Does eternal inequality sound like something that should be in this magazine? We criticize other religions for inequality, why should this one be ranked as good?

Although it looks like the author did a fair amount of research and most of things are accurate, unfortunately there are also many errors and false statements.

It is too bad that this article focused on making missionaries appear like robots/militants rather than focusing on the actual good of the church. To Ophiolite who thinks the Mormon Church does no good, I’d like him/her to find another church that donates more money or time to humanitarian causes. The Mormon Church has sent relief to victims of over 150 disasters since 1986 alone. Aid is provided regardless of any consideration, including religion, ethnicity, and nationality, and is valued in the tens of millions of dollars annually. In the last 20 years, 200 million pounds of food, clothing, and medicine were donated in 147 countries, almost all to members of other faiths.

So, although I found this article quite interesting, I encourage anyone curious about Mormons to talk to an actual Mormon.

Well done!

To state that birth control is not allowed is factually incorrect. Period. You might find some previous statements denouncing birth control but having studied it, I can state that you can find about 400 quotes, all of different opinions on this topic. The author has made a gross simplification and thus missed the heart of Mormon liberality.

Romney had Mormon doctrine quite right–watch his recent Youtube video and look at the Book of Zechariah. Yes, Christ will eventually come to Missouri, but that is not THE Second Coming. There is NOTHING (at least nothing substantive/definitive) in Mormon scriptures or prophetic teachings that indicate otherwise.

We know very little about what it’s like to be a god except that it is much like being a father, only on an eternal scale. I appreciate his words, they shed light on certain topics, but they do not define my faith.

Christ is our Savior–straight-up, no mitigations. I can’t think of a way in which he ISN’T our Savior.

And the food storage practice is made to be some kind of apocalyptic weirdness. It serves pragmatic purposes, and the letter from 1940 does not represent church practice now.

Above all, I vigorously reject the general tenor that somehow, we Mormon missionaries are an army of drones, taking our marching orders from military men turned evangelists. Some missionaries did act like that, and they missed the mark. We followed the rules not because we didn’t have minds of our own, but because we DID have minds of our own.

The author of this article really needs to get their research down, read some REAL literature on the church, interview real authorities. That is where you will find the heart of the faith; that is why this article is off the mark.

humorous aspects of Mormon missionary culture, it eventually turns

into a befuddled heap of uncreative and poorly researched journalism.

An article such as this, allegedly opening the world to the strange

secrets of Mormons has been written thousands of times, and especially in the lead up to this election season. Moreover, it needn’t be completely

addressed how many basic informational mistakes were made in this

article – that were either not researched well or just not included

for the author’s own editorial purposes.

The article, in a way condemns Mormonism for being an imperialistic and dogmatic religion, but the article itself is the one the ends up

having the imperialistic tone. Mormon culture is a strange and new culture,

and since different than the ideals of east coast liberal elitists

(who have obviously reached the apex of human evolution) must be

ridiculed and changed to conform to your ideals. A lack of genuine

understanding and pretension is a strong mark of imperialism, and this

article is a just a more passive form of it all.

Maybe the fact that they are mostly white males has something to do with the fact that Mormons forbid intermarrying amongst races and until recently shunned all non-white people . . .

How can I say this delicately? Tim, you got your facts wrong. Until 1978, people of African descent were denied the priesthood in the LDS Church. That is true. Now as appalling as that might sound to people, they were never “shunned” by the LDS Church. In fact, there were African American members of the church prior to 1978. (I was in Brazil in 1972 Helvico Martins and his family–all black–were baptised into the church. He was immediately made President of the Stake Sunday School in Rio–so much for shunning.)

In any event, whatever policy the LDS Church had towards those of African descent, the Church certainly did not “shun” other non-white races, a fact attested to by the fact that the LDS Church was sending missionaries to the Polynesian peoples at least as early as around 1900 if not earlier. Moreover, the Church was sending missionaries to the American Indians when Joseph Smith was still alive–thus, prior to 1844. I could go on and recite facts about the size of church membership in Mexico and Latin American relative to thw whole membership or facts about how long the church has been in Japan, etc. But you get my point: We don’t shun non-white people. Our congregations are not and never have been segregated.

Also, about the intermarrying of races thingy. I’m Caucasian, yet I married a woman from Cuba in 1975. In a Mormon Temple. And nobody said a word. Guess they missed the memo.

Haven’t read the article yet, so I won’t comment.