Would You Do It?

[JLHPROF]

Would you, the person you are today, be willing to live the laws and ordinances of the Church as understood and practiced between 1850 & 1900?

Would you, with the personality and character you have this very day, be willing to live Plural Marriage, United Order, follow the old Temple/Garment policies, follow the more unusual doctrines (Adam-God) etc.

Or would you have a hard time being part of such a church as it would rub you the wrong way?  Would you still be a Mormon?

 

PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING BEFORE ANSWERING:

1. You don't "know better because of further light".  That defeats the purpose of this poll.  You are still you, but without the "further light" as it didn't exist.

2. You may be a member of that society and part of that culture but you are still you.  Don't choose based on societal norms either.  If there is something you couldn't accept now, don't assume you could accept it then.

 

What do you think?  Would the Church still appeal?

Edited January 26, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Storm Rider]

Not 100% of the membership lived or believed any of the things you have cited. I did not take the poll because there was no answer that fit my position. We have never maintained an absolutist position in the Church. 

 

I don't see how the restoration of the gospel has changed so much so that I would not seek after it. 

[Glenn101]

   If I were commanded to live by any of those principles, I would do my best to comply. I might have some questions about the Adam-God, but I am actually comfortable with my understanding of it as it stands now. Okay, I would hate to be told to take another wife. I can barely understand and give proper love and care to one. Actually, "barely understand" is an understatement. I don't think living in the United Order would be too much of a problem.

   However, I don't really know how I would feel if those things were actually in practice today.

 

Glenn

[JLHPROF]

Not 100% of the membership lived or believed any of the things you have cited. I did not take the poll because there was no answer that fit my position. We have never maintained an absolutist position in the Church. 

 

I don't see how the restoration of the gospel has changed so much so that I would not seek after it. 

 

That is why there was an "other opinion" option on the poll. 

[JLHPROF]

   If I were commanded to live by any of those principles, I would do my best to comply. I might have some questions about the Adam-God, but I am actually comfortable with my understanding of it as it stands now. Okay, I would hate to be told to take another wife. I can barely understand and give proper love and care to one. Actually, "barely understand" is an understatement. I don't think living in the United Order would be too much of a problem.

   However, I don't really know how I would feel if those things were actually in practice today.

 

Glenn

 

Thank you.  This is exactly the kind of honest response I was looking for.

[Avatar4321]

i have always wanted to follow the commandments of the Lord. Even when my weakness overcomes me. I would certainly be willing but with weak flesh, who knows?

[thatjimguy]

United order not a problem.

 

Polygamy? Dunno. I think about that now since it could come back.

 

Adam-God? Plenty of wild doctrine we have as it is. If I can accept all this, other stuff not a problem if explained well and with good reasoning behind it.

Edited January 27, 2014 by thatjimguy

[thesometimesaint]

I voted other. When I joined the Church in 1971 the Priesthood ban was fully in place. Didn't agree with it then. But it isn't my Church. Glad to see I finally agree with the Church.
 

Edited January 27, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[thatjimguy]

I voted other. When I joined the Church in 1971 the Priesthood ban was fully in place. Didn't agree with it then. But it isn't my Church. Glad to see I finally agree with the Church.

 

 

How did you personally see the ban as a convert? Did it make you pause at all about joining? 

[CV75]

Yes, not that I want to or care to, but I'm flexible and I'd figure it out with a little faith.

[Freedom]

Adam God was never doctrine. But the reality is, we are members of a true and LIVING church. It will continue to change. As culture changes, the church changes. The same could be said of government: would you, the person you are now, be willing to live in the United States, or what ever your country of residency is, as it was lived from 1850-1900? Well, not if it didn't have internet. It is, in my opinion, a silly question. 

[ERayR]

Would you, the person you are today, be willing to live the laws and ordinances of the Church as understood and practiced between 1850 & 1900?

Would you, with the personality and character you have this very day, be willing to live Plural Marriage, United Order, follow the old Temple/Garment policies, follow the more unusual doctrines (Adam-God) etc.

Or would you have a hard time being part of such a church as it would rub you the wrong way?  Would you still be a Mormon?

 

PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING BEFORE ANSWERING:

1. You don't "know better because of further light".  That defeats the purpose of this poll.  You are still you, but without the "further light" as it didn't exist.

2. You may be a member of that society and part of that culture but you are still you.  Don't choose based on societal norms either.  If there is something you couldn't accept now, don't assume you could accept it then.

 

What do you think?  Would the Church still appeal?

 

 

If I were to receive the affirmation from the Holy Ghost then the answer would be yes.  If not then maybe, maybe not.

[thesometimesaint]

How did you personally see the ban as a convert? Did it make you pause at all about joining?

 

I saw it as just man's faulty understanding of what God was saying. Yes it did. Having lived in the US South I saw first hand what bigotry and hatred did. So I had a hard time reconciling the Church's stated position and my personal belief that all are alike unto God. I chose to accept the good parts, and let God deal with the ones I disagreed with. In 1978 he did just that.

[JLHPROF]

Thank you everyone who has responded so far (and pretty honestly too,)

 

The church "lifestyle", practices and society were quite different in those years.  I would argue that they were more challenging, in many ways more restrictive, and focused on different aspects of Mormonism than we focus on today.

And yet again, the same basic religion.

 

I think signing over my house deed or my car title to my Bishop would be very hard without some assurances.  I think wearing the old garment and clothing in Utah summers would be a challenge.  I KNOW that managing many wives would be a learning experience.  I personally think that listening to more speculative and wild doctrines (and having no correlation) would be more enjoyable, although probably less practical.  I think not having the WoW as a recommend requirement might have felt less restrictive too.  I KNOW that being sent on random missions with little notice to leave a family would have been crazy tough.

 

But I would like to think if I had been around in the 1850-1900 years that I would still have become a member.

[Ahab]

No problem. I'd just stand out a little more like Porter Rockwell.

[omni]

This might violate the qualifications at the end of your post, but it really just depends.  If I was born into the church at that time then I'm sure I would--the Utah territory  at that time was quit isolated and it would be all I knew.  That being said, I would have never converted to the church.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Would you, the person you are today, be willing to live the laws and ordinances of the Church as understood and practiced between 1850 & 1900?

Would you, with the personality and character you have this very day, be willing to live Plural Marriage, United Order, follow the old Temple/Garment policies, follow the more unusual doctrines (Adam-God) etc.

Or would you have a hard time being part of such a church as it would rub you the wrong way?  Would you still be a Mormon?

 

So you question is about polygamy?? If that is indeed being taught (plural marriage) today...no I would not be polygamist.

[The Nehor]

Plural marriage? I could do that. If I have two wives though I want a brother-husband to help pay the bills.

Adam-God? Already believe there is truth there.

Long garments? Inconvenient but whatever.

United Order? Help living the Consecration covenant? Hot Dog!!!! Sign me up!!!!!

[wenglund]

I am having trouble getting married to one woman, let alone multiple woman, so I will have to disqualify myself from the hypothetical poll.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[luminatedlucy]

Prophets are fallible. We've seen historical examples of this so there's no reason to believe it isn't true now. So I won't blindly follow 2000-2014 mormonism, let alone the version that existed back then.

 

If god gave us minds to think with, we should question whether the older generation really knows better than we do, on gender roles, homosexuality, and transsexuality. The second most important commandment is "love thy neighbor as thyself." I personally do not believe we do that when we follow what our current prophets say.

[BlueDreams]

Would you, the person you are today, be willing to live the laws and ordinances of the Church as understood and practiced between 1850 & 1900?

Would you, with the personality and character you have this very day, be willing to live Plural Marriage, United Order, follow the old Temple/Garment policies, follow the more unusual doctrines (Adam-God) etc.

Or would you have a hard time being part of such a church as it would rub you the wrong way?  Would you still be a Mormon?

 

PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING BEFORE ANSWERING:

1. You don't "know better because of further light".  That defeats the purpose of this poll.  You are still you, but without the "further light" as it didn't exist.

2. You may be a member of that society and part of that culture but you are still you.  Don't choose based on societal norms either.  If there is something you couldn't accept now, don't assume you could accept it then.

 

What do you think?  Would the Church still appeal?

 

I put other. Because if I, assuming I was exactly the person I was today only in 1850 or 1900, wouldn't be wearing garments, attend the temple, or be in a plural marriage (not too sad about that one). I'd probably have a hard time with it. I would like to believe that I would find a place of peace about it. There are more important truths that I wouldn't be able to deny. And if I were still the exact same person, including the exact same PB, I'd probably assume that whatever was wrong would one day be fixed because God does not lie. I wouldn't really believe a number of beliefs then that circled around the priesthood ban. I probably wouldn't believe the adam-God idea, I'd probably still have mixed feelings about polygamy...but since I don't have to practice it, I'd be ok (yes, double standard. I'm aware)...I'd probably focus on the positive of being around some very forward thinking/moving women where I had more rights there than most places in the U.S.... And that's with my personality. I don't generally accept something just because someone says it is. I'd want certifiable proof. It's why I didn't believe any the theories about the ban because it didn't make sense and the scriptures didn't line up. Same with Adam-God. Same with certain folk beliefs about women and the priesthood. Same even with the curse on the Lamanites. etc. But I'd probably enjoy my fair share of speculating too.

 

United Order --> heck yeah I would. Experimental societies to make a Zion people? Sign me up!

 

If I was EXACTLY the same. Like in same family history, I'd probably be one jacked up person and have a lot more issues in general, with or without the church. And in some ways I may be a little better off in the church than out. It never goes well to be the illegitimate daughter to a white woman from a black man. Nope. I'm really content staying in my cozy 21st century where I can be all me without a number of crazy social issues surrounding my very existence. 

 

With luv,

BD

[The Nehor]

Prophets are fallible. We've seen historical examples of this so there's no reason to believe it isn't true now. So I won't blindly follow 2000-2014 mormonism, let alone the version that existed back then.

 

If god gave us minds to think with, we should question whether the older generation really knows better than we do, on gender roles, homosexuality, and transsexuality. The second most important commandment is "love thy neighbor as thyself." I personally do not believe we do that when we follow what our current prophets say.

 

More important then minds to think with (God gives his opinion on our reasoning power and it is NOT encouraging) I would instead say that God gave us spirits to be revelated to.

 

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" does not mean thinking everyone is wonderful. I don't love myself that way. I know I am a colossal screwup. I love myself because I know I could be so much better. When I sin I do not count as friends those who excuse or justify my sin.

 

Mostly this is a matter of "presentism". Every generation thinks they have everything figured out and without fail later generations look back at how messed up they were. Why do we imagine that everything that shows up in our generation will pass the test of time? Are we really that arrogant?