Calm

Read the article. It’s certainly presenting it as intentional, but that Jehovah Witnesses are listed as Christian, but not LDS is not standard fundamentalist thinking as Navidad pointed out. The eliminations fit the fundamentalist category though, it seems to me. The explanation… What else is new, lol….or rather not so lol. Meaning directions have been confusing, not chaplains are typically confused in case that wasn’t obvious…and yes, I realize this is a political remark, so feel free to ignore as it’s not meant to target one administration, but is a general comment about governments.

Exactly…that’s why Incognitus’ reasoning makes the most sense to me.

My exploration of other faiths has greatly helped me understand my own faith much better as well as appreciating it more. It doesn’t have to be a win/lose situation (appreciation of one thing means you lose respect of something else).

Is this a serious question and not a gotcha? Because in all my years as a member there have been quite a few mentions of Heavenly Mother at church, from the pulpit and in lessons, but the only time I heard the idea of multiple heavenly mothers was members outside of church using the idea to explain different races (ugh) or repeating speculation. I have lived in a handful of states and three countries and it’s all been the same. No doubt some have shared speculation at church or even referred to past comments by leaders, but nothing that was directed by lessons or otherwise by actual current leadership. Quite the opposite in fact I am guessing since polygamy was discouraged in teachers’ manuals to be a focus of any lesson during the decades I was teaching in Primary and Sunday School. Questions were to be answered briefly at most and iirc, there was a suggestion to address individual concerns after class. Pretty sure any official teachings that God had multiple wives, so there were multiple Heavenly Mothers weren’t shared from the pulpit or in publications for at least 125 years, probably more (Orson Pratt seems to have been fond of the idea and I believed it was implied from Brigham’s comments, there are probably others from that time period.) What the Church teaches now you can read for yourself: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng

I thought they had added this, but my grandson hasn’t gone on a mission yet (and might not though he is a believer, I think it’s more of the required lifestyle he is concerned about) and everyone else I talk to these days went decades ago. Maybe someone more up to date can let us know if that is still the case. Of course, culture lessons still may not have much religious content. I have never understood the typical LDS lack of interest in other faiths given the typical desire to make friends, work with other organizations in humanitarian efforts. Even given the antagonism, wouldn’t it make better sense to find out what the differences actually are? But the default presumption in the past in my experience was assuming they were fearful of us stealing their sheep, often because pastors were afraid of losing money. (Which attitude made me feel it was understandable when I saw criticism about wanting converts for their tithing as often we criticize others based on our own fixations and weaknesses.) Some Saints saw antimormon attacks as based on fear of the damning of souls who converted, which is more likely in my opinion for the most vocal religious opposition and what I heard most from personal experiences, but I would think in that case LDS would be eager to learn what religious reasons were behind it instead of just leaving it at that “they think we aren’t Christian because they aren’t educated about our actual beliefs”.

I can almost guarantee this unless things have changed significantly since the internet has been available. I would hope it has. In the past, my experience is LDS hear “Mother of God” and it sounds like a similar role to “Heavenly Mother”. They have often assumed Mary is worshipped much like the Father and Christ as well. PS: it’s been 10 years since I interacted in any significant way with missionaries in person and even online, I haven’t encountered return missionaries sharing in detail mission experiences either, so no opportunity to ask questions of ‘what was it like’ like I used to, so my info is out of date. No one should assume what I say in this topic as the current status. I sincerely hope it isn’t as our lack of interests in other faiths has been one of the most frustrating things about our culture for me (because I saw change in other areas, but not in this). Probably one of the top two frustrations.

I have seen that among older Saints, but it seems to me it’s much less common than now. And asking some random Saint as opposed to calling Salt Lake to get the official POV seems really odd to me. Hopefully Incognitus is correct and it is simply as issue of space and figuring we would want the entire name. As long as Jesus Christ is in the name, seems like the default assumption would be Christian. Haven’t read the article yet, but if the Trib didn’t try to get an explanation for the lack, it’s poor reporting. The absence of the Trib reporting that as the reason is the only reason I am still thinking it could be prejudice (refusal to accept us) or sloppiness (asking some random Saint rather than getting the official preference). But it’s also odd to me they feel the need to separate out which are Christian and which aren’t in the listing in the first place. Who needs to have that kind of additional info? (Serious question) I would hope any chaplains would be familiar with the denominations well enough to already know.

Who prepared it?

I haven’t seen much of this. My grandmother might tell my grandfather to say a blessing, but she oversaw everything. Dad took charge, but he took charge everywhere. Except if something bores him. Mom always ran FHE iirc, we didn’t have it much. That was his personality. Whoever wants stuff to begin speaks up in our family now. My husband likely has adhd and finds it difficult at times to get moving or make decisions. That’s not the kind of stuff that freezes me. In his home, his mom did some stuff, his dad others. That’s pretty much every other LDS home I have been in. Not saying all are like that. I have had quite a few discussions on what presiding actually means. Most answers are pretty vague or not realistic imo.

Very much agree with this. Is this an appeal of the primitive or looking more for one’s roots so to speak, wanting to hold on to heritage by combining older traditions and beliefs with new? Maybe a combination? Maybe wanting to find roots because one feels adrift?

By choice or necessity? (Just my usual curiosity, no need to answer if too personal)

So it wasn’t Brother Johnson himself who made the claim of prophetic authority being passed to him or a higher version of priesthood authority, but his grandson? Just trying to be clear on it. I haven’t studied this much, but Brother Johnson was an active member till death and was never censured for teaching anything not in line with mainstream doctrine at the time iirc. So it wasn’t as if he claimed or others claimed for him special higher knowledge only given to him, correct? It is just the special authority he didn’t claim that attracted adherents. The grandson only claimed special authority and a need to preserve Nauvoo teachings as well as claiming it was passed on to himself? If I am correct, how much of the family followed the grandson out of the mainstream church (out of the colonies if you know that as well as within them) and besides family loyalty and plural marriage, what was the likely motivation to accept his claim or were those enough? Also am curious if Brother Johnson’s recollections of Joseph’s teachings of plural marriage differed from Brigham’s?

All the threads from before that date are locked. A few after that date are locked, but for rule breaking. I don’t know if it’s automatic or the mod comes in every now and then and locks old threads to prevent too old thread resurrection (because it can be frustrating to write a post to a long gone poster as it is very unlikely one will get a response).

Why do they believe this? What do they point to as evidence in other words?

I approve of navel gazing as long as we also commit as much effort into looking around. Not the self indulgent kind navel gazing has come to mean, but the serious contemplative version seeking connection with God or something more than ______. I think LDS can be prone to both kinds. Some members see no value in learning of other faiths as if we have all truth and insight within our own community and they may even get caught up too deeply in gospel hobbies, so far in fact they lose faith in our actual doctrine.

I like the idea of migration. We talk of life being a journey, but so often that gets phrased as a direct transit from point a to point b with any digression being wasted time or worse. I see the purpose of mortality as more exploration. Migration fits that view pretty well.

Here are the guidelines on the funeral as well as assistance. Note the emphasis on even funerals being a spiritual meeting and not being fully focused on the departed. It is advised such a memorial can take place elsewhere. I don’t know if new or not, but it does indicate if someone is not a member, the chapel may still be used following their usual patterns and the service may be led by the clergy of the deceased’s faith, but rituals of that faith or other organizations are not allowed in our meetinghouse. This last surprises me a bit because bishops have invited nonmembers to hold their services in our chapels when their buildings have been destroyed and other crises. I supposed it is better to have a general guideline as there might be some practices that could be problematic.

I went looking for guidelines on funerals and stumbled on this instead. I love that the Chirch offers a pretty detailed guide on what is involved and needed after a death, not only providing how to advice on funerals and burials/cremations including getting help covering costs if qualified, but also on death certificates and what one will need them for. https://icp.churchofjesuschrist.org/pages/funeral_srp Just have to post it, I was so pleased to see it.

They are the most visible ones, especially since the internet gave them a very accessible pulpit and it became easier to find each other, which meant they had someone willing to listen without negative judgment (I don’t believe this is inherently bad, sometimes that can help the processing of change quicker to move away from anger, but sometimes it will reinforce and prolong it). However, most who leave the Church just fade away quietly. Hard to know if there is anger there or not. I think a lot depends on how much one invested and why one stopped attending. If a loss of belief, was it because of new information about the Church (that may or may not be true) or was there a change in faith about God or something else. Funerals at the local chapel….I have mixed feelings about the requirements to use chapels for funerals. It is free and the ward generally provides a nice meal afterwards for family, so it can be a very great help for those who are grieving. However, it is also seen as a missionary opportunity. It is required—or at least was—to have a member of the bishopric speak and include details of the Plan of Salvation. Of course we typically see the gospel as a great comfort for those who are grieving as we believe our vision of the afterlife is a beautiful, loving one, but not all share that view and not all speakers focus on the hope it offers. Instead they might go the fear route and stress what will be lost if not faithful…and that might include judgment of others that is inappropriate, not only because they are grieving, but because no one knows their hearts save God. As far as rebaptism, in the past they were done for multiple reasons. Saints were often rebaptized when they reached Utah, during big periods of “retrenchment” or before attending the temple as a show of renewed commitment to the faith and God. These were stopped in the 1890s (according to article below). It was more consistently used for healing though, iirc. This practice faded once elders’ blessings were emphasized, eventually completely eliminated, keeping baptism for the sole purpose of remission of sins and taking on the name of Christ, becoming a member of the Restored Church. Checked the article and it says this one in the 1920s. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/rebaptism?lang=eng Added: I read a very good article on this a while back. I think this is the one, but don’t have time to read. Stapley is a good historian though, so I am going to risk it. https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/rebaptism-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints

I don’t know how accurate this is, but supposedly the current data centers use less than 1% of the water we use to water our lawns in the US. Seems like an easy solution would be to go to xeriscaping instead of lawns. I have been trying to get my husband to do that since we moved back to Utah, but he insists we need lawns to play on plus it keeps out weeds. Pretty much for twenty years the only play has been him mowing the lawn and cursing it.

Nice find….

I am surprised you scored 100% orthodoxy unless you did more understanding of LDS belief rather than to see what type were your own. that is a weird dichotomy. Why wouldn’t someone who was very orthodox also be very orthopraxy. The one question I remember was which was more important, but that doesn’t mean the other isn’t important as well.

I think you would like him. He is a good writer imo.

Have you heard of disfellowshipping or withdrawal of membership because that sounds like similar practices in the little research I did?

Would people discuss it that much I wonder.