Big Love Forums

We are allowed to watch TV. We are admonished, not to attend, view, or participate in vulgar, immoral, or pornographic entertainment. This, of course, is relatively vague, so what one Mormon says is acceptable will probably not match what another says. Personally, I have extremely high standards for TV watching, but I try not to be self-righteous about it, and I don't judge others' decisions of TV watching.

As for Big Love, viewing it would be a personal decision. It would be up to the individual person to decide if it fit the standards of the Church or not.

I am certain some members of the Church would have tried to stop the show, but I am unaware of the Church itself doing so, and I find it doubtful they would. It's important to remember that the actions or comments of some members of the Church are not necessarily the viewpoint of the whole. For example, in writing this, I am not speaking on behalf of the Church, but rather speaking on an individual level. I'm sure some members of the Church--some informed, some not--would have tried to put a stop to it. I'm not sure if the portrayal of Mormons on this show is accurate or not. However, there is a colossal amount of false information out there about us, and concerned members would have feared a greater perpetuation of the stereotypes, so they would try to stop it.

Yes, for those active members of the Church who have received certain temple ordinances. But do I ask you about your underwear?

We don't have to, but it is strongly encouraged for young men to serve for two years, and, on a lesser level, women to do so for eighteen months. I just returned from my two-year mission. I am glad it is encouraged as much as it is. I was terrified to go on a mission, and had I not been so strongly encouraged, I doubt I would have gone. But I learned and grew so much--spiritually, physically, socially, mentally, and just generally--that I would not have been able to do any other way.

We believe in vicarious ordinances which must be done by the proper authority for those who have passed on. "Vicarious" means that we can do them for another person. The Atonement of Jesus Christ was a vicarious act because He suffered for our sins. An ordinance is a sacred rite by which we show our covenants, or promises, to God. Ordinances must be done by one who has the proper authority given to him by God, not by someone who just feels like it. In the New Testament, Paul talked of people who were baptized for the dead, as supporting evidence of his claim for bodily resurrection (see 1 Corinthians 15:29). Baptisms for the dead are one of the vicarious ordinances we perform. Someone is baptized for a person, and the deceased, in the Spirit World, chooses whether or not to accept it. We seek out our ancestors to do these ordinances.

You can access information by going to familysearch.org, where you can also locate a local family history center in a nearby church building. It is free and you do not need to be a member of the Church.

Rewritten 12/11/09

#1. On a different post in this forum (the one about there not being Hispanics or African-Americans in the show) someone stated that LDS used to, or still do believe (I'm not sure on which) that people of color have the mark of Caine. On the 5th episode Rhonda (the girl taken in from the compound) saw a poster of Jimi Hendrix and said he had the mark of Caine. Now, I don't know if this is the belief system now, but I guess that's what I'm trying to ask. Does anyone know if this is true? The whole "Mark of Caine" or (from another post "mark of evil" -- thing. #2 Why don't LDS believe in polygamy anymore? I just don't understand why the church would steer away from something they practiced for 50 years. I'm not saying they are wrong to do it. I just wonder how it came to be? Was a religious decision, a state decision, a consensus or what?

#1. Honestly, the response you get about the mark of Cain probably depends on whom you ask. Some claim that it is what is taught regularly in the Church, but I haven't heard anything authoritative, so that claim is false. I do not know what the official Church position is. But whether or not black skin is the mark of Cain is irrelevant, because, "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezekiel 18:20).

Many people claim that the fact that black members were denied the Priesthood is evidence of bigotry. We do not claim to be bigoted at all. It is important to realize our doctrinal views of God. We do not believe that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth, but rather that the author of the Bible, God, is the ultimate source of truth, and that he speaks through a living prophet today. The evidence we have of this is the Book of Mormon, and the only way we can know of spiritual truths is by the power of the Holy Ghost. Because we have come to know for ourselves that the Book of Mormon is true, we know also that there is a prophet today and that what he says is the will of God.

In the Old Testament, only those who were of the tribe of Levi held the Levitical Priesthood, allowing them to officiate in temple ordinances. Prior to the time of Cornelius in the New Testament, the gospel was not even preached to Gentiles. We also know that until 1978 black members could not hold the priesthood, even though they could be baptized and be members of the Church. We may not know why these things are this way, but we trust that God's thoughts are not our thoughts, and that He knows more than we do.

But even though we don't know why the Priesthood was denied, consider this. As a Caucasian missionary for the Church in 2009, I had incessant profanities yelled at me, empty cups and half-eaten apples thrown at me, and people threatening to get their shotguns, all because I happened to be a Mormon—and this in a part of the country not characterized by intolerance. I can hardly imagine what it would have been like for a black missionary prior to 1978!

#2. Again, the issue of polygamy and its end is all related to the knowledge that we are guided by living prophets of God. When God tells us to do something, we do it, and when he tells us to stop doing something, we stop doing it. We know that some Biblical figures, such as Abraham and Jacob, had more than one wife, and it was what God wanted of them. Other times God only wanted everyone to have one wife. In ancient times and also in the early days of the LDS church, polygamy wasn't something anyone could do; it also was given by revelation on an individual basis.

We believe in obeying the law. This is one reason why we do not practice polygamy now. Wilford Woodruff was the president of the Church at the time polygamy was discontinued. Some claim he conveniently "had" a revelation to stop polygamy so that Utah could acquire statehood. But again, we claim to be led by living prophets who speak to God, so we believe it was a genuine revelation. At the time he issued the announcement, he asked the members to contemplate the consequences of ending plural marriage versus continuing practicing it even though it was against the law. The benefits of ending it outweighed those of keeping it, and that is also part of why God commanded for it to end. We do not fully understand the reasons both for polygamy and for ending it, but we trust that it was what God wanted at one time and what He didn't want at another.

Rewritten 1/31/10

I could be wrong on this, however.