Jump to content

Facts About Mormons That Will Positively Fascinate You


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"Lather, rinse, repeat"

Thrifty Mormons are not stupid enough to use twice as much conditioner as needed, just so they can have a greasy scalp . ;)

 

I am too lazy, never repeat…plus read hair care in teens that said less washing is better, but have to wash hair whenever take a shower or I don’t feel clean, so wash just once with not that much shampoo and don’t even use soap elsewhere unless really dirty, just use the shampoo bubbles while I let the bubbles sit for a bit to work on the scalp (shampoo is more about the scalp than hair, conditioner is for hair so just put on ends).  My skin and hair are great and no one complains about smell, so guess the ‘routine’ works. 
 

Also in my youth I stayed in bed till the last minute and got my shower time down to five minutes. Longest part was waiting for it to heat up. No time to repeat a shampoo there. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

 

7 hours ago, pogi said:

Ya, I couldn't figure that out either.  I'm not sure I even get the law of Moses part though - what's your theory? 

Altars in the temple. No theory and maybe some of the things said.  Only connection I can see.  

7 hours ago, pogi said:

The telestial kingdom appears to be a cross between the terrestrial and telestial.  The "otherwise good people" part is actually the terrestrial kingdom -

And the "carnal" morals (which is not found anywhere in the D&C, so not sure why it is quoted), fits though -

 

 

Link to comment
21 hours ago, pogi said:

first is where God himself lives; the Terrestrial Kingdom is for those who followed the law of Moses but not Joseph Smith;

I do recall reading that the Law of Moses is the "terrestrial law" - it's a law of rules for people who still need help figuring out what God wants them to do.

Christ reintroduced the higher, Celestial law, which is basically "love God and love your neighbor", without needing anyone else to interpret what that means with rules and restrictions, because you are living by the spirit and have God's laws written in your heart.

Joseph Smith also reintroduced the Celestial law, and restored the saving ordinances, so he is used as the prophet who represents the Celestial law. Moses -terrestrial. Joseph-celestial.

I wouldn't be looking for any hidden, convoluted meanings, it's pretty clear cut.

 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, pogi said:

other members really assess peoples skin to guess if they are Mormon, or was this idea planted into the test subjects head and tested?  Seems pretty far fetched to me.  We would likely be looking at other cues that I previously mentioned. 

I think it would be a good idea to read the studies themselves and the methodology used for each study. It's not as fly by night as you are thinking  I could probably post a summary of a few of them... But they've already got summaries and quick links to methodologies that would likely answer those kind of questions better than my summaries could.

I would say though, just with my own thoughts, that having ruled out all the factors you mentioned above, all they had left that they (the researchers) could think would account for the ability to still be able to tell the difference... is skin... Because they took away pretty much everything but the skin.

And yes, there is more detailed research that suggests humans can and do separate "us" and "them" on cues as subtle as skin texture.

I once picked up that a teacher in one of my schools was likely former LDS based on the way he used the word "patriarch" in a sentence. It was not in a church context, it was part of our lesson which has nothing remotely related to do with the church. But he said it a certain way that clicked in my brain that I added together with this odd way he had of swearing. He would pause slightly before uttering a swear word, even those as innocuous as "sh" and "damn".  He used both frequently enough that along with copious visual cues let me know he was no longer a member.

I asked him after class if he has been raised Mormon and he acted like I had dug out that he'd been raised by axe murderers and wanted to know how I could have possibly guessed that (most likely to eradicate whatever it was that cued me.) It was a funny encounter, but also a telling one. You don't always need obvious cues and you may not actually be aware of what exactly is tipping you off. I was aware by the time I guessed what had cued me, but only when the two factors clicked.

That was also indicated in the research studies I posted. When you get a chance, you really should read them. They are interesting.

 

 

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Emily said:

I do recall reading that the Law of Moses is the "terrestrial law" - it's a law of rules for people who still need help figuring out what God wants them to do.

Christ reintroduced the higher, Celestial law, which is basically "love God and love your neighbor", without needing anyone else to interpret what that means with rules and restrictions, because you are living by the spirit and have God's laws written in your heart.

Joseph Smith also reintroduced the Celestial law, and restored the saving ordinances, so he is used as the prophet who represents the Celestial law. Moses -terrestrial. Joseph-celestial.

I wouldn't be looking for any hidden, convoluted meanings, it's pretty clear cut.

 

I’ve been searching for a quote that likens or equates the Law of Moses with the terrestrial law and have so far found nothing. At any rate, it appears highly unlikely that the “law of carnal commandments,” usually referred to as the Law of Moses, which excludes the all important saving ordinance of the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, would somehow equate with the terrestrial law.

In Doctrine and Covenants 76, we’re told that the inheritors of the terrestrial glory received the gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that they are differentiated from the inheritors of the celestial kingdom because they were not fully valiant in the testimony of Jesus in who they believed. And because the inheritors of the post-resurrection terrestrial kingdom of glory enjoy the personal ministry of the Son of God, there can be no doubt but that they received the ordinance of the  the gift of the Holy Ghost because the scriptures teach us that one cannot be blessed with the immediate personal ministry of the second member of the Godhead without having first received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Paul further testifies that the Lord’s people of Moses’ day were only able to endure the lesser glory of Moses’ shinning face when he came down from the sacred mount, but that they were not prepared to endure the glorious personal presence of Jesus Christ — the Law of Moses being unequal to the task.

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Emily said:

I do recall reading that the Law of Moses is the "terrestrial law" - it's a law of rules for people who still need help figuring out what God wants them to do.

Christ reintroduced the higher, Celestial law, which is basically "love God and love your neighbor", without needing anyone else to interpret what that means with rules and restrictions, because you are living by the spirit and have God's laws written in your heart.

Joseph Smith also reintroduced the Celestial law, and restored the saving ordinances, so he is used as the prophet who represents the Celestial law. Moses -terrestrial. Joseph-celestial.

I wouldn't be looking for any hidden, convoluted meanings, it's pretty clear cut.

I think that is a pretty reasonable bet as to where this misconstrued idea came from.  It is kind of strange though because It seems like one would have to be pretty steeped in Mormon theology to even be capable of making such a mistake.  The idea that the law of Moses is a terrestrial law is not scriptural, as far as I can tell - but it sort of, kind of, could make sense based on our doctrines why it might be thought of that way.  I had a hard time finding any info on it in a google search - nothing from any official source or prophet, or even apostle that I could find.  I did find one old obscure conference talk from a seventy that said the law of Moses is a terrestrial, but that's about it.  Other than that, it is just a couple comments on blogs and forums, etc. making speculations - which may have been the author's source, I suppose.   Maybe others will have better luck then me in finding anything official.  It seems like only someone who knows something about Mormonism could make such a mistake, but then, anyone who knows anything about Mormonism would be hard pressed to make such a mistake with such a basic principle as the degrees of glory, because the scriptural reference about the degrees of glory and who inhabits them is pretty simple and clear in the D&C and teachings are plentiful and far from what the author suggests. 

I don't think anyone is looking for any hidden or convoluted meanings, just trying to understand where the author is coming from.  I think you have made a reasonable guess as to how the author got it wrong, but I guess it is not as clear cut in my eyes.   

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I’ve been searching for a quote that likens or equates the Law of Moses with the terrestrial law and have so far found nothing. At any rate, it appears highly unlikely that the “law of carnal commandments,” usually referred to as the Law of Moses, which excludes the all important saving ordinance of the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, would somehow equate with the terrestrial law.

In Doctrine and Covenants 76, we’re told that the inheritors of the terrestrial glory received the gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that they are differentiated from the inheritors of the celestial kingdom because they were not fully valiant in the testimony of Jesus in who they believed. And because the inheritors of the post-resurrection terrestrial kingdom of glory enjoy the personal ministry of the Son of God, there can be no doubt but that they received the ordinance of the  the gift of the Holy Ghost because the scriptures teach us that one cannot be blessed with the immediate personal ministry of the second member of the Godhead without having first received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Paul further testifies that the Lord’s people of Moses’ day were only able to endure the lesser glory of Moses’ shinning face when he came down from the sacred mount, but that they were not prepared to endure the glorious personal presence of Jesus Christ — the Law of Moses being unequal to the task.

Beat me to it. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Emily said:

I think it would be a good idea to read the studies themselves and the methodology used for each study. It's not as fly by night as you are thinking  I could probably post a summary of a few of them... But they've already got summaries and quick links to methodologies that would likely answer those kind of questions better than my summaries could.

I would say though, just with my own thoughts, that having ruled out all the factors you mentioned above, all they had left that they (the researchers) could think would account for the ability to still be able to tell the difference... is skin... Because they took away pretty much everything but the skin.

And yes, there is more detailed research that suggests humans can and do separate "us" and "them" on cues as subtle as skin texture.

I once picked up that a teacher in one of my schools was likely former LDS based on the way he used the word "patriarch" in a sentence. It was not in a church context, it was part of our lesson which has nothing remotely related to do with the church. But he said it a certain way that clicked in my brain that I added together with this odd way he had of swearing. He would pause slightly before uttering a swear word, even those as innocuous as "sh" and "damn".  He used both frequently enough that along with copious visual cues let me know he was no longer a member.

I asked him after class if he has been raised Mormon and he acted like I had dug out that he'd been raised by axe murderers and wanted to know how I could have possibly guessed that (most likely to eradicate whatever it was that cued me.) It was a funny encounter, but also a telling one. You don't always need obvious cues and you may not actually be aware of what exactly is tipping you off. I was aware by the time I guessed what had cued me, but only when the two factors clicked.

That was also indicated in the research studies I posted. When you get a chance, you really should read them. They are interesting.

 

 

Calm shared some links and info from the studies.  It is interesting.  The results are really surprising to me.  I just can't imagine that our skin is really that much better to be able to subconsciously identify Mormons based on the texture of our skin.  Strange indeed.  I don't know how else to interpret the results though.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
23 hours ago, pogi said:

This one amused me:

So, who is funding these studies anyway?  The fact that it sounds like there are potentially multiple studies on this...weird!  Sounds like a good candidate for the ignoble award to me.  Highly questionable results if true.  

It is more likely that the Mormons are identified through other means...  Even without the instantly identifiable Mormon face, it's not hard to pick out some Mormons, and no we are not looking at the skin. 

Romney-Bad-Undeshirt

Good giveaway!

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The only thing I can come up with is that LDS don't drink coffee, or most anyway. Wondering if coffee has anything to do with it. My dad who was only active for my mom usually, drank coffee and said to me as a child it would turn your knees black and would tease. Don't know where he came up with that though. Also, maybe alcohol can cause the eyes to be blood shot? So many variables. 

Actually coffee and tea have been shown to be good for skin.   Alcohol and smoking - not so much.  It makes sense that because we have more longevity and lower heart disease, etc. our skin could be better on average, I just don't think it would be  consciously perceivable until much later in life.  I don't know why our subconscious would be looking at the skin to identify other Mormons unless we had some foundational conditioning that Mormons have better skin - which we don't.  It is just so weird to me. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 minute ago, pogi said:

Actually coffee and tea have been shown to be good for skin.   Alcohol and smoking - not so much.  It makes sense that because we have more longevity and thus lower heart disease, etc. our skin could be better on average, I just don't think it would be  consciously perceivable until much later in life.  I don't know why our subconscious would be looking at the skin to identify other Mormons unless we had some foundational conditioning that Mormons have better skin - which we don't.  It is just so weird to me. 

I think it's the "Mormon" countenance teachings. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"Lather, rinse, repeat"

Thrifty Mormons are not stupid enough to use twice as much conditioner as needed, just so they can have a greasy scalp . ;)

 

Not a thing really with curly hair. I condition farrrrrrr more than I shampoo. This thrifty mormon would have a head of undefined, dry, frizz without it. 
 

course I also by bar shampoo/conditioner (stuff is pricier but also lasts a lot longer) and put homemade flax seed gel in my hair after showering. And then bar Castile soap for my face (COVID acquisition when all the stores were out of soap I discovered that castillete soap is amazing for so many different things). So i’m likely an outlier in more than one way. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think it's the "Mormon" countenance teachings. 

Could be, I suppose.  I always thought of that as happy/positive/peaceful facial expressions more identified in the eyes than anything else.  That is the strange part though because the eyes and all expressive features of the face were blocked out.  I never would think to look at the skin, and I don't know why our collective subconscious would automatically go there to ID other Mormons.  

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Actually coffee and tea have been shown to be good for skin.   Alcohol and smoking - not so much.  It makes sense that because we have more longevity and lower heart disease, etc. our skin could be better on average, I just don't think it would be  consciously perceivable until much later in life.  I don't know why our subconscious would be looking at the skin to identify other Mormons unless we had some foundational conditioning that Mormons have better skin - which we don't.  It is just so weird to me. 

Subconsciously we look for health in people either way…and tend to pick up on group differences and cues for said differences whether we’re aware of them or not. We’re fundamentally cued to pay attention to physical appearance and look for in/out groups. And skin’s a bigger part of that than one would expect. For example, People can also notice when women are ovulating based off of their faces. The skin tends to look healthier than nearer our periods. 
 

With luv, 

BD 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Not a thing really with curly hair. I condition farrrrrrr more than I shampoo. This thrifty mormon would have a head of undefined, dry, frizz without it. 
 

course I also by bar shampoo/conditioner (stuff is pricier but also lasts a lot longer) and put homemade flax seed gel in my hair after showering. So i’m likely an outliar in more than one way. 

I have curly hair to and do the same.  I use an oil based "smoothie" in my hair after showering or else I am all dry frizz.  In high school, I pulled off a pretty decent afro for a white boy.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
58 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

In Doctrine and Covenants 76, we’re told that the inheritors of the terrestrial glory received the gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that they are differentiated from the inheritors of the celestial kingdom because they were not fully valiant in the testimony of Jesus in who they believed. And because the inheritors of the post-resurrection terrestrial kingdom of glory enjoy the personal ministry of the Son of God, there can be no doubt but that they received the ordinance of the  the gift of the Holy Ghost because the scriptures teach us that one cannot be blessed with the immediate personal ministry of the second member of the Godhead without having first received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Paul further testifies that the Lord’s people of Moses’ day were only able to endure the lesser glory of Moses’ shinning face when he came down from the sacred mount, but that they were not prepared to endure the glorious personal presence of Jesus Christ — the Law of Moses being unequal to the task.

I think you're right.

When the article said:

On 10/18/2022 at 4:53 PM, pogi said:

In Mormonism, there isn’t just one heaven that all good people go to after they die, rather there are three: the Celestial Kingdom, the Terrestrial Kingdom, and the Telestial Kingdom. The first is where God himself lives; the Terrestrial Kingdom is for those who followed the law of Moses but not Joseph Smith; and the Telestial Kingdom is reserved for those who followed “carnal” morals and were otherwise good people.

I think it's a very bad and simplistic interpretation of these verses:

Quote

 98 And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world;
99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.
100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;
101 But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant.
(Doctrine and Covenants 76:98–101)

They are following "Moses" (or they are being zealous in a particular faction of religion) "but not Joseph Smith" (not entering into the everlasting covenant).  Of course they miss the whole point, which is about the proper attitude, and having a testimony of Jesus and receiving the gospel.

Elsewhere I found a statement that's just the opposite of what the article says on its surface (it's Bruce R. McConkie, but I'll take him for the moment).  He says that those who keep the law of Moses (with full desire to follow the Lord) WILL inherit the celestial kingdom:

Quote

Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, Vol.1, p.74
To gain the celestial kingdom, the Lord says: Ye must be "sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ," which law is the fulness of the gospel. The revealed word specifies that those who "abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom" shall obtain a terrestrial glory, and that those who "abide the law of a telestial kingdom" shall obtain a telestial glory. No such requirement is set forth for gaining a celestial glory. Instead, the revelation says that those who so obtain must be "able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom." (D&C 88:21-24.) In other words, salvation in the celestial kingdom will come to all who are able to live the full law of Christ, even though they did not have opportunity so to do in the course of a mortal probation. Thus, all those who kept the law of Moses, who lived the law of the preparatory gospel to the full, thus establishing that they were able to live the Lord's law, will in due course gain a celestial inheritance. All of the great and eternal truths found in the law of Moses are also part and portion of the fulness of the gospel, in the same sense that all of the powers of the Aaronic Priesthood are embraced within the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
17 hours ago, Calm said:

Is this a thing now?  I have never heard a member say they go (I don’t have much chance to chit chat these days being mostly at home, save the chatting we do on the board).

I think it was more a thing from the late seventies-nineties with a peak around mid-eighties when the bad news started to leak out and savvy people who were still trying to look attractive by current standards started avoiding the sun in favor of fake tans --HDTV reveals lots of very orange actors/actresses in the mid to late eighties TV series. 😄  

The problem with tanning is that it can be quite addictive (www.skincancer.org/blog/can-you-be-addicted-tanning/). You try it once or twice to avoid white flashing at the upcoming beach party, and end up wanting to go back for more.  It keeps enough users around to keep the tanning salons in business, but I doubt the addiction is broadly spread through LDS culture.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Calm said:

I wonder if genetics is a factor. They chose only white faces. There is a higher percentage of white Saints with Scandinavian heritage and Scandinavians are thought to have ‘finer’ skin. I

I had those thoughts as well. Pull a bunch of white people from Utah and a great many of them are from a specific pool of European countries who are already lauded for having nice skin. They did draw from pools of people in the same geographic areas, but I didn't read any mention of checking the ancestry of all the participants. They should probably run their data through again and look to see if there were ancestry differences they didn't control for in the original review. People might have been detecting a genetic "community" (This is a thing in genetic testing now. For example, I am a member of the "Northern Utah & Southeast Idaho Settlers" genetic community.)

It seems like they could fairly easily do a follow up study with the original participants if all were willing to submit to genetic testing.  The results could be quite interesting. If they find out most of the member participants were from the Pioneer genetic communities and the non-members were not, it would mean that people are capable of separating themselves into subgroups that descend to the genetic level. That's pretty mind blowing. 😄

I'll have to see if any attempts have been made by the research group to check into that possibility.

I would also love to see a similar study done in another country with members and non-members drawn from the same geographic/ethnic pool to see if they find similar results, or nada.

If similar results are found, and potentially more genetic markers popping up showing that members have racial connections in that geographic area that are unique to members... It would sure give new emphasis to finding the seed of Abraham.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Calm said:

Me:  They covered or cropped out various parts of the faces to narrow what the cues could be

Hah. Thanks for posting all this Calm. I'll admit, I was too lazy and descended to a, "Man, I'm tired of swipe typing, go read it yourself." level. 😝

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Subconsciously we look for health in people either way…and tend to pick up on group differences and cues for said differences whether we’re aware of them or not. We’re fundamentally cued to pay attention to physical appearance and look for in/out groups. And skin’s a bigger part of that than one would expect. For example, People can also notice when women are ovulating based off of their faces. The skin tends to look healthier than nearer our periods. 

Exactly! There's research on that kind of thing, and other subtle cues that we are capable of noticing that is really fascinating.

I have a friend who is pretty adept at guessing what part of the country you are from based on tiny cues like your use of "soda" vs "pop" and a particularly good ear for accents. It comes with it's drawbacks though, he's so sensitive to this kind of thing, manners of speech like "up-talking" -- where people raise their voices like they are asking a question at the end of each sentence, and another pattern (I forget what it's called) where the voice is artificially lowered, almost growling (it's seen in business women), affect him like scraping nails on a chalkboard. Language and geography accents don't usually bother him, but he gets pretty edgy when people are engaging in deliberate "in speech" (whatever "in" happens to be for that person.)

I notice that kind of speech pattern, but I don't find it actually painful. I mentioned up-talking and even demonstrated it to another friend and sent her video examples, and she remained clueless to what I was talking about except in the most egregious examples. So there are definitely differences in the abilities of people to pick up on various social and physical cues.

How people react to the cues they experience also varies. Unconsciously or consciously, noticing that someone is outside your usual social group can invoke compassion, caution/discomfort, hostility, fascination, "He's different, I want to get to know him." etc, but we are rarely neutral. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Not a thing really with curly hair. I condition farrrrrrr more than I shampoo. This thrifty mormon would have a head of undefined, dry, frizz without it. 
 

course I also by bar shampoo/conditioner (stuff is pricier but also lasts a lot longer) and put homemade flax seed gel in my hair after showering. And then bar Castile soap for my face (COVID acquisition when all the stores were out of soap I discovered that castillete soap is amazing for so many different things). So i’m likely an outlier in more than one way. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Flax seed gel?

Wow that's way beyond MY grooming level!  But I still shower once a week when I change my underwear and try to comb out the snarls, if I need it or not! Oh yeah, I also have to change my earplugs, 'cause my wife keeps yelling at me to take a shower! 🤥😄

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Flax seed gel?

Wow that's way beyond MY grooming level!  But I still shower once a week when I change my underwear and try to comb out the snarls, if I need it or not! Oh yeah, I also have to change my earplugs, 'cause my wife keeps yelling at me to take a shower! 🤥😄

Lol, it actually saves me money and does just about as well as what I used to do. Plus you just can't do that with curls, you will pay for it with knots and frizz galore.  I can buy a bag of seeds for a couple buck, boils and strain and freeze them into cubes every 2 weeks and I have enough product to last me for several months from that one bag. I've have a hard time finding the right product as my hair is both curly but with a fine texture that hates heavier oils in excess. So where my husband does well rubbing a small amount of straight coconut oil into his locks (we're a family of curls), mine gets paradoxically frizzier if I do the same. If it's not flax, I also have a bottle of aloe vera with no alcohol that does the trick as well for a few days. Most commercial gels dry out my hair after a few applications too and the only thing that comes close to helping was a single brand of mousse. Flaz seed gel actually protects my hair. 

What can I say? I love my curls. So I pamper them :P 

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...