatican II, it was a valid council and nothing taught in that council contracted what came before the council. Rather, historical circumstances, the cultural turmoil of that period, the resulting confusion, disorientation, corruption, etc. led to all sorts of secondary effects that seized on the fact of the Second Vatican Council. This left many people thinking the Church had changed in some essential way when it had not. Opportunists both inside and outside the Church happily used the appearance of change to promote fashionable nonsense and notions among the ignorant that were never taught by Vatican II. But from a historical perspective, one of many crises in Church history. No historically aware Catholic is freaking out, as dismayed as he may be.
  - crabkin 3y ago
    I don't disagree. It's not a perfect analogy. The Mormon's I describe are a lot like Sedevacantists except that they aren't openly out "against" the official church.
r20jb 3y ago
[dead]
- tomrod 3y ago
  It was widely discussed when I was a Mormon for the first three decades of life, primarily by the more conservative contingent of the LDS church. Mormons have this notion of "deep doctrine" because their hierarchical governance seeks to instill reliance and trust on its leaders, whom rarely commit to stating things as doctrine because the memory of the unwashed masses is longer than they'd expect. So folks on the front line take notions spoken decades and centuries ago and try to fit it to a modern framework, even when things are obviously wrong. There are, in fact, no Quakers living on the moon (Brigham Young), which we did arrive to in 1969 (Joseph Fielding Smith). This is why the White Horse prophecy remains relevant -- gets spoken about by Mormon leaders to young men over campfires and Sunday talks, in addition to a whole lot of other nonsensical mysticism and, worse, principles that are harmful to marginalized communities.
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    > So folks on the front line take notions spoken decades and centuries ago and try to fit it to a modern framework, even when things are obviously wrong. Only "centuries" ago? Judaism has entered the chat.
    - tomrod 3y ago
      Yep, and barely at that. Mormon history allegedly starts no earlier than 1820, though there are several versions of what they consider the "First Vision" that may have taken place over several years in 1820. Definitely by 1830 it started to take shape.
  - parpfish 3y ago
    > There are, in fact, no Quakers living on the moon (Brigham Young), which we did arrive to in 1969 (Joseph Fielding Smith). I've been trying to parse this, but I can't figure out what it means.
mattbrewsbytes 3y ago
This religion was formed when a person in the 1820's discovered golden plates with ancient Egyptian inscriptions (from ~ 2000 years ago) about 300 miles inland from the Atlantic in NY State. Absolutely no evidence that anyone from Egypt or the middle east was ever roaming around what is now upstate NY. Mystified isn't a strong enough wording to describe how people aren't rationalizing many aspects of the world's religions with all we know today.
- plagiarist 3y ago
  I wish people would apply critical thinking to whether or not it is appropriate to permanently punish two and all of their progeny for an action they took prior to having knowledge of good and evil. Or why an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent being would need to torture a distant descendant of theirs to death before considering forgiveness for that action.
  - jmnicolas 3y ago
    It's not surprising, humans have a thin veneer of rationality but are emotional creatures at their core. The last 3 years events proved it beyond any doubt.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- supportlocal4h 3y ago
  My family is amused when I criticize the physics in a movie when a bridge collapses in an unrealistic way. Apparently I don't have any issue with the talking dog that flies across the river and uses mental telepathy to form a giant wave that catches all the pieces of the fallen bridge and pushes them back into place to restore the bridge. No, my beef is with the poor grasp of physics because of how the bridge fell down. Joseph Smith didn't discover gold plates. He was led to them by an angel sent by God. The question of whether a decendant of inhabitants of Jerusalem could have buried some modified Egyption writings in North America 1000+ years before Joseph was born... that question is kind of small when considering if there is a God and if any such God takes a direct interest in individual people. FWIW, I happen to believe that there is a God and that God cares very much about you. Now, about that bridge...
wincy 3y ago
I grew up Mormon. No Mormon I’ve talked to has any problem with the church holding onto this money. They’ll say “well of course, it’s for when the temple is built in Independence, Missouri and we’re all called to live in the Promised Land under the Law of Consecration.” I fell on tough times a few years back and my local Bishop insisted I take some aid, they gave me food for a few months from “The Bishop’s Storehouse”, basically a food bank for members. This is despite me being an inactive Mormon for twenty years or so. They care a lot about their members, even the ones who aren’t going to church. Mormons are very clear about how they think things are going. What’s funny is the concern people outside the church have with all this.
supportlocal4h 3y ago
The church in question regularly teaches that people should build up their savings against any reversal of fortune. It also teaches to be generous to those in need. It strives to set an example in both things. Your wikipedia link is about some rumor started a half century after the founder was murdered. It's a bit like George Washington's cherry tree. It may be a well-known story, but it isn't part of the constitution or a motivation for any governing action. I think it is entirely appropriate for the government of Sweden to build some security for a rainy day. I think it is appropriate for my neighbor to do the same. I don't see any reason why the local community church should not. So why should a multinational church be different? I'm reading other headlines about whether US politicians will extend the debt limit in time. Wouldn't it be a relief if instead we criticized them for building too large a reserve?

by gregw2 3y ago

crabkin 3y ago

Having been a seminary class president, scout, priesthood holder, just not a missionary or really active member, born and raised in Utah, I will tell you one interesting contradiction about Mormons is the extent to which they disown their past and at the same time still have many ideas from that time circulating around in a particular way. I would think it's similar to say how some Catholics may be down with the whole thing right now and yet still aren't "up-to-date" with the Catholic church's official position on things, for instance post Vatican II. Some not all. I would doubt that this sort of prophesy is a genuine front-of-mind-concern today by the people running this operation at the church. Preparing for the second coming could be a more sincere answer coming from them, but if such an event were to occur I think it would make money worthless, so that doesn't make sense to me.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
> I would doubt that this sort of prophesy is a genuine front-of-mind-concern today by the people running this operation at the church. The concern is keeping the tribe going, and doing whatever it takes to optimize the tribe’s performance. Holding contradictory thoughts is just an inconvenience that can easily be tolerated, or even serve a purpose to weed out those less committed to the tribe. Note that even within the tribe, there can be multiple tribes, for example those of the leaders and those of the followers, who might have different goals.
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
> I will tell you one interesting contradiction about Mormons is the extent to which they disown their past and at the same time still have many ideas from that time circulating around in a particular way. I would think it's similar to say how some Catholics may be down with the whole thing right now and yet still aren't "up-to-date" with the Catholic church's official position on things, for instance post Vatican II. As I don't know what you mean about the LDS in your first sentence, I don't know what you mean here. Where the Catholic Church is concerned, no change in doctrine can occur; it would invalidate the Church's claim of religious and moral authority. Doctrine can develop, of course. Analogically, I like to characterize this as something like an increase in clarity and depth of prior teachings, or deductions that follows from them, but never anything that innovates or contradicts prior comprehension. We could say that development is monotonic. However, doctrine is one thing, but things like liturgical practice and canon law are another (and still another are the private opinions of prelates, which less educated people may confuse with magisterial Church teaching). These can be adapted in changing circumstances, though obviously not with infinite flexibility. In the case of Vatican II, it was a valid council and nothing taught in that council contracted what came before the council. Rather, historical circumstances, the cultural turmoil of that period, the resulting confusion, disorientation, corruption, etc. led to all sorts of secondary effects that seized on the fact of the Second Vatican Council. This left many people thinking the Church had changed in some essential way when it had not. Opportunists both inside and outside the Church happily used the appearance of change to promote fashionable nonsense and notions among the ignorant that were never taught by Vatican II. But from a historical perspective, one of many crises in Church history. No historically aware Catholic is freaking out, as dismayed as he may be.
- crabkin 3y ago
  I don't disagree. It's not a perfect analogy. The Mormon's I describe are a lot like Sedevacantists except that they aren't openly out "against" the official church.

r20jb 3y ago

[dead]

tomrod 3y ago
It was widely discussed when I was a Mormon for the first three decades of life, primarily by the more conservative contingent of the LDS church. Mormons have this notion of "deep doctrine" because their hierarchical governance seeks to instill reliance and trust on its leaders, whom rarely commit to stating things as doctrine because the memory of the unwashed masses is longer than they'd expect. So folks on the front line take notions spoken decades and centuries ago and try to fit it to a modern framework, even when things are obviously wrong. There are, in fact, no Quakers living on the moon (Brigham Young), which we did arrive to in 1969 (Joseph Fielding Smith). This is why the White Horse prophecy remains relevant -- gets spoken about by Mormon leaders to young men over campfires and Sunday talks, in addition to a whole lot of other nonsensical mysticism and, worse, principles that are harmful to marginalized communities.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  > So folks on the front line take notions spoken decades and centuries ago and try to fit it to a modern framework, even when things are obviously wrong. Only "centuries" ago? Judaism has entered the chat.
  - tomrod 3y ago
    Yep, and barely at that. Mormon history allegedly starts no earlier than 1820, though there are several versions of what they consider the "First Vision" that may have taken place over several years in 1820. Definitely by 1830 it started to take shape.
- parpfish 3y ago
  > There are, in fact, no Quakers living on the moon (Brigham Young), which we did arrive to in 1969 (Joseph Fielding Smith). I've been trying to parse this, but I can't figure out what it means.

mattbrewsbytes 3y ago

This religion was formed when a person in the 1820's discovered golden plates with ancient Egyptian inscriptions (from ~ 2000 years ago) about 300 miles inland from the Atlantic in NY State. Absolutely no evidence that anyone from Egypt or the middle east was ever roaming around what is now upstate NY. Mystified isn't a strong enough wording to describe how people aren't rationalizing many aspects of the world's religions with all we know today.

plagiarist 3y ago
I wish people would apply critical thinking to whether or not it is appropriate to permanently punish two and all of their progeny for an action they took prior to having knowledge of good and evil. Or why an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent being would need to torture a distant descendant of theirs to death before considering forgiveness for that action.
- jmnicolas 3y ago
  It's not surprising, humans have a thin veneer of rationality but are emotional creatures at their core. The last 3 years events proved it beyond any doubt.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
supportlocal4h 3y ago
My family is amused when I criticize the physics in a movie when a bridge collapses in an unrealistic way. Apparently I don't have any issue with the talking dog that flies across the river and uses mental telepathy to form a giant wave that catches all the pieces of the fallen bridge and pushes them back into place to restore the bridge. No, my beef is with the poor grasp of physics because of how the bridge fell down. Joseph Smith didn't discover gold plates. He was led to them by an angel sent by God. The question of whether a decendant of inhabitants of Jerusalem could have buried some modified Egyption writings in North America 1000+ years before Joseph was born... that question is kind of small when considering if there is a God and if any such God takes a direct interest in individual people. FWIW, I happen to believe that there is a God and that God cares very much about you. Now, about that bridge...

wincy 3y ago

I grew up Mormon. No Mormon I’ve talked to has any problem with the church holding onto this money. They’ll say “well of course, it’s for when the temple is built in Independence, Missouri and we’re all called to live in the Promised Land under the Law of Consecration.” I fell on tough times a few years back and my local Bishop insisted I take some aid, they gave me food for a few months from “The Bishop’s Storehouse”, basically a food bank for members. This is despite me being an inactive Mormon for twenty years or so. They care a lot about their members, even the ones who aren’t going to church. Mormons are very clear about how they think things are going. What’s funny is the concern people outside the church have with all this.

supportlocal4h 3y ago

The church in question regularly teaches that people should build up their savings against any reversal of fortune. It also teaches to be generous to those in need. It strives to set an example in both things. Your wikipedia link is about some rumor started a half century after the founder was murdered. It's a bit like George Washington's cherry tree. It may be a well-known story, but it isn't part of the constitution or a motivation for any governing action. I think it is entirely appropriate for the government of Sweden to build some security for a rainy day. I think it is appropriate for my neighbor to do the same. I don't see any reason why the local community church should not. So why should a multinational church be different? I'm reading other headlines about whether US politicians will extend the debt limit in time. Wouldn't it be a relief if instead we criticized them for building too large a reserve?