Occasionally antagonisms will arise on arfcom, and honest seekers of truth may want answers.

So, I found a few questions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on arfcom, and have tried to find answers...



Technically, Utah is a "democracy" with elections open to all eligible voters.

In fact there are some areas in Utah where faithful membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would hurt your chances for election. (Salt Lake City being an example. Park City being another).



There is no such codified canonized teaching as such in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The Principle of the Widows Mite is taught and practiced in The Church of Jesus Christ.

"Prosperity Gospel?" The Church teaches the opposite: "“Seek not for riches, but for wisdom, and behold, the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich.” (D&C 6:7.) Link



I have had "working class" leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I am deeply in the "working class," and was raised poor.

Church "leaders" who serve full-time are usually older and have the income and savings to afford serving full-time.

That being said, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does teach a gospel of "preparedness." My wife and I save as much as we can. We try to put our income in interest-bearing and and income-creating endeavors. I have been told to provide for my family and save and prepare for the future. Being "prepared" and financially preparing for the future, and financially taking care of my obligations is a tenet of belief of The Church of Jesus Christ.

But that is not, "Prosperity Gospel."




The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches and practices a principle of preparedness "in all things." The Church of Jesus Christ left Missouri destitute and deeply in debt, it left Illinois a few years later even poorer, and prior to Statehood, its assets it had built-up in The West were completely seized by the Federal Government.

The Church has precedence for saving and safeguarding assets.

Individual leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints wealthy and corrupt? The BYU Football coach is the highest paid Church employee from what I can see.

The Church teaches --as a codified, established teaching-- to get educated, get a skill, safeguard assets and prepare for the future, and save money. That is a teaching of The Church.

I am not sure what the actual antagonism is here. The Church teaches to safeguard assets and save. The Church safeguards assets, invests and saves. Members of the Church do the same.




The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints did not create the situation with Russia attacking Ukraine.

And believe it or not, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints did not cause WWII, either.

Trying not to start WW3 right now is not being, (your words) "slimy weasels."



Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are taught to be good and honest people as a tenet of beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The Church creates opportunities to serve, opportunities to lead, and opportunities to share. The Church structure and organization is important on its own, in addition to the doctrines that bring people to Christ, and make people better people.



Pretty much everyone endorsed the vaccine. The Church has a long history of supporting and funding vaccines.



I don't believe the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have erred. I look at their teachings, can compare it to scripture, and see that in the living, changing, growing Church we are growing and changing closer to Christ.



The Church has consistently taught its core doctrines... The basic doctrines and truth are not hidden, and have not been hidden for 200 years... Link

I see the leaders of The Church being humble and benelovent and charitable.

Its disgusting to save and prepare for the future, and give away charity? If you give away 1% of your wealth, and your wealth is increasing the 1% is going to increase as well. You get that, right?



I ask honest questions. And I am a faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I am a seeker of truth. I am a faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Antagonists to truth don't have a corner on the market for truth. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ can ask and answer questions in good faith and respond to attacks on our faith in good faith and be seekers of the truth.



Many faithful members of The Church who defend The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints online have no idea that when they are defending The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints they are arguing with the entire anti-Latter Day Saint Reddit community and much of the anti-Latter Day Saint internet.

Every answer to an antagonism is met with 17 more because there really is no answer when you are not arguing against -a- guy, you are arguing against a legion who are not happy with any honest answer.

Earlier, the argument was that the Church was lead by "wealthy" leaders as that might add some kind of shock that the Church leaders were getting wealthy from Church leadership.

The insinuation is that since the Church is wealthy, and the leaders are wealthy, the false insinuation would be that the leaders are getting wealthy from the Church.

Then we are supposed to get some shock (or whatever) from a list of wealthy professionals who made their wealth in business or law or college professor (lol).



My Bishopbric right now: Bishop... Mid-level business employee at a hospital (middle class)
First counselor... Physical therapist (actually pretty wealthy)
Second counselor... College Spanish professor (lives in my neighborhood, middle class)

My Stake President lost his job, and everyone in the Stake got an email to help him find a job. Humility? Yeah, that took some humility.

Also, the term, "how far you rise depends on how much tithing you pay," is an absurd comment and has no bearing or basis in Latter-Day Saint theology.

I don't know anyone who wishes and hopes for "leadership" in The Church. We sing hymns, "I'll go where you want me to go."

It is a tenet and teaching that we, "bloom where we are planted." People who "seek" leadership advancement are not held in high esteem in The Church. We made fun of them on my mission.



Here is the full context of your quote, it is for new members who will be accepting a calling... Keep in mind that the "Chorister" at other Churches they are familiar with might be (probably is) a paid position. The woman running the nursery or the preschool at another Church they are familiar with might be (probably is) a paid position... Here is the full quote...

"Soon after baptism new members receive from priesthood leaders the blessing of a responsibility to help in the Church. This is referred to as a calling. All of the work in the Church is voluntary. No one is paid for such service. When we accept callings, we are sustained publicly in a Church meeting so that other members can acknowledge our calling and provide support. We are also set apart by a priesthood leader and given special blessings to help us fulfill our callings. The Church needs the talents and abilities of every member to fill a wide variety of callings. All callings are important and help build God’s kingdom. We are to accept such callings and work diligently to learn and fulfill our duties. As we do so, we grow in faith, develop new talents and a greater ability to serve, and receive numerous other blessings."

The new member will not be given a "calling" that is a paid position.

The full context of the quote is guidance to new members. They will be given a "calling" and it will not be a paid position. That is a hugely significant difference between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and other Christian denominations.

Drawing that difference is important for brand new members of the Church. Teaching them that their calling they receive after baptism will not be paid is not the same time or place to say that the BYU Football coach gets paid millions a season, and that general officers in the Church receive a stipend.

That full context is pretty much accurate. Missionary work... voluntary. Worship service... Voluntary.

Some Church leaders receive a stipend for full-time service. But the "work" being done... Pretty much all done by volunteers.

The Church teaches honesty and integrity. The Church practices honesty and integrity. Keeping -everyone- (including antagonists) happy? Impossible.




Well, it is interesting to see that you did not include the full quote, as the full quote contained the full context... Answers and advice to new members.

While at the same time accusing the Church of being dishonest.



The full context of the quote is accurate and honest advice and information given to new members. If they want to know what the BYU Football coach gets paid, they can read a Sports Illustrated.

The full quote is accurate and honest information given to investigators and new members.



Not including the full quote and the full context of the quote you included from, "Preach My Gospel" was disingenuous at best.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches the gospel of Jesus Christ and teaches honesty and integrity.



That is just a blanket antagonism. The Missionaries in my Ward brought a family into the fold of God just a few weeks ago. The power of Christ is real. The power of redemption is real, and it is powerful.

No morals? The Church isn't perfect, but "no morals." Unbelievably substandard statement.

It is common knowledge that The Church has vast farms, dairies, orchards and food production and real estate holdings. There is nothing to hide there. The Church produces and distributes food, and has the investment and resources to maintain food distribution networks. It is weird to me to see formal food distribution charities that don't actually own any farms or canneries.



That is not an official codified canonized doctrinal source in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I have plenty of antagonistic material that I study to provide answers for. I have a lot of Latter-Day Saint books, and I don't have an, "Encyclopedia of [the Church]" in my possession. Of course, its available for free and searchable from BYU. Sooo...




Lol. That is a funny way of saying no one is getting rich in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

"Gee if all the other Latter-Day Saints die, I will be the richest person in the world."

That is a brilliant financial plan! Lol, rofl.



Can any antagonist show me a source where Nelson claims the damaged aircraft landed in a, "farmers field."

Nelsons plan did land with an engine out on the rural airfield in Delta, surrounded by desert and a "field." But I cannot find any source where Nelson claims (your words) "farmers field."

You antagonists have my curiosity piqued.

In this thread, a Pilot familiar with Nelsons plane backs-up Nelsons version of events... Link

But if you have a link to where Nelson claimed the plane landed in a "farmers field" in his words, you have my interest...



So much for the Church having a corner on the market for being lying liars who lie...

Ensign. 1993. Nelson, who you detest... Link




For those who don't know "Proposition 8" was about gay marriage, and at the time in 2008, most religions stood together to vote against gay marriage.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not the majority religion in California. And being a minority religion, antagonists attacked us relentlessly after the vote.

An argument can be made that it was not a "political action" but a "moral action" trying to define marriage between a man and a woman.

But the end result was a disaster for The Church. Other religions that stood with The Church on gay marriage in California, turned around and said essentially, "lOoK aT tHe MaRmAnS mEaN tO gAy PeOpLe!" No one now talks about Jews, and Catholics, and Protestants, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints standing together for the traditional family.

Its: "lOoK wHaT tHe mArMaNs dId aGaInSt GaY pEoPle!"

I have been attacked by "Christians" for being "mArMan" and anti-gay. No kidding. And I honestly have no problem with gay people, and don't care if they want to get married, and I have a lot of gay friends, and my wife and I share a pew with a gay Saint at Church each week.



You were "coerced" by your Mission President to stay on your mission. I know lots of faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who did not serve missions.

That being said, there is a lot of pressure in The Church of Jesus Christ to serve missions... That goes back to Christs time and the Apostles and their serving missions.

Also, it is hard for me (and probably others) to relate to "suicidal ideation" in a mission because it was the most exciting and invigorating and rewarding thing I had done in my life up to that point. I was the --opposite-- of depressed on my mission.



I remember that. That guy was a bum.

I was taught in Church growing up to care about the environment and take care of our natural beauty. Some of the air quality problems in Salt Lake is due to the bowl effect of the valley. My grandparents told me that back when the City was smaller, but people burned coal, the inversions were worse than they were in the 1990s (when they were still alive).



That is not an official teaching of the Church. And I pointed-to Latter-Day Saint scripture that contradicts your point.

Here is more Latter-Day Saint teachings that contradict your point...

"One of the problems with material wealth is that it sometimes corrupts those who have it. It is for this reason that the Lord’s promise of riches in section 38 cited above ends with the warning: “But beware of pride, lest ye become as the Nephites of old.” (D&C 6:39.)"

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

If anyone has any questions or concerns directed at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and you want faithful and honest answers.

Post them here.

I would be happy to answer them. I will do my best at least.

@maleante
@SCW
@Vanagandr
@Valravn

If you have any questions, concerns, criticisms, or antagonisms you want to direct towards arfcommers who are faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I would be more than happy to answer your criticisms and antagonisms here.

I am pretty busy over the next few days, so it might be into next week before I can address each one, but I will get to them. More than happy to defend the truth.

Honest seekers of truth can disagree. And I see answers where another might see questions. Honest seekers of truth can come to different conclusions sometimes. But I have found answers that satisfy my search for truth, and if I can share my testimony of Christ with others who want answers, then that is all the better.

This comes from a Biblical teaching... "In ancient times, the Lord commanded the prophet Moses to make special clothing for his brother Aaron and others who would officiate in the tabernacle: “Thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty … that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office” (Exodus 28:2–3). This included clothing that was visible to an observer and clothing worn underneath these outer layers." Link

Temple Garments... Link

I believe the bible is inspired of God.

I don't believe the Book of Mormon is inspired of God.

That pretty much sums up my biggest problem with the Mormon faith.

[Deleted]

This sounds like a lot of works… what’s the state of the Mormon soul?

[Deleted]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints considers the Bible to be inspired by God, considers it scripture, and it is included in the canon of scripture of The Church. I believe the Bible is true through faith.

We also consider the Book of Mormon to be scripture. The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ and points people to Christ. It also testifies the Bible is true. I had a miraculous religious experience while reading the Book of Mormon as a young adult. The Spirit of God touched my heart, and I was filled with Gods Spirit. My mind was filled with truth and knowledge, and God and Gods truth made sense. I believed in God. I was filled with the knowledge that Christ was Gods Son and died for my redemption. I was filled with the knowledge that the Book of Mormon was true, and thus the Bible is Gods word. I was filled with the knowledge that God uses prophets in the modern sense, like they were in the Bible, and that the prophet Smith was a true modern prophet.

The Book of Mormon... Link

We believe the verses are clear that teach we are saved through grace.

The verses are also true that teach that we must be repent, be baptized, endure to the end, exercise faith, and worship Christ.

Grace... Link

I said I would defend and explain the teachings, beliefs, and tenets of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I don't support the politician you mentioned (spit)-- and have not since the vote -for- Trumpbucks socialism-- paid for with destroy-America deficit spending.

And I regret and cannot explain from any reasonable perspective any previous defense and support for them.

I will try to explain the teachings and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a gentleman and fellow gun owner on a shared-interest site. I am not trying to sell anything here.

My buddies at work have asked me about this.

When I was in College, a long time ago, in a class at a State School in Utah, a student said --in front of everyone-- "mArMaN gIrLs lIkE iT uP tHeIr BuTts tHeY tHiNk tHeY aRe sTiLl ViRgInS!"

"That is gross, shut up!" was the general response.

None of the Latter-Day Saint young women I knew closely talked about it.

I think it is the latest trend to dehumanize and demean us. Antagonists can accuse us of not being normal and not having normal human interactions and normal human relations.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches to wait until marriage to wait for intimate physical relations. That is weird to other people.

I think its something that can't be defended, "MaRmAnS dOnT hAvE nOrMaL pHySiCaL rElAtIoNs! ThEy mUsT bE iN A cUlT! ThEy ArE nOt LiKe uS!"

It is something thtat can't necessarily be defended. If I say, "I don't think it is a real thing. Why wouldn't Latter-Day Saint kids fooling around just do normal fooling around?"

Someone will say, "mY CoUsInS HaIrDrEsSer kNeW A gUy wHo HaD A fRiEnD wHo SaId tHaT MaRMaNs dO iT aLL tHe TiMe. tHey LiKe It!"

I think it is just a tool for antagonists to use to dehumanize us, we have normal intimate human relations.

I just want to know where our modern day Captain Moroni is?

Any good Blood Atonement stories for us?

[Deleted]

What is the 2nd anointing?

ETa:  Good to see you back!

Note: I slightly edited my post — didn’t realize we are in the religion forum and want to be respectful.

Are there many Gods?  Or just one Trinitarian God?

Was God a human man like us?

Can we have our own Galaxy?

This is one of our few prayers that must be said verbatim. Here it is:

(States their name),

Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

(and baptize. By complete immersion. If their entire body isn't immersed at the same time, you repeat the process from the beginning.)


The prayer for baptisms for the dead is similar, but includes a clause with the person's name and acknowledgement that they are dead.

I posted this in another Religion post, but here it is again, as it covers a bit of what OP was referencing.



It gives some insight into the LDS view on our life in the eternities, as well as some thoughts on gender, marriage and children.

[Deleted]

How do you mean? If you're performing the baptism but it's not done correctly (not fully immersed, didn't say the words correctly), it doesn't "count". So, you do it again. If you mess up 10 times in a row and the 11th one is deemed to be done correctly, that's effectively one baptism, not 11.

Is that what you mean?

This. Things are liable to go badly when we make it about us.

I read that as him asking if baptism of the dead was a second baptism, but I could also see it as per your response

Posting from my phone and I won’t have much time till next week… sorry for the rough links but it’s weird posting from my phone…




It depends who you ask.  

I think it is the Church of Jesus Christ, His Temple and the gospel where we find safety and security. After Christs ascension, Christs followers gathered in the Temple. Where Christ had protected, defended, and worshipped.  

I see tremendously effective leadership pointing to faith and pointing to faith in Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.





This is not something we believe in or practice.  

The Church released a statement over a decade ago… https://www.deseret.com/2010/6/18/20122138/mormon-church-statement-on-blood-atonement

It is interesting that I remember answering questions about the, “Blood Atonement” on my mission in Australia in the early-mid 1990s. Much of the information we have about it comes from the, “Journal of Discourses” and recent Historians have found serious errors in their original transcription…

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/blog/preached-versus-published-part-1-of-3?lang=eng

Here is some more information about it…  

https://whytheldschurchistrue.com/blood-atonement/





I am not rich and famous. So you are asking the wrong person.  

All of the required doctrines and ordinances required for salvation are known and codified and taught by the Church.  

There is a concept of having your “calling and election made sure” in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

There is scriptural foundation for this, Christ told the thief on the cross that he would be saved.

In the Church, there is a story of young men in the trek West who saved a Pioneer company and then died for their sacrifice. Their calling and election was made sure. Ie, they would be exalted.  

Here is a response from a faithful source… https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_What_is_the_%22second_anointing%22%3F





We baptize in the name of the Father, His Son, and the Holy Ghost.

We have similar beliefs with Catholics, (big C) that Baptism is a required ordinance, but we don’t baptize children until they are 8.



We believe that God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate. If that is the question.

We believe in the pre-creed “Christian” belief that God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate, and we believe the creeds establishing the “Trinitarian” doctrine are acts of apostasy.







We believe in the pre-creed “Christian” concept of deification. We believe we will deified with God and share His throne. That we believe. And that is codified and established as a formal teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ. Its in the scriptures. It was believed and practiced before the creeds. It is a codified doctrine of The Church.  

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/essays?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.org%2Fstudy%2Fmanual%2Fgospel-topics-essays%2Fessays%3Flang%3Deng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D6972D666D3DC6745-7E6DFF8D01905071%7CMCORGID%3D66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1649428203

As for the origin of God, I am not sure we officially teach the actual origin of God. We know Christ was both Gods Son, a God, and Christ lived like us. There is that to go by. Doctrine and scripture show that. But the actual origin of God? I can find non-codified, non-scriptural speculation and postulation. I can point to Christ being “like us.” But the origin of God? All I could share is speculation and postulation.  

“God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe, whom we worship, and to whom we pray. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things.”  

God the Father (churchofjesuschrist.org)







I am pretty sure this originated in an antagonistic work titled, “The GodMakers”. It was the go-to antagonistic work in the 80s and early 90s. Its pretty ridiculous and antagonists don’t really use it anymore as it has long since been “asked and answered.” And it relies on dishonest caricature and takes some liberal leaps with honesty relating to what we -actually- believe.

We know we are judged by God after death. We believe that if we accept Christ, follow His example, worship Him in His Temple as He did, follow His commandments we are exalted. The scriptures teach that the reward in Heaven is beyond positive description. It is a reward for following Christ. I look forward to it. I know it will be wonderful. But exactly what it entails beyond what is in the scriptures, I am not sure I can tell you about that.  

We believe in the pre-creed “Christian” belief of “Deification.” We will share Gods throne and share Gods power. But we will always worship God and be subordinate to God. God creates planets and galaxies. Does that mean we will also do the same in the eternities? God does it. Who knows. Our “commandment” from God right now is to keep the commandments and worship Jesus Christ.  





It is the Religion Forum, with pretty strict rules regarding respectful dialogue.

Religion is one of those things, “don’t talk about religion or politics…” where severe and extreme disagreements can occur.  

I don’t know what you posted, but sometimes if you re-phrase or re-frame your question in a respectful tone, you can ask a question with dignity and respect, and get an honest and fair answer.

I don’t make the rules of the Religion Forum. I have had comments moderated in the Religion Forum. Meh. Meh. It isn’t –really—censorship. The moderators set the rules, and moderate. Don’t like it. Make your own forum. But even then, if someone you disagree starts posting, you will probably want to limit or moderate what they post.

Things can get out of hand when discussing religion and politics. The Religion Forum is actually pretty good at letting people share their perspectives and views, even if they are in points of disagreement.

And disrespectful posts can sometimes be re-worded and re-phrased into respectful and positive dialogue inducing questions that seek truthful and honest responses.



I believe that the poster referred to “Baptism for the Dead.” An official concept, practice, and teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints…  

“Baptism for the Dead”… https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/baptisms-for-the-dead?lang=eng

Head's up: for whatever reason, you "@'s " didn't work, at least for me  (I only happened to scroll over here trying to get to sleep tonight). I'm guessing the others you tagged won't hear about it either.

I don't consider myself antagonistic - just disillusioned/discouraged by the current lack of leadership I perceive in the church and the direction I currently see things heading, and willing to voice my concerns when I feel so inspired. I'm still an adherent of all of the gospel principals I was raised with, still fulfill/magnify my calling, etc. I would love to have gotten an straight answer from extractr on my interjection regarding the off-hand dismissal of the idea that coercion can/does happen within the leadership of the church that you cite from the thread in GD:



To include the rest of my quote you've left out:



I was hoping to get a reply in the discussion I was already a part of, but since he seems to have moved past me there without acknowledgement and I don't really see an answer here either (just sarcasm/scare quotes around the term coerced) I'll ask you point blank, yes or no: do you not consider it coercive behavior for someone in ecclesiastical authority to respond to a young man in his charge who has come to him expressing a serious issue first with mockery and then with pronouncements of damnation (again, not an exaggeration - the exact quote in my journal is "... he told me that should I go home, I will give up any hope of eternal marriage, exaltation or Celestial glory..."

I'm honestly glad for you that you had a good experience on your mission, and for everyone that had one. I'm quite open to the idea that, had I been aware of my own issues prior or been in a different area, I might have had a different experience. But I'm also not alone - the church-run support program I took part in on my return had a few dozen elders in in during my four-week participation period, and from what I gathered that volume was pretty constant week to week, year to year. So my experience wasn't by any means unique. But the gulf between our experiences doesn't impact the question I was trying to pose to extractr - do you feel this method of trying to get me to stay (via mockery and then threat) rises to the level of coercion (and thus that there is, at some level, coercion used by some leadership within the church at times)? Feel free to chalk it up to unrighteous dominion if you like, I'm just hoping for a yes or no response first before any further dissection/discussion.

Latter-day Saints aren't the only people to wear sacred undergarments.  The Jewish faith does as well, for one.

I'll state this:    I've had similar interviews.  In fact, I've personally had conversations with people under my stewardship that I thought went well.  I know the discussion was inspired and a result of pondering and prayer.   I know the interview and message was the correct message.   In the one particular recent instance I'm thinking of, I later heard back from someone who's stewardship I'm under.  We discussed a meeting he later had with the couple and what the couple's thoughts and concerns were.  What they took away from our interview was only half of what the message was.  Their perception was different.   I believe this was a result of several things:

1.  They had previous experiences with leadership that caused them to have bias and preconceived expectations.   They immediately put up their wall and viewed our discussion through that lens.  As such, they always had their desired outcome in sight and everything in the conversation that didn't move toward that end was unwelcome.
2.  I had my inspired notion of the desired outcome, but likely very poorly drew the road map to that outcome and explained the reasons insufficiently.

Because of this, we both walked away with very different understandings of how the discussion went.  We both failed to express ourselves clearly and entered the conversation with different expectations of where it would go.  This failure to communicate effectively doesn't negate the inspired message that was lost.

That's all well and good (and I'm glad you have the perspective those experiences might bring you), but also fails to address what I asked in any meaningful way (aside from possibly implying in a round about fashion that I somehow came into my particular discussion with a preconceived outcome in mind , or that what was said was simply insufficiently explained).

All I'm asking is: Yes or no, before any further discussion or dissection, do you not consider it coercive behavior for someone in ecclesiastical authority to respond to a young man in his charge who has come to him expressing a serious issue first with mockery and then with pronouncements of damnation as I've outlined prior. We can possibly discuss the potential of things like unrighteous dominion, misconceptions, or if coercive behavior is isolated or endemic or at what level of leadership it becomes unlikely, after that, but I don't feel comfortable engaging here when my questions are just ignored or talked around.

I'm really sorry, but you don't get to define the nature of a complicated question.   I wasn't there.  I think my answer is very appropriate and potentially applicable.   Coercion is a very specific label with negative connotations.   I'm not prepared to place that label on an ecclesiastical authority based on your perception of "mockery" and "coercion".

Have there been members of the Church, in leadership positions, who have done horrible things?   Of course.   Am I prepared label something that could go either way with the information given?   No.  I'm sorry you feel that way, though, and hope you haven't let it affect your relationship with Christ.

Thanks. That is interesting.




I have seen some hard to explain perspectives over the past couple of years. People on the hard-left will say, "I am not happy that the Church didn't kick people out of Church services for not washing their hands or removing their mask..." Those types of statements. And I have seen, "the leaders of the Church are in a state of apostasy because they encourage vaccines and have a long history of encouraging, funding, and supporting vaccines." And even weirder, and I have seen it, "the Church should have done more to support candidate ______, my favorite favorite candidate, and the only one who cares about America."

Those are impossible standards.

Whatever an individuals political leanings, whether the, "take the guns first" hard political left, or the hard "burn it all down" political right, the Church is supposed to be politically neutral.

The Church, even with following Christ, and Christlike behavior will never, ever achieve social justice that will keep everyone happy. Its impossible. Neither political extreme will ever be satisified with the Church.

And the funny thing... I have seen political leftists say, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a bunch of far-right political extremists!"

And I have seen people on the right say, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is led by a bunch of far-left political extremists!"

Setting a standard based on your political views for the Church to achieve is an impossible standard for the Church. Does the Church bring you to Christ? Does the ordinances and the Temple protected, defended, and practiced in the Church bring you to Christ? Does the Church give you an opportunity to serve and share the gospel of Christ? Do I have to tolerate people I disagree with in the Church sometimes, but that is what life is all about sometimes?

I can answer yes.

But if you set some sort of political litmus test that the Church needs to meet, the Church is going to fail. Leftists think that the Church is too far "right." And people  on the right think the Church is too far "left." It is an impossible standard.






I am not sure how much I can agree with you that "coercion" takes place per se. Christ would say, essentially, "You must be baptized in order to be saved." Was Christ being coercive and threatening salvation by needing to be Baptized. I am not entirely sure I can agree that Christ was being coercive. The Church teaches principles, many of them are tied to eternal rewards, and spiritual and religious "rewards" (usually in Heaven). I don't think it is "coercive" per se to teach those principles.

We don't have the Mission Presidents perspective. We only have yours. And I have had conversations with people where they remember certain things and forget certain things.

My Mission President always encouraged missionaries to "tough it out." The Church has been a "Missionary" Church since Christ told His followers to go out and spread the message. Missionary work is not something the Church invented recently. It has been going-on since Christs time, and the directive comes from Christ.

My Mission President told me at one point that (back in the early 1990s) that if a Missionary "went home" (he didn't say a reason) they usually also left the Church. For good.

Not being there in the conversation you had with your Mission President, he may have been trying to be positive, and be trying to help. I don't have your Mission Presidents version of events, but what you write has some ring of truth to it, because I saw Mission Presidents try to encourage Missionaries to stay, work, and serve. And I served with Missionaries who experienced miracles in being homesick, wanting to go home, and the Mission President encouraged them to stay and serve Christ and they did, and were religiously and spiritually blessed as a result. That might have been what your Mission President was trying to accomplish.






I was pretty much agreeing with you that Mission Presidents encourage Missionaries to serve and stay.

From my perspective, it takes a great deal of effort to go on a Mission.

Parents have to sign-off on it. Dental appointment. Doctors appointment. Kids that go and serve are giving up school, work, and it is expensive.

It is a --huge-- sacrifice to go on a Mission.

I walked-away from a paid scholarship (I grew up poor, whatever savings went to my Mission, I **needed*** the scholarship). Most of the missionaries I served with had sacrificed a great deal to go.

Its not like kids get dropped off on their mission like Summer Camp. A young adult going on a Mission has sacrificed a great deal to go. They have been screened by medical professionals. They have been screened at the local and Stake level. Multiple interviews.

I can see a Mission President encouraging a young adult to "stay" on their Mission.

I did not exclude your quote for any nefarious reason. I cut small parts to address the main points. And I was pretty much agreeing with you. I don't have your Mission Presidents perspective. But I can see your Mission President saying, "Christ served and sacrificed, and as a follower of Christ, you -should- also." I can see a Mission President saying, "You have sacrificed a lot to get here, 'stay.'"

But I have also seen Mission Presidents bend over backwards to help the Sisters and Elders. We had a Missionary in our Ward recently who was serving "one month at a time." She could go home whenever she wanted.

I have seen Missionaries "called" for six months total due to mental health issues. I have seen Missionaries get scheduled physical and mental health check-ups once a week.

We had a Missionary who had permission to call their psychologist any time day or night, and could go home whenever they wanted.

So, in my experience, I have seen Mission Presidents say, "Stay in the fight. Stay  on your mission." That element of your story is -completely- believable.

But I have also seen Mission Presidents not stop there and say, "We will get you help. We will let you go home for a time, and come back. We will let you serve a shorter Mission." Etc. Etc.

We had a Missionary go on a Mission, come back home, then go on a "service" Mission a few months later.

I don't get to define the parameters of a question I myself am asking because it's complicated? Then by rubric, neither do you, nor do you get to declare your answer "very appropriate and potentially applicable", as I'm not privy to any details from your own anecdotal conversations with those under your stewardship you feel were perceived incorrectly.

Right?

I don't think anyone is ignoring your question.

The problem is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

And Christ said, essentially: "do Missionary work." "Spread my message."

I -don't- think Christ was being "coercive" when he taught all the things he taught. Christ, and Christs Apostles taught "Do _____ and you will be saved."

So the Church has been teaching "do _____ (Missionary work, Baptism, worship in His Temple, etc) if you want to be saved." So the Church of Jesus Christ has been teaching what needs to be done to avoid "damnation" since Christ started teaching people stuff.

Christ made "pronouncements of damnation" all the time.

I don't think there is any religion on the planet that does not teach its adherents what to do to avoid "damnation."

You are asking a "yes or no" question when we only have your version of events, and the Church is mandated by Christ to teach His message, and His message is to make "pronouncements of damnation." Specifically... Pronouncements to -avoid- damnation.

You signed up to serve a Mission. You went through a lot of work to go on a Mission. You saved $10,000ish to serve a Mission. You sacrificed a lot to go on a Mission. You went to doctors, mental health professionals, local Church leadership, Stake leadership... And you did a lot of work to go on a Mission.

It makes sense that your Mission President said, "I think you should stay on your Mission. Christ commanded us to share His message, stay and share it."

I can see your Mission President saying that. I believe your version of events.

But it isn't a "yes or no" question because I have also seen Mission Presidents let Missionaries serve one month at a time when they need help. I have seen Mission Presidents have Missionaries go home and come back. I have seen Mission Presidents get Missionaries mental health help on their Missions and adjusted their workload to make it possible.

Is it "coercion" when Christ said, essentially "_______ (repent, have faith, endure to the end, be Baptized, etc) and be saved?" Is that "coercion?"

I don't think it is. It is Christ making a "pronouncement" to avoid damnation. The Church is mandated to teach Christs message, and help people avoid damnation... Through Missionary work.

I am not ignoring your question. I believe I am addressing your question.

Arguing about arguing does not help anyone get any answers...

Again, all I wanted was a yes or no answer to my question:



If you can interpret that statement to mean I was somehow misinterpreting admonishments to stay in the fight for mockery and then direct statements about the fate of my soul (again, I can look at my journals written right at the time as well as consult my own memories, and those of family who talked to both me and my MP at the time), then clearly we can't have a discussion on this topic, nor can I get a straight answer to the question I've posed here, as we're occupying fudamentally different realities.

Nothing in my question has anything to do with other people's mission experiences. You've seen MP's adjust service, let elders go home and come back, etc, and that's fine - I am well aware of that fact as well. What I am asking is about this particular scenario, which was brought up in response to extractr's incredulity that coercion might occur with church leadership and that coercion must mean "They hold guns to people forcing them to do things.". I simply related my experience and asked if telling me, point blank, "... should I go home, I will give up any hope of eternal marriage, exaltation or Celestial glory." I was told if I went home then due to my medical issue, I would have no chance of completing the saving ordinances required for returning to my Heavenly Father. I've made no statement that requiring the necessary ordinances of the gospel or following the commandments to the best of our abilities qualifies as coercion, nor do I hold that belief. Again, my question was about this particular scenario (ie, if misusing the threat of damnation in this maner rises to the level of coercion).

But whatever. I'll just ask the thread in GD for straight responses to a question that got lost in the shuffle of that thread, rather than trying to keep talking in circles here.

Its not --really-- a "yes/no" question from my perspective.




Your journals, your experience, your memory. Your perspective and your feelings. What I am missing the other persons experience and memory of the event.

I have provided  a straight answer and an honesty discussion.

I have heard your journal remembrances, your experiences and memories. I have provided my experience and Mission rememberances. What we are missing is your Mission Presidents words and experience.

Then it becomes a yes/no question. With a yes/no answer.

We have your memories and remembrances from your journal. We have my memories and experiences. What we are missing is your Mission Presidents words. The one you are accusing of being coercive.



That is true. No one in the gospel of Jesus Christ holds guns to anyones heads and makes them do things. People -choose- to get Baptized. People -choose- to go on Missions.

You -chose- to go on a Mission. No one forced you to go.




This is what makes no sense.

By the time you had gone on your Mission, you had been Baptized, been to the Temple. Your scenario makes no sense. You had received the required ordinances -already-.

Your story makes no sense. You had -already- received the required ordinances if you went on a Mission. Your story has some cracks, bro.





If you want validation from people hostile to the Church, go to them for validation. If you want answers for your questions from Latter-Day Saint faithful, go to faithful sources.

GD is a mosh-pit of ideologies, and you may not get answers from faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. There are several arfcommers who are active in misrepresenting, misconstruing and presenting half-truths concerning the teachings and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

If you want validation from people hostile to the gospel of Jesus Christ, you will find it. If you want answers to your questions from faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, you will have to seek answers from faithful sources. I am not sure GD is a faithful or reliable source of information.

This is not the place to troll ~ medicmandan

Correct, you don't.   For example:

Have you stopped beating your wife?   I only want a yes or no answer.

That isn't a fair question because either answer you give likely doesn't give the correct answer you'd like to give.   Your most simplistic answer would likely be "I've never EVER laid a hand on my wife" or "I've never had a wife."    However, the parameters of the answers I require doesn't allow that.

So instead, I accepted your anecdotal question and ask that you accept my anecdotal response.

[Deleted]

You're right, nobody had forced me to go - but I never claimed that, either.  Last time I checked, temple marriage and having a family were also part of necessary steps of salvation, and these were steps I still had yet to be able to take. And again, I have his words, verbatim, written down the same day he said them - "... give up any hope of eternal marriage, exaltation or Celestial glory...". I never said the man was theologically correct in his threat, just that it was made by a man in a position of stewardship and authority. So yeah, no cracks, bro.




As I'm not asking for 'validation' on a gospel topic, just on if the scenario I've laid out fits the definition of coercion (since it appeared to me extractr was disingenuously claiming coercion didn't occur with church leadership  as "nobody had a gun pointed to their head"), I don't see a particular need to limit myself to LDS respondents - I'm not asking them if it counts as unrighteous dominion, is theologically correct, proves the church true or anything of the kind. I have friends, family and ward members to discuss gospel topics with if I were discussing something I felt I needed only a Mormon perspective on. I would have never brought my question up here. I only responded because I stumbled on this thread, had never gotten a response of any kind when I brought it up with extractr, and noticed I seemed to be getting quoted out of context. I'm clearly not going to get anything resembling a straight response here either, just dogpiled and told my memory and the words I wrote that day can't be trusted.

Howdy OP. Thanks for posting. I noticed some words you used in your original post that set off some red flags and are indicative of the mindset of followers of your particular sect and others. You use such words as “attacks” and such criticisms come from people who are against “truth”. These are bold and inflammatory statements considering it was Joseph Smith who fired the first shots by claiming in 1820 that all Christian creeds were an “abomination.” The Mormon church is also very active with sending missionaries out spreading their religion. But when people ask questions or criticize the teachings of Smith, Young and other “prophets” as categorically rejecting the orthodox tenets of historical Christianity, they are seen as “attacking” you or are against the “truth”.

Simple questions.

Does Mormonism teach that there are many gods and that you can become a god?

Does Mormonism teach that God the Father had sex with Mary in procreating Jesus,

Do they teach that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer?

Do they teach that Jesus existed before the incarnation as God and created all things?

Do they teach that the Holy Spirit is God and is a distinct person from the Father and Son.

Do they teach that God the Father was a man on another world and became a god?

Yeah, no. This isn't some Groucho Marx-style trick question. I presented a scenario and asked if that meets the standard of coercion - that's it. Your own anecdote doesn't rise to the level of an answer, but it lets you act like it does, while evading anything actually coming close to one. Again, whatever. I'm not here looking for validation, just a yes or know answer without a novel's worth of pharisaical legalism over what constitutes a valid question in your opinion and other non-sequiters that if I cared any less about them I would probably expire due to the sheer apathy overwhelming my will to live. It's abundantly clear that we're just going to go around in circles without either me getting a straightforward reply and you not being able to browbeat or rules-lawyer me into conceding I even have a question to ask.

You've asked your question and received an answer from multiple people.  I'm sorry the answers aren't what you're looking for.  They aren't going to change, so I guess that's where it stops.   Hope you have a great day.

Theologically, going on a Mission has nothing to do with Temple marriage. Lots of people didn't go on Missions, and still get married in the Temple

And many Saints wont have a chance for Temple marriage in this life. There are many codified statements from Church leaders claiming they will be taken care of in the eternities. Making my point that you had --to that point-- fulfilled all the required ordinances.





@extractr is a good dude, accurately and honestly tries to repeat the teachings and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and was accurate and honest when he said that in the gospel of Jesus Christ, no one is forced to do anything.



I trust you.

And I trust my memories and experiences from my Mission. And what I see Missionaries and Mission Presidents doing right now.

What we don't have is the words of the Mission President directly from the Mission President you are accusing of "coercion." That is what we are missing. They might add context, circumstances, and background to what was said from them verses what was understood by you.