TLDR:
1. Strong foreign language skills from overseas missions.
2. It's easier getting them security clearances since they don't use drugs or alcohol.
replies(6):
From the members I have conversed with, they are forbidden from using caffeine.
> It took a great deal of time, repetition, patience; no small amount of hope and faith; lots of reassurance from my wife; and many liters of a diet soda that shall remain nameless.
[0] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference...
There are a whole lot of people who have their own interpretations of the commandments, and that coupled with our history of secrecy surrounding the temple could definitely give rise to the idea that it's difficult to know what all the requirements are, but it's all online and available to everyone at this point.
Here's the relevant information about the health code[1]:
> The Lord revealed in the Word of Wisdom that the following substances are harmful:
> Alcoholic drinks (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:5–7).
> Tobacco (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:8).
> Tea and coffee (see Doctrine and Covenants 89:9; latter-day prophets have taught that the term “hot drinks,” as written in this verse, refers to tea and coffee).
[0] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-e...
[1] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topi...
Clarifications as to what the 'hot drinks' section means has come over time, generally being shared during the twice-annual General Conference. The most prominent call came in 1921.
You can read more about it here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations...
That's speaking of teachings and doctrine, of course. When it comes to history that's less like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall and it's much easier to find sources for more accurate history, and I agree that it's a bit sad how little accuracy in history seems to be respected by some believing and formerly-believing members.
The type of thing I had in mind are things that aren't ambiguous but rather are pretty clear. Things like "the actual edicts ... aren't really supposed to be published or talked about" regarding caffeine/word of wisdom. I certainly don't claim to know everything, but I have spent an insane amount of time reading/researching Mormon history and I've never heard that before. Stuff like that seems to pop up constantly for some reason when I talk about things with ex-mormons.
This is the type of black and white response that I find so common with ex-mormons. If somebody pushes back on disinformation (even easily disproved like the above thing about keeping caffeine teachings secret), the superstitious thinking kicks in and excuses fly (like "they must be a secret apologist" which I heard recently). It's every bit as ridiculous as the believers are when they dismiss inconvenient facts like Zelph the White Lamanite[1][2] because it goes against their preferred narrative. It's superstitious thinking.
Edit: Hah! I couldn't have asked for a better real-time example to demonstrate my point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35774479
> I am a member, and every actual commandment is definitely public record. Even the temple covenants are (as of recently) public record[0], and those used to be the ones that were held in the highest level of secrecy.
Great! So here's a very legit question: is there a PDF version that I could read linearly to get a good idea of the whole doctrine? (I mean something like the Talmud)
I'm just curious and want to learn.
Beyond that, the Gospel Topics[1] section is, as you found, a bit of a rabbit hole, but contains the church's official stance on any topic where they've taken a stance. If you can't find it there, it's likely that there isn't an official consensus.
[0] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/handbooks-and-call...
[1] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topi...
> This is the Mormon immune response
OP literally said they don't identify as a Mormon any more, so your response feels like a knee-jerk reaction against something you've seen elsewhere, rather than an actual response to their comment. They're speaking from the outside looking at others on the outside, not trying to justify their own current beliefs.
The exmormon community is extremely thorough and factual when it comes to talking about the church, because it is to their benefit. More people have left the church after unsuccessfully trying to refute The CES Letter than have ever left due to smear campaigns and slander. The truth is to the rational thinker’s benefit, which is why the church spends so much time and money hiding it and whitewashing it.
Um, I think you're confusing MormonThink and MormonR for "FAIR" or the "BoM Foundation". They're two "middle-way" sources that try to balance the knife's edge of giving just enough of the negative-yet-factual information that faith is still possible, as opposed to something like the CES Letter which is a compendium of pretty much every negative-yet-factual piece of information that, in total, make faith in the organization pretty much impossible for the average member who reads it. But they're definitely not apologetic sites, they're just more of a "shallow water" approach than a "throw you in the deep end of the pool" approach.
Honestly, the best approximation of LDS doctrine is probably not found in any form of text but is best found through the practices of the majority of the active membership. Oh, and the Wikipedia pages are also probably a good place to start, since they can be changed to keep things current with changing emphasis and practice.
Of course, that's not to say that you can't find attempts by LDS individuals and academics to create what you're asking for, it's just that as time moves on each attempt has fallen out of favor as the culture of the organization shifts away on certain items:
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book)
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Mormonism
3: https://deseretbook.com/p/lds-beliefs-doctrinal-reference-ro...
Mormonr is IMHO very fair, just on the other side fence. They're a faithful group, but they are committed to truth and scholarship and they're willing to say, "yeah that embarrassing thing does seem to be true" when it seems to be true.
For someone so committed to "truth", "rational thinking," and being "extremely thorough and factual" you've sure gotten a lot wrong in just this message. Mormonthink is far from a prominent apologist foundation. Most Mormons consider them anti. You should probably look at the site before jumping to such a confirmation-bias driven conclusion.