A Catholic Argument for the Eternal Nature of Marriage

Many Catholic argument that marriage is *the only* sacrament that is not eternal in nature. That is, baptism, etc. are all focused on the supernatural life, but not baptism.

This is fundamentally flawed, and essentially flawed from the Catholic's own arguments on the purpose and nature of marriage and sexuality. That is, all sex acts must intrinsically be ordered towards creation and birth.

If we accept this argument, and understand the mystical nature that is of marriage is one-and-the-same with the sex act of marriage. That is, the uniting of two flesh to become one, and the product of that love as a child.

Catholics and Christians must acknowledge that:

1) The child, the living embodiment of the love and unity of marriage, has an eternal soul.

2) The child has a body that will be resurrected, perfected, and eternal.

3) That child has a unique nature that is specific to the body that his parents gave him - a physical manifestation of their love which is, by the grace of God, an eternal, sub-created nature.

Therefore, at the very least, a fruitful marriage is by God's will eternal in its physical manifestation of the divinely sanctioned union. This is reflected in the Holy Spirit as an eternal person of the Godhead made manifested by the Father and Son's love for each other.

--

As a necessary corollary, abortion is, by its very nature, an anti-sacrament or evil act which purposely inverts that of God's will.

"Serve the least"

A Father serves all, his labor is to provide for his family, nurture, protect, and watch over them. And so Our Father did the same, and His Son did the same here, by demonstrating. "The least" as in one's children, the father, the head of a family does the same, acts as God and the Son in his own small way.

Why Christ Came Poor

The Jews were scandalized that Christ appeared as a poor man, but that he should appear as a King.

Christian tradition teaches that God is infinitely above man, and that by descending to be born as a man, Christ raised humans to the possibility of divination and become gods (Sons of God) through Christ.

Christ came as the humblest of men, poorest, born in a manager among animals, to represent this miracle - the miracle of raising even the lowliest of human nature to the status of child of God. If Christ has come as a wealthy man, or King, even those states would still be infinitely below and the glory but a poor reflection of God's own glory - so he descended not just to be born as any man, but the humblest of men.

What Marriage Is and Isn't

Marriage isn't an institution. Marriage isn't a legal contract. Marriage isn't a ritual, or a celebration, or anything of the sort.

Marriage is the creative sexual union of man and woman sanctified by God and recognized as valid by the community. Marriage is an act of sub-creation by God's own creations, in the universe God created, elevated to an immortal and divine creation when He blesses the child the parents created with an immortal soul God created.

--

From this you can extrapolate almost every error and sin of man with regard to marriage, and every recent secular misunderstanding - why everything that is wrong is wrong - and what we truly need to recognize and protect.

Dreaming About Marriage

I had a dream about marriage where it seemed revealed knowledge to me why sexual intercourse may not be present in heaven, at least not as we think of it.

I was bothered by the idea that something which seems joyful or sanctified shouldn't be present, and perhaps misunderstood some of the Fathers writings that appeared to suggest it wasn't good.

--

It was revealed to me that the union between two lovers is so elevated in Heaven, so complete and joyful beyond any possibly earthly imagining, that the sexual act itself but seemed a pale reflection. That which was good and divine about sexual relations were so joyfully fulfilled that there was no question or desire of merely having the earthly state.

--

This sort of understanding simply can't be comprehended by those living in a sinful state, because those sinful states specifically are excluded from this joy. They are misdirected abuses of the true understanding of marriage's divine purpose and union. Sinful states are actively separating people from God. They are sad degradations of beauty and truth. A sinner must lose himself, and what he thinks he desires, to turn and embrace true joy and understanding - the joy is beyond imagining and so to the depths of sorrow caused by sin and error are beyond realization.

If a man is so blinded that they can't see the truth, they must simply have faith and hope that something far greater exists. He must love God and trust God that His Father knows what is good, that His Father is good and truth, and let go of the lies and deceptions.

(A child may not understand why a thing is dangerous, and so the parent must simply forbid it, put it out of reach, and even punish the child. The child must obey until they can understand and know.)

Wherein Marriage Partakes of the Divine

God's primary relationship to us is love, and it is a creative love that gave birth to the universe and all of mankind.

The ideal form of marriage is that of great love between man and woman. A love that is above physical attraction, but includes it, that brings two lovers together in union.

This ideal love is so strong that it truly brings about that union, not only in a temporal act, but one which actually partakes of the divine. That is, the union is joyful, bonding, and truly creative - so creative that a child - the actual physical embodiment of that union - may be born. The parents give the child a body and God gives it an immortal soul!

Notably, Jesus Christ's first miracle involved participating in a marriage. The presence of God at the marriage is reflective of His divine presence in marriage itself and the creative marital act. The act of turning water to wine as a divine first miracle is confusing to many, but specifically reflects Him sanctifying and elevating a mortal marriage to that of divine creation.  So to, His miracle reflects the joy present in marriage, the joy of divine creation, and the joy of loving union.

It is really amazing: God sanctifies the parent's love, because marriage specifically means the union of man and woman. He makes that love immortal. He makes that union immortal by uniting their creative act to an immortal soul created by God Himself.

Moving to the Best Country

I've heard rumors of rumors of US citizens looking to expat, or trying to find the best place to live, etc.

Well, I've fond it. The wealthiest, smartest, longest living country, where people are kind, generous, and don't commit any crime. They'll even stop by regularly and help you move furniture, fix your toilet, and see if you need help with anything. Unlike almost every other first world nation on earth, it's also in no danger of extinction - they get married young and have big loving families.

Better yet, you don't have to renounce your citizenship. You don't even have to move. They'll even send a welcoming committee to your door.

So what's the catch?

You're expected to attend a local meeting every Sunday, help out in your new country, give up your bad habits, and tithe 10% (one of the lowest "tax rates" in the world). If you can commit, you can get baptized.

Mormon Life Expectancy

It is interesting how there is a lot of correlation between intelligence, income, crime rate, etc. and these all skew towards the ideal end among Mormons. Another indicator is life expectancy.

According to Wikipedia, Utah is ranked #10 in the nation with a life expectancy rate of 82.2

So what's the Mormon life expectancy?

The national average is 78.74, so Utah has an "extra" 3.46 years, but assuming that skew is primarily due to the high rate of Mormons in the state - of whom we estimate as 63% of the population - we extrapolate the average increase as actually 5.49 years per Mormon.

That gives Mormons an average life expectancy of 84.23 years!

Thinking of "Mormons" as a nation, that would make the the 5th longest living nation in the world. So not only do we have the wealthiest by median income, the smartest, and the lowest crime nation in the world, we also have one of the longest living.

Conservatives Have Been Cuckolded

Traditional conservatives have a strong sense of respect for authority. That is for institutions, religions, and nations. Conservatives also tended to be the founders, funders, and respecters of educational institutes.

Conservatives tend to argue from said authority (this Pope said, or the constitution, etc.), but of course, the institution is composed of individuals and thus living.

So tradition and conservative ideals are only respected if the present body of the institution respects those things, and liberals figured out if they take over an institution, conservatives will in good-faith continue supporting those institutions for a very long time - at least the present generation, or until respect for that institution or authority utterly dissipates.

For example, the post-Vatican II changes in the Catholic church were widely lamented by conservatives, but few actually took the step to admit their hierarchy had largely been cuckolded by modernism (which was explicitly stated as a heresy a mere 50 years earlier). So rather than remaining in obedience to tradition, they obeyed the present authority.

The same sort of thing applies to the Republican party in the US, the Boyscouts of America, and even the US government in many aspects - it certainly no longer functions primarily as a republic, but the goal was long ago changes to democracy. One could, of course, go on...

So what's the solution? Above all, obedience to God. That is, God is a living God, He did not die with tradition nor did He die with the present authority figures chose to rewrite His law and disobey Him. Therefore, ones allegiance and obedience is to be, primarily and always, obedience to God and His eternal laws.

Respect for authority is only contingent insofar as the authority in turn obeys God. No human or group of humans is immune from sin, they are always victim to it expect by God's grace.

Modern anti-Education

Traditional education, including Catholic, was primarily focused on teaching people how to think - how to reason, understand philosophy, judge if things are true or false.

Modern "public education", or better said anti-educaiton, trains the youth to be indoctrinated in established politically correct propaganda and punishes those who step out of line (i.e. those who think).

Two Kinds of Eucenism

The word "ecumenism" has been bad-mouthed by conservatives and adored by liberals, but this is again due to an abuse-of-meaning by liberals.

For the left, to be ecumenical means to undermine one's own faith, to eliminate those doctrines that don't get along with everyone else's (i.e. those doctrines that aren't liberal, progressive, modern).

A conservative should respect ecumenism by embracing allies who also love God and truly desire to do His will - and very specifically not Satan's.

When Words Mean Their Opposite

A favorite game of our modern age is to keep words intact, but actually mean the opposite by them.

It started pretty early on with the sodomy movement, by use the term "gay" to mean sodomite, despite higher incidences of disease, suicide, sever depression, mental problems, and histories of physical and emotional child abuse. Doesn't sound very happy to me.

Now "marriage" means a contract to engage in any conceivable sexual act between any consenting adults - yet the contract is meaningless anyway. It's just a phantom triumph to attack people who understand the family is society, without which all crumbles. That is, it once meant a very specific necessary for society, but it now means absolutely nothing.

Post-marriage triumph we now see the words "man" and "woman" have also apparently become meaningless, because it might be offensive (maybe even a hate crime soon) to use them as actual representatives of truth.

One of the justices who used his position of power to enforce sexual sin on a nation is called a Catholic. So again we see the meaning of a word completely undermined, or redefined. A Catholic should be someone who consents to the moral teachings of the church, even in its modern and more liberal form. To agree to a common worldview, to believe in the God of the Bible, etc.

Now though, it seems many people who call themselves Catholic mean it in the same way as crossdressing men call themselves a woman - a mask to throw on or off as one wills. So the definition of Catholic for some is in reality the opposite of what it used apparently means - not a love of God and His will, but a focus on self and what "I" will.

Because this is so widespread in our society, it seems one should not trust any words or labels to be what they claim. Just as some Catholic priests openly engage in sexual relations, it might be wise to doubt a Bishop, Cardinal, or other authority actually represents anything similar to the title in any organization tolerating deceit. We are left to knowing individuals as individuals, to get at their actual beliefs, practices, and behavior - it may be they are speaking a foreign language and we have to interpret the truth based on observations of reality.

We should expect to deal with lies and deceit on a daily basis. I think the only exceptions might be small homogenous communities where a common belief overrides the mainstream culture (maybe your family, a particular monastery or smaller religious society, very active and temple-going Mormons, etc.).

Judging Organizations by "Fruits"

I think one way to aptly judge how far an organization has succumbed to evil is to understand that evil does not create - but corrupts, mocks, and deforms.

That is, evil is parastic. It is dependent on the contributions of the good or ignorant to maintain its existence. Like a cancer, the organization only survives so long as the evil does not actually take over wholly the source of its support.

This is supported biblically:

The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

What brought to mind this thought is looking at the decline of vocations in Catholicism since the Vatican II "reforms" whose "new spirit" was intent on oriented itself in accord with modernism.

See: Priestly Crisis

Therefore, we may, unfortunately, conclude that the church hierarchy has largely, more or less, fallen.

That is not, of course, to say there are not wholy just and faithful people in the Catholic hierarchy (as evidenced, I think, by Pope Benedict). Also, this is not to judge the Catholic people either.

We merely see the "fruits" of a church undermining itself to adapt to the world, are - suprise, suprise - harmful to the church!

We must also consider the stated intent of the reforms. They were stated to increase church-going, membership, zeal, etc. They have, as now long evidenced, done the opposite! This is typical of evil policy, with numerous examples in mainstream liberal programs, that hurt the exact groups it claims to be assisting - along with others.

What is to be done?

Well, evil being primarily destructive, good people must always focus on building, on sub-creating in the spirit of love of God. As part of this, they must withdrawal support of organizations that have soccumbed to evil. This means not supporting the church, as a whole, but being very careful and discerning in supporting very specific good people, efforts, or individual churches.

One must also be careful that your effort isn't simply undermined, stolen, or turned to evil, so support of a specific church or priest must be done in such a way that a leftist superior or Bishop wont instantly undo it.

Those with discernment have always been called to support good and not participate in evil wherever they find it, and all men expect Christ are sinners. So a charitable Catholic or Christian of any group should not assume their group is automatically immune! The Catholic church has a long history of saints who worked hard to correct sin and folly where they found it in their beloved church.

--

(Because of this, the only Catholic organization I am able to support with a good conscience is the Society of Saint Pius X, which is overtly and specifically anti-leftist.

Per Charlton's Second law, any organization that isn't specific anti-leftist eventually falls to leftism.)

The "Secular Right" Solution is Too Easy

Coming out of the mainstream media "box," the first reaction is often to simply start believing what one observes with ones own eyes. This often leads to acceptance of human bio-diversity, but also generally a rejection of rampant and apparent error and hypocrisy.

It often stops there though, and simply rests on an anger at the obvious deceit. It is too easy to simply observe and state the obvious and to go no further. It's a trap.

It's like the ol' Plato's Cave analogy: one only makes it so far out of the cave. The secular rightest is the one pointing out that the shadows on the wall are rather poorly done, the descriptions aren't too accurate, and that he can do much better ones!

That is, it doesn't actually take him outside the cave.

To get outside the cave requires religion, namely Christianity. Yet this problem is setup in such a way that by taking that first step to secular rightism, one may permanently reject Christianity because they fail to understand what it is. Mainstream culture has thoroughly hijacked and corrupted the Christian name so that most "Christian" institutions are entirely secular leftist, with a thin sprinkling of Christian vocabulary and ritual.

So many secular right are "out of the frying pan and into the fire" so-to-speak. They are stuck in a state that has a propensity to increase anger, hostility, and bitterness at the total "hypocrisy" of society and its "stupid" or "ignorant" behavior - the idea that, if simply shown the reality of the situation, they can build a new or better society correctly on secular values.

The problem is, of course, that secular leftism isn't merely ignorant or misinformed! It isn't just making stupid mistake after stupid mistake, but it is primarily anti-Christian. It oppose the way, the truth, and the life. It purposefully inverts the good, the beautiful, and the truth. That is, it is evil - and until/if the secular right recognizes the spiritual dimension, that is the true root of the problem, their efforts will always be fruitless and misdirected (and even, quite possibly, harmful to their souls).

Christianity Corrupted by Denying Sin

The core issue, or crux of Christianity's present state of corruption, is rooted in the widespread denial (therefore, total acceptance) of sin.

It is important to understand how this utterly corrupts Christianity: By ignoring the dichotomy between good and evil (e.g. even the conservative Catholic church removed many references to Satan and the prayer to the Archangel Michael in the post Vatican II reforms), and denying various sins - especially the total societal acceptance and enforcement of sexual sin - the idea of God's love is perverted.

That is, instead of understanding our need to repent and reform, to follow the good, beautiful, and true, the message is inverted so that evil becomes good, ugly becomes beautiful, and lies become true. That is, modern corrupt liberal Christianity teaches the idea that sin is good, and the God who calls us to repent and love Him is evil!

Therefore they retain the name of Christianity (i.e. wolf in sheep "clothing"), but lead many souls astray and unto evil ends.

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Problems in the Church

Modern liberals see all problems as fixable with more progress. Christian liberals look at their church and decide progressive reforms are required (e.g. Vatican II, or acceptance of divorce, etc.). This is true whatever Christian grouping or denomination.

Conservatives see problems as caused by man's own sin and folly. That is, failure to love and follow God. The solution then is not a revolution, or a "reformation" of God's law so it better adhere's to human folly, but to call man to repent and strive to return to God.

The Importance of Priesthood

Both Catholicism (or Orthodoxy) and Mormonism believe that having a valid priesthood is vitally important. Both denominations also recognize the importance of lineage, and that the priesthood must necessarily be conferred by direct decent.

Europe, traditionally, viewed descent and lineage as vitally important. So too did the Jewish world, as the importance of Jesus' direct descent from David was considered critical in acknowledging His validity as Messiah and King of Israel.

The modern world has largely attacked this notion, as the essentially materialistic and communist notions underlying the present worldview are anti-hierarchical, egalitarian, and opposed to any notion of nobility or aristocracy - therefore acknowledging the importance of lineage is mostly viewed as forbidden.

Catholicism recognizes an individual priest's authority as deriving in a direct lineage from Christ, through Peter.  Mormonism recognizes an individual priesthood holder's authority as coming directly from Christ through the Apostles Peter, James, and John conferred directly on Joseph Smith during the restoration.

There are many differences from this point on, but the unity in emphasis is impressive. Having a valid, royal, prophetic priesthood is important.

My impression from this is that, for a large organization to be properly stable long-term and oriented towards God, it must have valid priesthood.

So, for example, while individual Christians without access to a priest may be real Christians - and they may even meet together and praise God in a real, vital way - for the organization itself to be ensured longevity and validity, it must have a valid priesthood.

Or at least, without one, it's missing something wonderful.

So then, my sense is that if an individual desires to join a church and submit to that church's authority in religious matters, they need make sure the church has valid priesthood holders who claim a direct, lineal descent from Christ.

--

For those living in the Western world then, their best options are likely Catholic or Mormon. Unfortunately, the post-consicular Catholic church is in a period of self-contradiction, confusion, and disunity. In its long history though, the Catholic church has had periods of trouble, with some very bad Popes, so focusing on tradition (perhaps more akin to how Orthodoxy ensures validity) might be necessary. 

A local priest I spoke to said that, even with all those problems, the core of the mass and validity of its sacrament are essentially the timeless essence of that faith. So largely ignoring the present "winds" and instead focusing on Mass (the traditional Latin ones, especially high-masses, are quite beautiful) and traditional teachings are probably the best option for someone who wants to remain Catholic.

Joseph Smith's Treasure

Matthew 6:19-21King James Version (KJV)

19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

---

One common criticism of Joseph Smith is that he was a treasure hunter prior to becoming a Prophet.

A possible positive interpretation of this is that he was shown true treasure by God, by using Smith's preconceived notions of treasure hunting and the power of seer stones - which he eventually graduated beyond the need of using.

Why bother having kids?

• Despite their concern for the disappearing white population worldwide, the secular right doesn't seem to have large numbers of kids.

• The secular left is pretty happy about the disappearing white population.

• The Christian left thinks there's probably too many people, and maybe you'd be just better off adopting other peoples kids.

• Mormons, on the other hand, continue to have lots of their own kids because they realize it's part of God's divine plan. God never abrogated his command to multiply, and it's part of his divine plan that specific spirits should be embodied in your specific family (if possible). The more the better.

[I think natural biological instincts reflect the Mormon position, but it is good to have a spiritual position and meaning from which to argue against the persistent modern propaganda and corrupted instincts.]

How do judge Christian denominations?

This is a difficult question. Too easily do people seem prone to dismiss others negatively over rather nuanced definitions and understandings, or practices they don't understand...

Also, it seems a traditional belief that we should probably expect to not personally agree with everything our church says, and yet submit to it. That is, when the liberal says "I like this or that, but the church disagrees - they're wrong", from where does a conservative make the same rebuke?

For a conservative Catholic or Mormon, it's not so difficult. They may assert the infallibility on moral doctrines of the Pope or Prophet. For a non-denominational Christian though, this is problematic. I find myself wondering if the Pope is wrong about this or that, yet don't feel myself fit to judge.

Indeed, for many ex-Catholics and ex-Mormons, the second they question that firm pillar, it seems that everything falls apart and they simply "go with the flow" of the times and mostly ascribe to mainstream doctrines.

At this point though, I think it is easy enough to rule out some larger denominations as having fallen into error using a simple litmus test based on traditional Christian mores (that is, making the moral behavior as superior to doctrinal disputes, etc.)

This may be easily enough done using something as old as the 10 commandments. We could just pick a few for simplicity, with more or less relevant issues:

1) Does the denomination condemn murder?
2) Does the denomination condemn adultery?
3) Does the denomination condemn theft?
4) Does the denomination condemn lying?

I think most everyone who calls themselves Christian still frowns about stealing and lying. Yet with regard to murder, a large number of denominations now support abortion and out-of-wedlock sexual relations. This applies to now-legal same-sex legal marriages as well, because state recognition and God's law are distinct. Ideally the state follow God, though we see that is not always true.

So unfortunately that simple litmus rules out a lot of Christian denominations! If your denomination is doing something so obviously wrong as violating the abrogating some simple moral rules to "keep up with the times" it might be time to change. The Bible sort of details over and over again that societies often seem to stray from God's law, but it's the Christians duty to stay true to God's law despite changing winds of popularity.

The second check might to be see if members actually take the rules of their denomination seriously and attempt to live by them. It appears the membership numbers and fertility rate in those who publicly disobey are dropping anyway though!

---

It's interesting how Churches keep being told they need to keep up with the times to retain members, yet those who do slowly dissolve. If anyone suggests this, it's probably good to double-check their motivations and beliefs.

Obedience: Most Important Virtue of the 21st Century?

Bruce Charlton has pointed out that the modern world is highly dysgenic, and as a side effect our basic moral compass and healthy instincts may be the first to erode.

I think his conclusion must be accepted if one believes in both 1) Historic high child mortality rates, and 2) The process of natural selection.

Now, if one does accept that conclusion - the evidence is everywhere! Moral standards are corrupted, inverted, dissolving. People thing what was once obviously wrong is good, etc. That is, the conclusion is confirmed by our present reality and experience.

So religion can serve as a remedy to that situation, but only if one is willing to be obedient. That is, if one is genuinely unable to see why various sins are wrong, because they've lost that advanced social and sexual instinct, then the only other option is to remain humble and obedient to God's will - to recognize that our own will is corrupted, prone to sin, and likely to mislead us.

I think the hardest part about this is that people likely to be obedient will be raised on public schools and mass media, so what they seek to be obedient to will be corrupted. This was my problem, in part - even though so much *seemed* wrong, everyone goes along...

--

Then of course, there is the possibility of supernatural help. If one sincerely desires to be obedient to God's will, makes oneself child-like and humble, and prays!

Christian Acceptance

"Progressive" Christians imply that acceptance of others should mean acceptance of their sins as OK. This dissolution of moral standards never stops at mere tolerance, the goal is acceptance, and then enforcement, legalization, and *promotion*.

That is, ultimately, the societal goal is to make the sin inverted - it should ultimately be accepted by society as a whole to be virtuous to engage in the sin - perhaps it even makes one special, unique, better than those who don't engage in it.

So, starting at the beginning, a church must be firm in its goals. It may accept the sinner, as a wayward brother, but it must always be at the forefront that the sinner should be expected to repent, to work on changing their sin. The community should in no-way be ashamed in acknowledging a sinful behavior as wrong and destructive.

That is, a Christian community accepts the sinner - welcomes them - insofar is they desire to help the sinner reform out of true charity.

"Political correctness" in this regard is severely harmful, insidious, deceitful, and fundamentally seeks to undermine the health of the community. 

"Progress" Wins in the Catholic Church?

With the numerous problems facing the church, family, etc. it seems interesting that the head of the Catholic church seems to be suggesting the priority for Catholics should be to combat global warming.

I'm afraid, at that point, it's already a lost argument.

The Pope, through essentially giving a spiritual veneer to the mainstream opinion, has nothing necessarily good to offer. If he did - it would have been the centerpiece, not a few lines here or there. Everyone is already on-board as far as the media and mainstream society is concerned. His released would be primarily a unique take or emphasis, to reorient things towards the Spirit...

Instead we have the same old "well, science seems to prove..." and so now, because science has "prove it" it's a moral imperative. Yet, the main argument for global warming combatants is population control and reduction - which directly flies in the face of the Pro-Life position. That means, in an argument against life and death as priorities in the Catholic church, the pro-death position has apparently taken the drivers seat.

That may seem a little extreme, but as far as I can tell the Pope's argument is thoroughly socialist and materialistic. God, in this current, appears optional. It almost appears a pathetic "me too, the church isn't just an old fuddy-duddy, but we are up with the times - just look at Vatican II and now this!"

--

Hearing this from the pulpit today, what does the Catholic think in a 20 minute sermon from the Priest or Deacon: "Hey guys, the Pope thinks it's a priority to combat global warming and be eco-friendly." What more? Is there a unique Catholic perspective on this that doesn't mean more tax subsidies, more solar panels, etc.? If so, why wasn't that the essential point or broadcast?

(That is what I heard today anyway, at a very conservative, Traditional Latin Mass church)

No, the most an obedient Catholic, and the general gist, is going along with already established opinion - to think is something like: "Oh, I guess the TV was right! I better go out and buy a Prius, turn off the lights, and install a windmill. And, oh, by the way, the central power structure needs more power to enforce this globally! Also, anything else science overwhelming proves is also probably true."

Has the Church essentially acquiesced to its position as a primarily state institution, like the Church of England, etc.?

"Progressives" Have No Forgiveness

Christianity recognizes sin, but offers forgiveness.

Secular leftists deny sins exist,* and offer no forgiveness.

* While not a "sin" the secular left always has an enemy. That enemy is not offered forgiveness, and can not change their ways. They are, effectively, targeted for destruction and the only way to be granted temporary expediency is to claim to accept their own wrongness and acquiesce to the destruction.

(Think Communists against the bourgeois, or the French Revolution against the aristocracy and clergy. Or now, how gung-ho European nations are to replace their native populations. The Left is fundamentally dependent on having a vaguely defined grouping of enemies to tear down, and then another, and another...)

Emulating Our Father

Mormonism's literalism is very interesting to me, particularly with regard to our role in this life. As a father, my role is in part to literally emulate Our Father. That is, ideally I should be a good loving father. I should, in a sense, rule my kingdom or household oriented towards the good.

As a son, I should love and obey my Heavenly Father, and also hope for the same from my son towards me and towards God. In an ideal situation, my sold would love and respect me, and look up to me, and I should ideally strive to be worthy of that love by emulating my own Heavenly Father.

So as so many as, what is the meaning or purpose of life? Christianity answers, to follow Christ and love Our Father. Mormonism explains that, in that Christ perfectly emulated and love His Father, so we to are to always strive to be more Christ-like. To be more like Our Father, to be good husbands, and fathers. To provide, protect, and create - that our own family may hopefully participate in the good, truth and beauty of God.

So we try, fail, pray, and try again.

Tithing to the Mormons

I've decided to tithe to the Mormon church. Though I'm not baptized, they've always been welcoming and willing to allow me to participate in sacrament.

I haven't felt comfortable donating to the Catholic church as an organization in the past. I have given for very specific causes and smaller Catholic groups/churches, but as far as I can tell the money is poorly used on a broad organizational level.

I have less qualms about donating directly to the CJCLDS as a whole organization. As far as I can tell, the money is used wisely, and even the leaders have decent business acumen so that they often wisely invest excess contributions so that they're available for the future and possible hard-times. In general, I think the CJCLDS has superior missionary and support programs to the Catholic church. The CJCLDS does a good job emphasizing self-reliance over hand outs, and I think this what's needed in the US where there are no biblical "poor", but there are a lot of people with low intelligence, poor monetary management skills, and/or mental illness at the lowest ends of society.

That said, I still occasionally donate to a specific monastery and a local conservative Catholic school.

Mormons Preserving the Best of European Heritage?

When first investigating Mormonism I was biased in favor of Catholicism, because I believed Catholicism possessed and preserved the the best of European heritage. Unfortunately Europe in general and even the Catholic church seems content to see everything modernized/undermined.

Culturally and morally, Mormons do appear to preserve the best of Christian Europe. It is good to see them also doing it with music.

Mormon Work-Ethic and Success

I'm wondering if the Mormon work-ethic and their material success in this-world is directly linked to their conception of heaven. I've noticed many leaders among the Mormon church are very successful financially, the Mormon church itself heavily invests in profitable projects, and even the Harvard business school has a lot of Mormons...

In contract you have in Catholicism a sense that living in poverty is actually the highest ideal. Renouncing all personal possessions, etc. though few live up to the ideal.

Now if we look at the Catholic idea of the beatific vision, everything material is merely temporary, a delusion, keeping one from focusing entirely on God. That is, maybe your worldly endeavors could lead you to hell, and you're a lot better off renouncing everything.

In the Mormon Heaven, there is a sense that one may possibly progress to working with or for God in a real material sense. Literally helping children in another world reach God...

Now if one images their present situation as being a "training" the tasks such as leadership, organization, managing to have a beautiful home, etc. could in some sense be parallel or almost preparation for the highest task.

In a sense, leading and nurturing a healthy and successful family is literally parallel to the work God does and possibly our Heavenly work, and the above are merely extensions.

This is all, of course, entirely speculative.

Mainstream Evolution Doublethink

Evolution is responsible for all changes, diversity, intelligence differences between species, physical differences, etc.

That is, a world without God and how it came to be.

Despite this, and apparently millions of years of gender differences between countless lifeforms, there are absolutely no real gender differences. Genders are identical mentally, and any appearance of gender is fake and entirely malleable.

Also, despite this, and apparently tens of thousands of years of separation between different groups of humans, and obvious physical differences, it is absolutely and totally impossible for there to be any stereotypical character unique to different races or ethnic groups, especially with regard to intelligence or behavior.

So the mainstream opinion, very seriously and devoutly held, is that not only did evolution responsible for everything, in a couple circumstances unique to humans, and despite natural selection still working on some physical differences, evolution completely and totally stopped making any mental differences for tends of thousands of years with regard to race and gender among humans. That is, without any God to cease the process, or any reason for the process to cease. It just did, and if you doubt it shut up.

Isn't that just a little speciesist? ;-)

Mormonism: The Most Useful Religion

The most critical, important, core duty of any successful society is to nurture families. Every other organizational structure in society but mimics the root family structure. Every good function of state and religion can be seen as a reflection of the good family.

This should be obvious, it should be a basic mental model that everyone understands. The military as fatherly protector, the judicial branch as the fatherly role of judge, the state and church's charity as reflection parental love for its members. Fraternal organizations always consider its members brothers, young soldiers look up to their commander as children to a trusting father, etc. I could go on!

So, for example, we see the state sanctioning family-destructive practices such as murdering unborn children, inverting sexual relationships and "family" from reproductive to primarily consumptive. I mean this literally in both its meanings - two men playing house is primarily a useful union for the economy as consumers, but also is a reflection of a disease undermining the state's foundation.

Because, of course, without healthy, reproductive families, the state dies. The current trend to replace all the state's own children with foreigners is a temporary band-aid seeking more consumers. Of course, the joke is that the adopted children aren't quite as bright or productive, and they still need to have children or the whole diseased pyramid falls apart...

Yet, unfortunately, in a state in which the state is trying to cut away its own root, religion should be the traditional defender to chastise its ways and call it to repent or perish. The Catholics have been doing admirably at calling out symptoms... but policy agreement with Mormons doesn't really get at the core of what is going on here.

As far as I know, the Mormons are the only group that by-definiton can't compromise on this point - that resolutely refuses to have the family attacked in any way. That still actively promotes, encourages, nurtures, teaches, and protects the family.

Ignore the top-down perspective for a moment:

When a young husband and wife are struggling financially and emotionally with raising children, with being good parents, with staying together no matter what - what is to protect and keep them?

A moral duty may be sufficient for some, but apparently not most, the behavior of society at large and most denominations at large attests to this.

The Mormons are the only group that directly links family (which is absolutely, bar-none, the most critical aspect of a nation and society's health) with sacred.

That is, the only denominations that family duty really and totally is spiritual duty - not just a reflection, analogy, or whatever - but absolutely and totally. The everyday, mundane, beautiful things are elevated to the most important spiritual things. One is actively living out everyday a spiritual existence when providing for ones family, raising children, loving them.

No one else does that. No one defends the family as such. No one protects and supports civilization and society as a whole as such.

Mormons: The Only Fatherly Denomination

In most traditional societies, such as pagan Rome and Japan, the father had a duel role of priest and provider. That is, he planned and provided for both his family's spiritual and temporal success and survival. It makes sense, doesn't it? Just as Christ is the Shepherd of His Church, so the father is to be the shepherd of his family in following Christ.

Most people still recognize the fatherly role as protector and provider, and so also pray to God generally asking for both spiritual and temporal assistance as protector and provider. It's interesting that Mormons also literally consider the father a priest, along with expecting him to provide for his family. Assuming the priest-hood duty is a coming-of-age rite that teaches the future father to assume responsibility - it's beautiful, and connects temporal duty with spiritual duty.

As far as I know, Mormons are the only group that actively prepare for all their members long-term temporal well-being along with spiritual well-being. I know of no other denomination that teaches and seems to care for its members in this way. The advice is rather simple - such as making sure you have 3-months worth of food, to pay off your mortgage, to practice self-reliance - but it is also critically important advice because it is almost entirely lacking in mainstream practice and common sense.

https://www.lds.org/topics/food-storage?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/topics/emergency-preparedness?lang=eng
http://providentliving.org/self-reliance/health?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/topics/family-finances

This is exactly the sort of thing people really need today. It would greatly help poor people, but more than that actually provides real assistance the the main body of the church - young, middle-class families - the exact demographic that is absolutely crucial, yet largely ignored by and mostly deserting most mainstream denominations.

It is the sort of help and education one would hope to receive from a father. It's both entirely practical and useful, but also an indicator that the church truly loves and wants to look after its members.

Family Focus

I found my experience with Catholicism's view of the family a bit demotivating. I know it's not intended to, and this may be a personal flaw, but I'm big into trying to understand the top-down metaphysical view of something.

That is, in an ultimate sense, under Catholicism family isn't really necessary. It is in a biological sense, but an the ultimate eternity it may not even exist (depending on who you read, it doesn't exist) and even if it does exist, it isn't of some ultimate importance - it is primarily a temporal expedient.

Now, when you're constitutionally lazy like myself, this isn't exactly the most motivating view. Maybe I'd have been better off in a monastery contemplating God, and not getting side-tracked by the real, everyday difficulty of earning money, getting along with a wife, raising children, etc.

That said, I do really enjoy my family. I love them greatly and find enjoy our relationships and time spent together... but I feel really bothered if what I'm doing isn't important, or not ultimately important. That is, I'm always asking "what is the purpose of this all, what should I be doing?"

I feel a constant nagging to do the most important thing. So maybe playing ball with the kid isn't that important, even though its enjoyable, but in the ultimate sense isn't it just a waste of time - an empty distraction? I mean, it feels in some sense important, and I think I should be here in the moment... but maybe that's just self deception and I should actually be off doing-something-more-important.

I found this sort of nagging and these sort of questions very hard to deal with.

As far as I know, Mormonism is the only religion where what I love doing most and what is most-important in an ultimate sense coincide: spending time with my family. Maybe the everyday joys of reading a book and playing ball are the most important in a very substantial, real, and eternal sense.

That is, I might hope to be with my family eternally, and in an eternal sense to continue to enjoy loving relationships as an ultimate joy and purpose. That what seems like difficult or tedious labor isn't so bad, because it isn't merely a temporal expedient and essentially meaningless, but has in itself ultimate purpose and is very important, both now and unto eternity.

That is incredibly beautiful to contemplate. Those thoughts are also incredibly motivating to me.

Why Mormons and not Amish?

Looking strictly at fertility rates among Christian groups, the Amish look pretty impressive. They are in my prayers and have my full support, but to protect their good they have fully isolated themselves from the world. They may serve as an example, but they don't try to "recruit" or spread their message.

By contract, the Mormons have around 88,000 fully active missionairies. They have managed to preserve and grow their good while participating in large corporations, politics, higher education, etc.

That is, instead of turning inward (defensive), they are actively looking outward (offensive). They are available so that people - like myself - might consider joining and participating in the good they have to offer.

Even if Amish, say, started actively inviting me in, going door-to-door asking people... I imagine they would be almost entirely unsuccessful. To disconnect fully from society (effectively career, family, friends, etc.) would certainly be too much to overcome - while a Mormon convert can still be fully integrated into the same life, while "merely" changing things like place of worship and habits.

Yet the crucial part, is they can still step away from the evil pervasive in modern society and mass media - the kind of "subtle" evil that utterly disconnects people from reality, that turns them into self-hating, destructive, pleasure seekers - without giving up technology, career, etc.

My Impression of "Ex-Mormons"

I don't recommend this exercise. It left me feeling kind of dirty. Even though I pride myself in trying to analyze things at a distance, I think most people can't help being somewhat influenced by what they read - some more than others. That is why sometimes avoiding news and mass media can make such an absolutely startling positive experience in your life - avoiding all that negativity does make a big difference.

--

Obviously there's exceptions, and the forums and internet sites geared towards this-sort-of-thing are obviously biased, but I'll give my overall impression, without any intent to debate it:

Very bitter, angry, cynical, and depressed. It reminds me of dis-affected youth who are bitter at their parents because they believe everything they've been taught is a fraud, but instead of finding something else or moving on, they positively stew in it - as if it is their new purpose.

My guess is that the sort-of-people who fall into this trap are very impressionable, and somewhat gullible. I think they had too much esteem for their (sheltered?) perspective. They seem positively stunned that other Mormons might be human and have failings, or occasionally be hypocritical about something, or that a Bishop or other leader might error.

To me it's sort of strange, and I feel some pity. I think they do not realize that the whole world is like that, but generally much worse. For the most part, Mormons do a better job of being better people, but of course, like everyone, they fail and sin, are far from perfect, etc.

I think these people will become increasingly bitter as they realize the rest of the world is, for a large part, worse than what they abandoned for its perceived flaws. The reasoning seems somewhat secondary, as a lot of the arguments against the Book of Mormon etc. have arguments on both sides (e.g. FairMormon does a great job) and a lot of the anti-Mormon sites are actually very poorly done, they sort of look like "tin-foil-hat" sites where you find conspiracy theories, etc.

That last part is why I think these people may be, for the most part, too impressionable. They seem stunned to find that some people might disagree with what they believed before and are so swayed they depart. It's unfortunate they weren't better exposed or educated.

There also seems to be a connection to abandoning it in order to accept mainstream or liberal values, like on marriage, abortion, and the rest. They now want to attack the church from the outside instead of actually just abandoning it, walking away, or leaving it alone. It is a very destructive and negative attitude.

That said, in the end, (after, admittedly, a lot of questions, doubts, etc.) all the anti-Mormon stuff has strongly biased me more in favor of Mormonism and the CJCLDS.

Is "Abortion" Child Sacrifice?

The assertion is "controversial" but entirely serious. I also don't think it's in the least bit wacky, but something we should consider.

Let's analyze some definitions:

Abortion means to stop a process. In this context it means to "abort" a human life. The term is already politically imbued, the very term used to define what's-going-on is slanting the debate. It's assuming that what's being aborted isn't fully human, but is in process to becoming such.

Pro-Choice tries to take it one step further back. It doesn't even want people to think about the act of "abortion" (which, as we just mentioned, is tilting the debate in favor of such an action), but simply means "in favor of 'abortion'".

The thing is, these rather vomitrocious terms are extremely misleading. They're defining the entire debate on assumptions that go unquestioned - that is exactly why they're used and promoted by the media. No matter which "side" you're on, you're playing by an anti-Christian, liberal worldview.

The same terms could, quite realistic, be used to justify murdering almost any non-adult human. That is, the fetus is in a process of becoming a baby, the baby a child, the child an adolescent, the adolescent an adult... at anytime this process could be "aborted" before full adulthood is achieved. Of course, it's only legal to do so at this time before the human has left the womb - but this is entirely arbitrary. There is no reason, from a leftist viewpoint, that abortion couldn't occur at anytime.

Killing the unborn is also incorrect. Killing is often used to refer to justified death, such as in wartime, or self-defense, or towards a violent animal.

We are literally talking about murder. That is, murdering a human. By definition, murder applies to one who is innocent. I think every Christian must agree with this point. The media only escapes the argument by redefining terms, and playing a little dance to justify what has always been regarded as murder.

My real question though, is are we talking about sacrifice? Those horrible practices that, everyone agrees, only vicious backwards people used to practice... is that what society as a whole is doing, right now?

Well, historically people tended to sacrifice their children in the hopes of receiving some sort of this-worldly gain. To appease vengeful Gods, to stop the drought, etc. So are people today murdering their children for a this-worldly gain, because someone in authority (historically a priestly-like pretender) is telling them to?

Yes, people today are murdering their children, because people in authority are telling them to, to receive specific this worldly benefits - lower costs, more free time to pursue hedonistic activities, or career (again more money), or maybe to stop global warming (remember how those really stupid people thought they could stop drought? I'm sure they had a good "reason" too...)

So yes, indeed - people today are committing large scale child sacrifice. And I say, based it is absolutely abhorrent to God. I'm pretty sure child sacrifice was forbidden somewhere in the Bible, as if people need to be told explicitly that it is wrong - which apparently they do.

Guesswork: Joseph Smith's Translations Are "Dream Like"

Disclaimer: I'm not a Mormon.

I think that a possible explanation for much of Joseph Smith's translations are "dream like."

Based on my previous conclusions, I must accept as fact that Mormonism is somehow true (essentially, or at least mostly). That is, Joseph Smith's translations, revelations, and the products thereof are some how more real and more true than what most people accept as true (myself, most modern non-mormons).

However, a lot of startling elements or difficulties present themselves to the non-Mormon even when looking at the official accounts. Such as the instruments used to translate the plates, the direct word-for-word copying of official KJV passages, the fact that the translation is into King James english, the translation of Matthew, etc.

It seems evident that Joseph Smith's translation wasn't the same as what one usually thinks of as a scholarly translation. Even by Smith's own account, it was strictly by the power of God.

So it appears to me that his work and translations often have a dream-like quality, in that appear to be presenting a unique (or sacred) message, but communicated via Smith's personal experiences, knowledge, understanding of language. That is, in one sense, obvious that any translator will be conveying some degree of themselves into the work - but for Smith it seems more than that. I wonder if it wasn't like a sacred dream, where the imagery used is from Smith's own mind, but to convey a specific (divinely inspired?) message. It would explain to some degree why he used exact word-for-word KJV passages, apparently mixed up "biblically sounding" wording with 19th century anachronisms, etc.

--

Trying to use the historical accounts to figure out just what happened is difficult. There appears to be a lot of slander, politics, and so much he-said she-said. Certainly, the same issues we face today! Given the obviously problematic nature of reporting today (even with photography, video recordings, etc.) one is automatically making a faith-based choice on what and who to believe. It is a far from perfect comparison, but it seems clear enough that if Christ was born in our time, the media be producing a lot of slander and evidence against His claims - even any miracle would be twisted, slandered, etc. so that I doubt anyone would believe that anything had even occurred, even if many had personal experience of the miracles. Perhaps I'm being too cynical?

Why isn't everyone Mormon?

Restating my previous post another way (from the mainstream, mass media repeated viewpoint):

Mormons don't want to be deceived by reality, because they mistakingly think it's wonderful and fundamentally enjoy life - but they're stupid and kinda bad because they disagree with us.

Non-Mormons want to be deceived, distracted, entertained, and primarily seek short-term pleasures because they know the truth about reality is really meaningless and everything that seems good is false, and hopefully stupid religious people wake up soon and realize it.

Now, it seems the logical think for a non-religious nihilistic/atheist person to do would be to join anyway in order to participate in the obviously superior benefits to individual and group.

So why don't they, en mass? Well obviously - because they can't. First, they've convinced themselves (have their heads so far up their backsides) that what is obviously good is bad. Secondly, they can't participate in the benefits unless they honestly believe it is true. It's not like a consumer product where one can just buy the options one wants, it must either be genuinely lived or not at all.

Non-Mormon Comparison

An interesting comparison. If you conclude Mormonism is false (which I don't agree with, though I'm not Mormon), one must say:

Mormons are deceived about religion and reality, though they think they have the truth, and it's wholly to their personal and group benefit.

Non-Mormon atheists (mass media people) aren't deceived about religion and reality, they don't think anything can really be true, and it's wholly to their personal and group detriment.

It's actually a bit more complicated than than. Mormons believe they understand reality as it really is, and make no attempt to purposely deceive themselves. Non-Mormon atheists claim they know the truth, but at the same time purposely and constantly deceive and distract themselves through an array of entertainment products (because the non-Mormon "truth" is extremely demotivating, and comfort/pleasure is the primary motivation they cling onto as individuals).

The Importance of Fertility Rate

I suppose it should be kind of obvious, shouldn't it?

From a demographic standpoint, if a group has sub-replacement fertility, it's literally dying off. A group is either growing or dying, at potential variances around a "static" point that is never quite a real state of being.

As a whole though, and repeated daily, mainstream society has decided that there are too many people. As a whole, society has also shifted it's focal point away from family. Everything that is not reproductive is touted as a good: abortion, contraception, delayed marriage, same-sex "marriage (which, obviously, can't be reproductive).

The whole trend, for anyone who listens, is demographic suicide. Interestingly, the only people who do listen are those same people who are inundated by first-world mass media daily: mostly European and Asian-descended nations.

These same groups of people tend to have higher IQs, which is only controversial in the same sense that "it's okay to murder children in the womb" is controversial - it's only such because the mass media has decided it should be so.

That is, the only people committing demographic suicide are above average intelligence, above average education, and above average responsibility - they tend to plan for the future more (e.g. bothering to use contraception consistently). Now, there is work on "solutions" for those who are less-responsible - such as abortion. There is also work on long-term or somewhat permanent contraceptions (maybe it can be a sort of default medical procedure given around the time of puberty, like a vaccine) which would solve the discrepancy.

Yet, this is only a solution insofar that one accepts demographic suicide, as a whole, for everyone, is a good thing!

That is, more specifically, the solution to the discrepancy is for the more intelligent groups, effectively committing slow suicide, will also force the less intelligent groups to commit slow suicide. Because the less intelligent groups, much to the dismay of the more intelligent, wouldn't willingly commit suicide ("voluntarily limit fertility rates") - one can't really call it suicide can they? Maybe "soft genocide" or "long-term, painless genocide" would be more appropriate terms. It's sort of akin to the modern death penalty, where instead of public hangings, we've made it a private, painless process.

Religion, in general, appears to be an anti-dote to this "solution" (read: poison) and, as such, generally coopted or hated by the mainstream media and society it engenders. Christianity is an example of this, which has slowly accepted practices like abortion despite historical opposition. Even Catholics, which officially oppose contraception and abortion, is currently committing voluntary society.

There are some minority groups, like the Amish, who don't participate in the slow mass suicide and child sacrifice trend. That is because they fully isolate themselves from mainstream society, both socially and technologically.

Interestingly though, there is one group, that is highly intelligent, highly educated, wealthy, and fully integrated into modern society and technology. That group stands almost completely alone in being fully integrated into first-world society, yet completely opposing these overwhelmingly evil trends: that is, the Mormons.

Mormonism as True

Disclaimer: I'm not a Mormon, and my analysis here is strictly from the apparent real-world benefits that Mormonism provides to its believers. I think Mormons would believe these are the blessings of God, for obeying his word and will.

--

Based on my previous "conclusion", I feel compelled to personally believe that Mormonism (or the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter Day Saints) conforms to reality. My argument is strictly "top down" and ignores any "bottom up" approach and opinions on the historicity of the churches claims.

To elaborate: followers and believers of Mormonism have a quantitatively superior adaption to the challenges of modern life. That is especially evident to the relative behavior of other modern-adapted groups. So no matter how much one wants to attack the historicity Joseph Smith's translations and revelations, the political beliefs, or any other claim of Mormonism - somehow Mormonism is more real, more true than what most people believe (myself, most modern non-mormons).

This is a bold claim, but the evidence supporting this conclusion is overwhelming. It is, indeed, so strong, that given only 8 generations Mormons would be the largest ethnically European group in the world.

Obviously this sort of thing is extremely problematic to extrapolate into the future, but given current trends - in 8 generations:

For this simple calculation we will ignore converts, apostasy, and demographic mixing. We'll also take the US population and its trend as a while (ignoring the relative Mormon element).

The US will be majority hispanic
Europe (almost all countries) will be majority Muslim

The European-descended population of the US is currently the largest such grouping in the world. It currently reported at 197 million as of 2012, with a birth rate of 1.76. That is, as each generation passes it is negatively compounding by approximately 16%. In 8 generations there would be about 48 million whites in America.

The European-descend population of "Mormonism" is believed to be approximately 13.2 million, with a birthrate of 2.77. That means it is compounding by approximately 32% per generation. That means in 8 generations there would be about 121 million whites Mormons.

It is becoming an increasingly popular liberal view that the "death" or demographic shrinking of whites is a good thing. While I don't want to address why suicide, or encouraging suicidal behavior, is bad here - from a strictly evolutionary perspective, Mormonism is vastly superior to whatever most Americans believe.

It's so superior, that simply given current demographic trends, someday the only European-descended people left in America would be Mormons. What's interesting, is Mormonism has absolutely no doctrine explicit or otherwise in direct support of this specific effect. This trend is also in the face of widespread societal criticism of Mormonism - everywhere you look society is anti-Mormon (but also, anti-family, hence society-wide demographic suicide tendencies).

From a non-Mormon Christian perspective, and given the Old Testament definition of being blessed by God, one feels absolutely compelled to believe that Mormonism is indeed somehow true, that Mormons are indeed obeying the word of God, and that indeed they are blessed by God (apparently, far more than any other large religious denomination - most of which are committing demographic suicide faster than the widespread societal trends!)

--

(Please message or contact with any suggested corrections)

Conclusions Regarding Mormons

While I'm not a Mormon, I must conclude: 

1. It's exceedingly unlikely, and nigh-impossible that Mormonism is a fraud (as impossible as Joseph Smith finding and translating lost gold plates from an ancient civilization?). That is, at the least, Mormons must actually believe their own religion - they are not actively engaging in fraud.
2. The beliefs of Mormons conform to reality better than what the average American (and person in the world) believes, so much so that Mormons as a group are far more successful than the average American family (and average family in the entire world!)
3. Mormonism is good for the average individual mormon!

To restate once more: Even if you don't believe it is possible for Joseph Smith to have done what he did, what has resulted is a system that is more true than whatever you (or I) believe! It conforms closer to reality, and provides better real world advantages to the individual and group as a whole.

--

One can assume that, should current trends continue, you and I (and whatever you and I believe) will eventually go extinct, while Mormons and what Mormons believe will continue to flourish. Usually the smart thing to do, when one realizes that what they're doing is failing, and what someone else is doing is better, is to copy it - yet we (Americans, and Christians as a whole) would rather mock, slander, and come up with any excuse why it-just-can't-be-true.

I doubt Mormons would argue for themselves and their belief system as such, but the data conforms to their own belief that they are blessed by God. 

Analyzing Mormon Missionaries

I've spoken with Mormon missionairies a couple times in my life. My first thoughts were "I don't want to be bothered" and "what are you selling?"

Certainly, I've been harassed, misled, and ripped off by salesman in my life, happy to offer me something. That was certainly gut reaction, combined with intense skepticism, in relation to Mormons.

It bothered me: why are these men using salesman tactics? Even if they are genuine, they've certainly been coached on how to sell, how to appear trustworthy and honest, friendly, etc. They use affinity tactics (acting friendly, well dressed), reciprocation (offering assistance, giving a gift), etc.

One must ask though - how else would they do it? Presumably salesman tactics exist because they work, humans really respond psychologically to certain behavior and signaling. So really, our problem (my problem) with salesman tactics aren't that they work, so much as that they are fraudulently mimicked and used by most salesman. That is, we hate it because we are being defrauded for the others gain. That certainly is how most people view Mormonism (Smith as conman).

Yet, the individual Mormon missionaries can't be conmen in that sense. There is absolutely no financial benefit from what they do. They must pay (or beg) large sums of money to go on missionary trips, delay education, delay marriage, and actually forfeit a large amount of money they could be earning (and Mormons do earn above average salaries, as posted previously). I don't think we should ignore the social pressure within Mormon communities for individuals to do missionary work, but we must acknowledge that missionaries must, to some degree, want to do what they're doing more than all the above.

That is, not only do they get no financial gain from converting you, they pay their own way and accept a large financial loss.

That is, despite first impressions, and having grown sick of salesman-type behavior, I must conclude the missionaries, as a whole, are entirely genuine and committed. They are not, personally, attempting to commit fraud.

Why Do We Hate Mormons?

There is a lot of animosity among society-at-large towards Mormons. Often they are simply viewed as a foolish and gullible bunch, but there is often a disgust.

I wonder if it isn't jealousy? Having demonstrating that Mormons are smarter, wealthier, have larger families, and do less crime - it might not be surprising that many people would be jealous.

So why don't they join? (Why am I not a Mormon?) - the most common automatic dismissal is that Joseph Smith is an obvious fraud - a liar and a conman (hence the view of Mormons as gullible). The other aspect, and one I see a lot of complaint about on ex-Mormon forums, is that the Mormon life is very demanding. There are a lot of commitments to church and family that one is expected to fulfill. (That is, it's hard! and of course jealously often is related to seeing someone having-it-better and wanting that, but also not wanting to put in the hard work.)

Also, people don't like the Mormons because they're really annoying - always trying to get you to join their obvious fraud!

--

So from a mainstream perspective, and it's quite a contradiction:

Here is a group of gullible suckers, who got conned into believing an obviously ridiculous lie. Also, they're really annoying because they're always try to trick us into the con too. Yet, and even more annoying, is they're smarter, wealthier, etc. than us! This obvious contradiction leads to the conclusion (or hope) that: "Sooner or later it's going to fall apart."

I also see a lot of complaints that the Mormon church is a fraud, a big corporation out to fleece its members (suckers).

Yet, I've never heard of a fraud, or a fraudulent company lasting nearly 200 years. There are very few legitimate corporations that old, and they appear to have all been bought-out by others (or, at least, completely adapted or changed their business model while retaining their name only).

"Something" About Mormons

Assuming the previous estimates were correct or close-enough approximations, I'd like to explore this idea some more.

Thought of as a country and comparing it to other majority ethnically European nations, Mormons would have: the highest average income, the highest average IQ, the highest average birth rate, and the lowest crime rate.

This is pretty astounding, incredible really, especially among a group of people who are thoroughly engaged in the world: they often attend public schools, have no restrictions on the use of technology, compete for the same jobs, and have no restrictions on contraception. That is, they are fully integrated into mainstream society.

Some notable differences: the social life of active Mormons is highly integrated into the church, while they don't permit alcohol or coffee - two major aspects of non-Mormon socializing. The high income is also incredible, in that most Mormons idealize a mother staying-at-home, while the rest of American society has shifted towards dual incomes.

While moral norms of society as a whole are shifting, most people would agree that Mormons are, very quantifiably, skewed towards the ideals of society - what most people desire and still view as good.

Estimating: Mormon Divorce Rate

I'm sticking-to-my-guns with the same old crass estimation method as before, where any deviation from the US average is assumed for the non-Mormon population of Utah.

US divorce rate: 3.4 per 1,000
Utah divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000
Estimated Mormon divorce rate: 3.7

If accurate, the Mormon divorce rate would be 9% higher than the national average. This actually surprises me quite a bit! The previous estimations have definitely biased me in favor of the Mormon effect

One potentially viable explanation could be that it's a side effect of Mormon's getting married younger. The average age for a woman getting married in Utah is 23.3, the second lowest in the country. This is significantly lower than the national average of 27 for women (16% younger). If we apply our crass estimation method, the average age for Mormon women would be 21 (28% younger).

So Mormon women are married, on average 6 years younger then the general population. Also, it appears lower income is correlated to a higher divorce rate - and Mormons first get married when income is lowest for a family. So, when one considers the 28% younger average marriage age among Mormons women, the 9% higher divorce rate doesn't makes more sense.

Another way to look at it: if the median length of marriage in the US is 40 years, Mormons are, on average, aiming at 15% longer marriage than the average American couple, while also handling the stress of 40% more kids, the stress of lower initial family incomes, and only having a 9% higher divorce rate as a side effect. That's not too shabby!

Possible further analysis: We should probably account for shifting in cultural norms. While Mormons try prevent sex before marriage (hence the younger marriage age), society at large encourages sexual relations before marriage. If broad societal sexual practices were examined from a Mormon (or traditionally Christian) moral perspective (i.e. each ended sexual relationship as a "divorce"), the Mormon divorce rate might appear much lower than the national average.

Estimating: Mormon Crime Rate

Using US census data on violent crimes from 2006, and the same method to estimate as above, Mormons have an average violent crime rate of 72 per 100,000. This is 85% below the national average.

This is incredibly low! The next closest would be Maine, at 116 per 100,000.

Estimating: Mormon Household Income

Using the same method as in the previous two posts, and using data from 2013, the average Mormon family in Utah has an income of $68,696. They earn approximately 32% more income than the average US household.

Thought of as a "state", that would give Mormons the second highest income in the Union. That's with a population group where many (most?) of the women choose not to work!

Looked at as a country, the Mormons would have the highest income in the world. Again, notably, among a group where the women choose not to work.

Estimating: Mormon IQ

Using the same method used on birth rate, the average Mormon IQ is 103. This is 5% higher than the national average.

Playing the same country mind-game used before, this would make Mormons the 8th smartest country in the world. Notably though, Mormons would be the smartest European-descended country in the world (the #1-7 positions are all filled by Asian countries).

Estimating: Mormon Birth Rate

I've seen various estimates, but wanted to quickly come up with my own.

The 2010 birthrate of Utah is: 2.449 (highest in the union)
The average 2010 birthrate of the US is: 1.931

The Mormon population of Utah as of 2010: 62.1%

If we assume the non-Mormon birthrate is equivalent to the average birthrate of the US, we can estimate a 2.765 birthrate for Mormons in Utah. This is 43% above the national average!

If Mormons were their own country (of 15 million - making them the 70th largest in the world), they would be the 77th most fertile country in the world. Notably though, they would be the 2nd most fertile "first world nation" (with Israel as the first). They would be the most fertile nation in the world of mostly European descent. The next closest would be New Zealand, with a birth rate of 2.05.

If the Mormon population, as a whole, continues to compound at the current birth rate, in 10 generations it will be 375 million, which would make it the largest predominately European-descended "nation" in the world - by a significant amount, considering the European and European-descended nations of all other countries are currently engaged sub-replacement birth rates.

Tentative Theory: Why is personal revelation limited?

AKA "Why don't we all see angels?"

Because the purpose of Christian life is personal spiritual progress (theosis) God desires that we seek the good on our own. Personal revelation is often subtle, or limited, because it is enough to provide us answers and leads us on in the right direction. If God were to each and individually make an overt revelation it would: 1) Increase our personal risk of rejecting Christ's salvation, and 2) Potentially limit our theosis. 3) Finally, it may simply be too bright for some of us to see - it's possible we would be blinded even in the face of a large miraculous revelation.