What's The Difference Between LDS and Fundamentalists?

[Cleopatra7]

6 minutes ago, NerdyHil said:

"His Favorite Wife" addresses this group, if you haven't read it.  The mainstream LDS church is also weird about Native Americans that there is a whole group called LDS Indian Placement that "places" Native kids in white Mormon households, especially during high school. I knew several in my small 99% Mormon school district. Unsurprisingly, awful things have happened to some kids. http://www.sltrib.com/home/3703333-155/lawsuit-accuses-mormon-church-of-failing

 

Thanks for the article. It reminds me of the discussion we had some months ago in another thread about the forced fostering/adoption of Native American children into white families.  I doubt that the victims will see any justice, unfortunately, given the way these sorts of cases go, and I'm sure the higher ups in the LDS church probably still think that they were doing those kids a favor.

[devoe364]

16 hours ago, Cleopatra7 said:

Thanks for the article. It reminds me of the discussion we had some months ago in another thread about the forced fostering/adoption of Native American children into white families.  I doubt that the victims will see any justice, unfortunately, given the way these sorts of cases go, and I'm sure the higher ups in the LDS church probably still think that they were doing those kids a favor.

Where I live, we refer to this as the 60s Scoop. First Nations kids all over Western Canada were removed from their parents, often forcibly, and put up for adoption, where they were adopted into white families. Many of the kids were adopted into the United-States, rather then Canada. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixties_Scoop

[Blueruin]

On May 30, 2016 at 6:49 AM, devoe364 said:

Where I live, we refer to this as the 60s Scoop. First Nations kids all over Western Canada were removed from their parents, often forcibly, and put up for adoption, where they were adopted into white families. Many of the kids were adopted into the United-States, rather then Canada. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixties_Scoop

The 60s scoop wasn't done by cultural Mormons though, it was done by the government. Further more FN kids are still being removed from their homes and placed in white foster homes at an alarming rate.

Originally they were sent to Catholic run residential schools, and few were actually placed out of country.  Also it happened across Canada, it wasn't particular to just western Canada. 

 

[devoe364]

3 hours ago, Blueruin said:

The 60s scoop wasn't done by cultural Mormons though, it was done by the government. Further more FN kids are still being removed from their homes and placed in white foster homes at an alarming rate.

Originally they were sent to Catholic run residential schools, and few were actually placed out of country.  Also it happened across Canada, it wasn't particular to just western Canada. 

 

I am aware of that, The 60's Scoop comment was in relation to a Mormon program that was similar. I was comparing different, yet similar things. 

I actually taught on Rez, and I know that First Nations children in Canada are overrepresented in the Foster Care system. They are marginalized and live in remote, poverty stricken areas, or urban ghettos. Often the promises made in the numbered treaties have not been fully kept.

The 60's Scoop was more predominant in western Canada, where higher First Nations populations resulted in more children being removed. Ontario (in particular Western Ontario, which is largely uninhabited and the majority of the population is First Nations) also had high numbers.

The Residential Schools were designed to deal with the Indian problem - Sir John A MacDonald's words.  They were also not just Catholic. Presbyterians, Lutherans and Anglicans all got in on the fun. The cycle of violent abuse that continues in many First Nations communities began with the abuse suffered in the Residential and Industrial Schools, the last of which closed its doors in 1997. 

[Blueruin]

On June 1, 2016 at 6:08 AM, devoe364 said:

I am aware of that, The 60's Scoop comment was in relation to a Mormon program that was similar. I was comparing different, yet similar things. 

I actually taught on Rez, and I know that First Nations children in Canada are overrepresented in the Foster Care system. They are marginalized and live in remote, poverty stricken areas, or urban ghettos. Often the promises made in the numbered treaties have not been fully kept.

The 60's Scoop was more predominant in western Canada, where higher First Nations populations resulted in more children being removed. Ontario (in particular Western Ontario, which is largely uninhabited and the majority of the population is First Nations) also had high numbers.

The Residential Schools were designed to deal with the Indian problem - Sir John A MacDonald's words.  They were also not just Catholic. Presbyterians, Lutherans and Anglicans all got in on the fun. The cycle of violent abuse that continues in many First Nations communities began with the abuse suffered in the Residential and Industrial Schools, the last of which closed its doors in 1997. 

I'm glad you've done the reading on the topic but you're talking about my family, I am the product of the scoops and residential schools and I know people who were in the last one when it closed. 

I don't think this particular Mormon problem is similar in scope or in delivery, that is the point I was trying to make. 

 

[devoe364]

On 6/3/2016 at 8:27 PM, Blueruin said:

I'm glad you've done the reading on the topic but you're talking about my family, I am the product of the scoops and residential schools and I know people who were in the last one when it closed. 

I don't think this particular Mormon problem is similar in scope or in delivery, that is the point I was trying to make. 

 

My best friend growing up - his name is Aaron M - I won't post his last name without his permission, and we lost track of each other several years ago, though I still speak to his younger sisters regularly, went to Lebret until it was closed in 1997. The closure of the school was actually a huge disapointment to him and to other First Nations youth in the province who were successful at the school that was being band run (and had been since the 80s). I often watched him play hockey for the Eagles AA hockey team, since Lebret is only a 1/2 hour or so outside of Regina, where I live. 

I feel as though you are looking down on me because my skin is white. It seems to me that you act as if its just research - not experience. That is what I find fault with. 

Oh and for the record, I am of First Nations descent.

I also never said that the Mormon problem was the same in scope or delivery. I related the Mormon thing to a similar (but not the SAME) situation. 

 

[Blueruin]

On June 6, 2016 at 8:34 AM, devoe364 said:

My best friend growing up - his name is Aaron M - I won't post his last name without his permission, and we lost track of each other several years ago, though I still speak to his younger sisters regularly, went to Lebret until it was closed in 1997. The closure of the school was actually a huge disapointment to him and to other First Nations youth in the province who were successful at the school that was being band run (and had been since the 80s). I often watched him play hockey for the Eagles AA hockey team, since Lebret is only a 1/2 hour or so outside of Regina, where I live. 

I feel as though you are looking down on me because my skin is white. It seems to me that you act as if its just research - not experience. That is what I find fault with. 

Oh and for the record, I am of First Nations descent.

I also never said that the Mormon problem was the same in scope or delivery. I related the Mormon thing to a similar (but not the SAME) situation. 

 

I didn't say same, I said similar. I'm arguing it is not similar. 

 I do get somewhat perplexed when someone tries to educate me on something I have a minor in, and throws out working on the Rez like a qualifier.

And yes the closure of Lebret was somewhat sad in the end because they had evolved into something different and had a really awesome hockey team. However my family members went there so I know from the stories how bad it was back in the 60s. 

I don't really care what color you are, but clearly you do. 

my point remains the same I disagree with your stance, can we move on.

[Toothfairy]

Can anyone tell me why the LDS church have weird rules. Like special underwear. 

[Smash!]

But here's the weird thing about that is that the mainstream LDS church also teaches that if you make it to the highest level of heaven, you will have to live polygamy. I know so many women that have really struggled with that concept, including my mom. [...]

Out of curiousity: How goes this with the concept of that if you're sealed to your spouse and children you'll live with them in eternity?

ETA: Question already answered.

[NerdyHil]

10 hours ago, Toothfairy said:

Can anyone tell me why the LDS church have weird rules. Like special underwear. 

Garments (AKA special underwear) are supposed to be a outward representation of commitments and covenants made to the lord. The line I used to hear was that it was "an outward representation of what we believe inward." They're also supposed to be a "protection" from all sorts of things. I think every Mormon has or has heard a story about how someone was protected from some sort physical harm because they were wearing their garments. Most of the stories sound like something out of a really bad X-files episode. It's also about that whole modesty rigmarole too. You can't wear garments until you've been through the temple,  unlike FLDS that start wearing them when they're baptized at 8. Also, the FLDS wear the ankle to wrist type, while the mainstream LDS church only requires the shoulder to knee thing. I hated wearing them, especially in the summer. Is there anything else you'd like to know about this? 

[moreorlessnu]

Does anyone know anything about the Mormon practice of "baptizing the dead"? A Mormon friend keeps grilling for family tree information in an attempt to baptize deceased relatives.

[DaisyD]

Just that it's a thing they do that can really pissed a lot of people off. If the dead person in question was devout in a different faith especially. They don't seem to care what the person believed in life.

[SpoonfulOSugar]

1 hour ago, moreorlessnu said:

Does anyone know anything about the Mormon practice of "baptizing the dead"? A Mormon friend keeps grilling for family tree information in an attempt to baptize deceased relatives.

It's an issue, no doubt.

Here's one article about it:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/03/04/147877754/mormon-leaders-warn-followers-to-stop-controversial-baptisms

There are policies about it, but following the Salt Lake paper, it comes up pretty regularly.

[withaj]

Yeah, it's a thing. It really only gets hairy when they do it to marginalized groups -- Holocaust victims, for example -- but many people find it hard to understand in general. I believe the initial idea was to ensure that all the ancestors of practicing Mormons could be sealed to them for eternity, even if those ancestors weren't Mormon -- and as a younger church, most were converts initially, so virtually every Mormon has known non-Mormon ancestors.

It's offensive in many ways, but on the other hand, I personally have benefitted a lot from the LDS church's obsession with its members' ancestries. The genealogy platform they developed in the early computer days, Personal Ancestral File, catalyzed my then 75-year-old grandmother to purchase and learn to use a computer in order to keep track of her genealogical research. She died when I was 5, and I'm so lucky that she left everything in a format that allowed me to see her research. They also have done a great job preserving vital records from local governments -- there's not much they haven't microfilmed. I've ordered a lot of it for research to my local library. Of course, the baptism thing is weird, but it's the reason they've done all that legwork, so... 

Elna Baker, the ex-Mormon writer who has been on This American Life a lot, mentions in one of her pieces how excited she was to turn 12 and be able to participate in the baptisms and sealings of the dead. They don't just do it on paper or in a database somewhere -- they go through the whole ceremonial process with proxies. 

 

 

[moreorlessnu]

Thank you for the info.

It's infuriating when you keep saying, "No, thanks", and they insist.....

[Toothfairy]

On Saturday, July 09, 2016 at 9:42 AM, NerdyHil said:

Garments (AKA special underwear) are supposed to be a outward representation of commitments and covenants made to the lord. The line I used to hear was that it was "an outward representation of what we believe inward." They're also supposed to be a "protection" from all sorts of things. I think every Mormon has or has heard a story about how someone was protected from some sort physical harm because they were wearing their garments. Most of the stories sound like something out of a really bad X-files episode. It's also about that whole modesty rigmarole too. You can't wear garments until you've been through the temple,  unlike FLDS that start wearing them when they're baptized at 8. Also, the FLDS wear the ankle to wrist type, while the mainstream LDS church only requires the shoulder to knee thing. I hated wearing them, especially in the summer. Is there anything else you'd like to know about this? 

Thanks. The underwear stuff is still weird. Do you wear them everyday or at temple? What do they look like? 

 

Do Mormons believe Jesus had three wives?

What's with dark skin becoming light?

[nausicaa]

40 minutes ago, Toothfairy said:

Thanks. The underwear stuff is still weird. Do you wear them everyday or at temple? What do they look like? 

Once a Mormon receives his or her temple recommend (sort of like confirmation--you can be Mormon and not have a recommend, but it means you can't enter temple. So you have to receive it before going on a mission or getting married since both require entering the temple), that person is given the undergarments and is expected to wear them everyday except for swimming, sex, and working out. Just like underwear, they own several pairs and wash them regularly. You can buy more pairs at the temple shops, but have to show your temple recommend (a paper card) to purchase, since they are considered sacred and the church would prefer if they are kept out of the hands of non-believers who might use them to mock the church.

They are made out of a cotton or jersey material. The men's looks just like a men's V-neck undershirt and has some symbols embroidered on the chest and the bottoms look like white bike shorts. The women's include the bike shorts and an undershirt with more of a sweetheart neckline and cap sleeves. One is supposed to wear street clothing that covers the undergarments, thereby ensuring a level of modesty (i.e., no super low cut tops or sleeveless shirts). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment#/media/File:Garment.jpg

However, my understanding is that the lengths of the garments are the same for each gender, so a taller woman can get away with more clothing wise than a shorter woman. There is a lot of Mormon hubbub about Ann Romney making appearances in clothing that appears to show she isn't wearing her undergarments. But others have pointed out she is 5'8" and so could get away with shorter skirts and lower necklines.

[Buzzard]

1 hour ago, nausicaa said:

Once a Mormon receives his or her temple recommend (sort of like confirmation--you can be Mormon and not have a recommend, but it means you can't enter temple. So you have to receive it before going on a mission or getting married since both require entering the temple), that person is given the undergarments and is expected to wear them everyday except for swimming, sex, and working out. Just like underwear, they own several pairs and wash them regularly. You can buy more pairs at the temple shops, but have to show your temple recommend (a paper card) to purchase, since they are considered sacred and the church would prefer if they are kept out of the hands of non-believers who might use them to mock the church.

They are made out of a cotton or jersey material. The men's looks just like a men's V-neck undershirt and has some symbols embroidered on the chest and the bottoms look like white bike shorts. The women's include the bike shorts and an undershirt with more of a sweetheart neckline and cap sleeves. One is supposed to wear street clothing that covers the undergarments, thereby ensuring a level of modesty (i.e., no super low cut tops or sleeveless shirts). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment#/media/File:Garment.jpg

However, my understanding is that the lengths of the garments are the same for each gender, so a taller woman can get away with more clothing wise than a shorter woman. There is a lot of Mormon hubbub about Ann Romney making appearances in clothing that appears to show she isn't wearing her undergarments. But others have pointed out she is 5'8" and so could get away with shorter skirts and lower necklines.

How is it possible that the fundies havent adopted some sort of required garment to ensure modesty?

[devoe364]

42 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

How is it possible that the fundies havent adopted some sort of required garment to ensure modesty?

Honestly? Probably because it is a Mormon thing. 

[ADoyle90815]

13 minutes ago, devoe364 said:

Honestly? Probably because it is a Mormon thing. 

That's what I think is the reason, fundies don't consider the LDS church to be a Christian church, but a cult. That's why they won't come up with their own variation on the funny underwear thing to enforce modesty.

[devoe364]

29 minutes ago, ADoyle90815 said:

That's what I think is the reason, fundies don't consider the LDS church to be a Christian church, but a cult. That's why they won't come up with their own variation on the funny underwear thing to enforce modesty.

I didn't explain myself lol, but you did a great job! Thats exactly what I was thinking. 

[holierthanyou]

On May 16, 2016 at 1:56 PM, theinvisiblegirl said:

 

This got me thinking. What exactly is the difference between regular LDS Mormons and the fundamentalists?

I used to think they were vastly different, with really the only similarity being the same historical roots.  My interest led me to become an "investigator" in the LDS church (what they call people looking into the church, possibly considering conversion or just wanting to learn more), and after a couple of months, I concluded they really aren't nearly so different from the FLDS as I had first thought.

 

The absolute difference is that they the regular LDS church does not practice polygamy, nor do they wear frumpers.  

In regards to following an old man as a prophet and believing he is literally God's chosen one and that every word out of his mouth is like coming from God himself... they both do that.  They just have different "prophets"- FLDS follow Warren Jeffs, and LDS follow Thomas Monson.  To me, both groups seem to have a very "devout"/cult like allegiance to this modern "prophet" leader of their church.  The obedience to hierarchical authority is crazy strong in both.

Sorry to sound so negative, but I was just disillusioned very quickly after I attended for a few months.

[NerdyHil]

10 hours ago, nausicaa said:

Once a Mormon receives his or her temple recommend (sort of like confirmation--you can be Mormon and not have a recommend, but it means you can't enter temple. So you have to receive it before going on a mission or getting married since both require entering the temple), that person is given the undergarments and is expected to wear them everyday except for swimming, sex, and working out. Just like underwear, they own several pairs and wash them regularly. You can buy more pairs at the temple shops, but have to show your temple recommend (a paper card) to purchase, since they are considered sacred and the church would prefer if they are kept out of the hands of non-believers who might use them to mock the church.

They are made out of a cotton or jersey material. The men's looks just like a men's V-neck undershirt and has some symbols embroidered on the chest and the bottoms look like white bike shorts. The women's include the bike shorts and an undershirt with more of a sweetheart neckline and cap sleeves. One is supposed to wear street clothing that covers the undergarments, thereby ensuring a level of modesty (i.e., no super low cut tops or sleeveless shirts). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment#/media/File:Garment.jpg

However, my understanding is that the lengths of the garments are the same for each gender, so a taller woman can get away with more clothing wise than a shorter woman. There is a lot of Mormon hubbub about Ann Romney making appearances in clothing that appears to show she isn't wearing her undergarments. But others have pointed out she is 5'8" and so could get away with shorter skirts and lower necklines.

So, in the whole not wearing garments when working out thing vein, my dad is a High Councilman in their stake(ward=congregation, about 5 to 6 wards make up a stake), so he speaks in other wards and is involved in stake business(including excommunications). Anyway, this ward taught a whole lesson to all the adults about not working out and not wearing their garments, and then running errands and not changing. Seriously. Of course, it was directed at women, because most guys will wear their garments working out or playing sports. They also try to police when women buy garments to make sure they're not getting too small for their size. My husband was buying a bunch for the both of us one time(there is a store in the local mall in most places in the jello belt.), and the lady gave him so much shit about buying petite garment bottoms for me. I'm only 5 feet tall, and when he told the old biddy that she did the whole stutter and backpedal thing. Grr. 

[Black Aliss]

On 7/10/2016 at 4:30 PM, moreorlessnu said:

Does anyone know anything about the Mormon practice of "baptizing the dead"? A Mormon friend keeps grilling for family tree information in an attempt to baptize deceased relatives.

There used to be a blog called "famous dead mormons" but I can't find it now. There is this list:http://www.theofrak.com/2012/08/famous-dead-mormons.html

[DaisyD]

I was working on my genealogy the other day and found a line that had all been baptized about 200 years after they died. That was a little weird even though I know of the practice.