2. This notion of – It's not even that big of deal, ladies – in fact, sometime I wish I didn't even HAVE this burden/added responsibility of the priesthood!
– Do you encourage new converts to avoid ordination to the priesthood? Do you tell 11-year old boys that they should dread the impending duties of priesthood ordination? No – we are excited for both groups because of the spiritual progress and opportunities that accompany ordination. Upon having children, I would be excited for my own son to have these opportunities. I think we shouldn't minimize them. But there contradiction of building the priesthood up to potential holders, and downplaying it to women. Either it desirable, an honor, and an opportunity – - or it's not. So let's not minimize the blessings of holding the priesthood in order to appease women who, apparently…

3. … Are "going to find something to be offended about" anyway…
– So we've moved to belittling the priesthood to dismissing concerns of the women who might have an issue with this? Like Geoff mentioned, the only real reason we can see for this policy is that it has been revealed to the prophets that this is the way it is. It's uneven, yes, but we trust this system is divinely inspired. To suggest that those women who feel that uneven-ness are just "finding SOMETHING to be offended about" downplays the fact that we are dedicated, active contributing members of an organization and gospel that we have limited ability to contribute to – and that this limitation is not surmountable through personal worthiness or willingness to serve. And yet we still believe, we still participate (at a much higher rate than priesthood-eligible men, I might add) and we still serve diligently in the capacities we're assigned to. Please don't tell us that we're just looking for a reason to be offended. We're giving our lives to this gospel/church. That doesn't mean that we have to turn a blind eye to it's less understandable, and less even parts, or just get over the resulting feelings.

4. I bet even the general officers don't care that they don't have the priesthood, or aren't called general authorities.

– Seriously?!

– Yeesh. You guys are killing me today.

Thanks for listening. We used to keep a page on the site that listed the music used in every episode, but I got too lazy to keep it up, so I yanked it. In moments like this, I wish it were there!

The song is "Cometas por el cielo" by the Spanish/Basque band La Oreja de Van Gogh.

-Geoff

I was wondering what the name of the song that is at the end of the episode is? Thanks

The author in question is McKay Coppins, with whom we have a love/hate relationship that stems back from the beginning of our show.

So many exclamation points!

You did him a good turn. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is actually a whole different church than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those Big D guys are Strangites: Followers of James Jesse Strang, who led a large group of Saints to Wisconsin and Michigan while Brigham Young led most of the rest to Utah. Thanks for keeping things straight!

How'd you find the show? Just trying to do some free market research.

Thanks for listening. Apologies to your employer!

I just don't agree with your concerns–nearly every person in any ward (family, YSA, mid-singles, etc.) feels like they don't belong for some reason. I know people who don't feel like they fit in because they have an autistic child, are wiccan, had a stroke, suffer with depression, have social anxieties, are single, have a less-active spouse, and so forth. I don't think that being single sets you apart from anyone else in the church. Your concerns about being marginalized because you are single just don't ring true to me.

I am also single, and feel like I have seen it all. I went to BYU and attended several student wards, I was a member of a YSA ward in my hometown, I attended student wards at other universities, and now I attend a family ward. I don't feel like any of my wards failed me, I realize that my testimony and activity level depend solely upon me–it doesn't matter how hard anyone tries to activate another, it really is up to each individual. I am currently serving as the Relief Society president in my family ward (that's right, a single, never-married 36 year-old), and I constantly struggle to help others become more active in the ward and church–no matter how hard I try, it is up to others to take those steps toward activity.

I apologize for calling you retarded–I am working on my temper as we speak.

P.S. I have never been set up with anyone by my married friends at church. There is a dearth of single men in the church–didn't you guys talk about that a couple of weeks ago?

No, we are saying that family wards that have YSA programs in them en lieu of a singles ward have a responsibility for those YSA, though the YSA in family wards are often overlooked and underutilized. We're not saying that wards have a responsibility for those whose records aren't even in the ward. That would be retarded.

Before launching into my take on MLMs, I am not in any multi-level marketing groups or businesses and probably won’t be, but not because I feel they are inherently immoral or unethical, but because, after having participated in a couple, they are simply not my cup of tea. (more on this shortly)

There is no inherent conflict between MLMs and Church doctrine. If there is a problem with MLMs, it’s only in that, as a business model, it’s overly prone to abuse, especially thanks to far too few people in this country ever having to actually managed a business.

At it’s core, the “multi-level marketing” plan is just that, a marketing plan. It’s no different than (say) a podcast embarking on a campaign to raise their listener base or seek sponsors or audience contribution to achieve or maintain solvency as a business. Like any marketing plan to build a successful business, MLMs have the same basic techniques and goals as any other marketing plan; spread the word about a product or service, generate interest in said product or service, create a sales “surface” between the distribution system and the customer that is as permeable as possible for easy and efficient money and product/service transfer, and a means of creating profit from the income.

I’ve participated on some level with MLMs in nearly every capacity. I’ve been an “Independent Business Owner” in Amway, was a client for Pre-Paid Legal, functioned briefly as a Consultant for Tupperware, and was on-staff for Juvio (a call center tech support company). One thing I have learned is that my personality type doesn’t work well in any of these aspects, but I recognize all the aspects of a successful business in all of them. (And having worked for Apple, I know how a successful business operates from first hand experience)

Of these, the one real example of where the “sleaze level” edged into uncomfortable territory was Juvio, due to the “upline” of the MLM group encouraging their members to spam lists of email addresses that could be bought from services that compile such information. No matter how many times the tech support group (the arm of the company I worked for) would talk to the MLM group about how this was a bad business practice that was on its way to becoming illegal (this was before it was made flat out illegal) it was a short term success that brought fast money, so they couldn’t be dissuaded.

In all other cases, the problems have all boiled down to “bad faith actors” in the various MLM groups that each company used to promote their product. This happens in every industry, unfortunately, and these bad faith actors are the primary reason most people are scared off from doing investing.

A note on pyramid/ponzi schemes and MLMs: There are two chief differences between illegal schemes and MLM plans, growth-ability and product.

In a pyramid or ponzi scheme it has a very rigid structure that, by it’s design, will eventually fail because there is no way for the system to grow or allow individuals to grow beyond their “slot” or “block.” All money flows up no matter what the level you’re on, and there’s no separation of the structure and the money flow. There’s also no actual product/service exchanged for the money that changes hands, so the ONLY return you could possibly get for your investment is to dupe others into joining and repeating the cycle.

MLMs by definition have a product/service that is sold. The money flow is separated BY DESIGN from the marketing structure. (The money is paid to the company that produces the product, the product is delivered to the customer, a share of the money goes to the marketing team. Again, note the similarity to a more “traditional” business model.) Individuals can break out of their current marketing structure simply by hitting more of the success metrics than those “above” them in the structure. Those success metrics are different based on whatever organization you’re in (Amway was based on a point system, Tupperware was based purely on product volume, etc.) but in all cases if your friend gets you signed up for the business but doesn’t hit as many success metrics as you, you can easily earn much more money than your friend.

On the Church’s stance on MLMs: The Church generally leaves people to the dealings of their own business, save where such dealings are obviously illegal. A pyramid/ponzi scheme would definitely violate Church standards, where a MLM would not. This is no different than, say, being a successful local bank manager is legal, but using a bank to launder money would be illegal. One thing I have noticed is the Church is very, very, VERY hesitant to involve themselves in the day-to-day dealings of member’s lives, and in the end your business dealings are not the pervue of any member of the church hierarchy save Heavenly Father himself.

The best stance to take on any of these types of businesses is this:

1.) Is what they are promoting legal, moral, and ethical?
2.) If I were to join the business today and go in for a Temple Recommend interview tomorrow, would I be able to go into the temple with a clean conscience the day after?
3.) Can I explain what the business is about in three minutes or less?
4.) Does it feel “right” to me? (a.k.a. – Does it feel OK by the Spirit?)

If you can’t say “yes” to all four of these questions, then run (don’t walk) away from the offer.

(Note that this is the same way you can tell if any job, franchise, business, or investment is a good idea)

OK, so this was way longer than I’d planned, but I hope that is the kind of response you were looking for.

(Oops! Posted this on the wrong board! Correctly posting it here…)

Before launching into my take on MLMs, I am not in any multi-level marketing groups or businesses and probably won’t be, but not because I feel they are inherently immoral or unethical, but because, after having participated in a couple, they are simply not my cup of tea. (more on this shortly)

There is no inherent conflict between MLMs and Church doctrine. If there is a problem with MLMs, it’s only in that, as a business model, it’s overly prone to abuse, especially thanks to far too few people in this country ever having to actually managed a business.

At it’s core, the “multi-level marketing” plan is just that, a marketing plan. It’s no different than (say) a podcast embarking on a campaign to raise their listener base or seek sponsors or audience contribution to achieve or maintain solvency as a business. Like any marketing plan to build a successful business, MLMs have the same basic techniques and goals as any other marketing plan; spread the word about a product or service, generate interest in said product or service, create a sales “surface” between the distribution system and the customer that is as permeable as possible for easy and efficient money and product/service transfer, and a means of creating profit from the income.

I’ve participated on some level with MLMs in nearly every capacity. I’ve been an “Independent Business Owner” in Amway, was a client for Pre-Paid Legal, functioned briefly as a Consultant for Tupperware, and was on-staff for Juvio (a call center tech support company). One thing I have learned is that my personality type doesn’t work well in any of these aspects, but I recognize all the aspects of a successful business in all of them. (And having worked for Apple, I know how a successful business operates from first hand experience)

Of these, the one real example of where the “sleaze level” edged into uncomfortable territory was Juvio, due to the “upline” of the MLM group encouraging their members to spam lists of email addresses that could be bought from services that compile such information. No matter how many times the tech support group (the arm of the company I worked for) would talk to the MLM group about how this was a bad business practice that was on its way to becoming illegal (this was before it was made flat out illegal) it was a short term success that brought fast money, so they couldn’t be dissuaded.

In all other cases, the problems have all boiled down to “bad faith actors” in the various MLM groups that each company used to promote their product. This happens in every industry, unfortunately, and these bad faith actors are the primary reason most people are scared off from doing investing.

A note on pyramid/ponzi schemes and MLMs: There are two chief differences between illegal schemes and MLM plans, growth-ability and product.

In a pyramid or ponzi scheme it has a very rigid structure that, by it’s design, will eventually fail because there is no way for the system to grow or allow individuals to grow beyond their “slot” or “block.” All money flows up no matter what the level you’re on, and there’s no separation of the structure and the money flow. There’s also no actual product/service exchanged for the money that changes hands, so the ONLY return you could possibly get for your investment is to dupe others into joining and repeating the cycle.

MLMs by definition have a product/service that is sold. The money flow is separated BY DESIGN from the marketing structure. (The money is paid to the company that produces the product, the product is delivered to the customer, a share of the money goes to the marketing team. Again, note the similarity to a more “traditional” business model.) Individuals can break out of their current marketing structure simply by hitting more of the success metrics than those “above” them in the structure. Those success metrics are different based on whatever organization you’re in (Amway was based on a point system, Tupperware was based purely on product volume, etc.) but in all cases if your friend gets you signed up for the business but doesn’t hit as many success metrics as you, you can easily earn much more money than your friend.

On the Church’s stance on MLMs: The Church generally leaves people to the dealings of their own business, save where such dealings are obviously illegal. A pyramid/ponzi scheme would definitely violate Church standards, where a MLM would not. This is no different than, say, being a successful local bank manager is legal, but using a bank to launder money would be illegal. One thing I have noticed is the Church is very, very, VERY hesitant to involve themselves in the day-to-day dealings of member’s lives, and in the end your business dealings are not the pervue of any member of the church hierarchy save Heavenly Father himself.

The best stance to take on any of these types of businesses is this:

1.) Is what they are promoting legal, moral, and ethical?

2.) If I were to join the business today and go in for a Temple Recommend interview tomorrow, would I be able to go into the temple with a clean conscience the day after?

3.) Can I explain what the business is about in three minutes or less?

4.) Does it feel “right” to me? (a.k.a. – Does it feel OK by the Spirit?)

If you can’t say “yes” to all four of these questions, then run (don’t walk) away from the offer.

(Note that this is the same way you can tell if any job, franchise, business, or investment is a good idea)

OK, so this was way longer than I’d planned, but I hope that is the kind of response you were looking for.

No thanks to Al

MLMs – let's discuss. Multiple issues here to tease apart. #1 Is it priestcraft? If getting money for exercising priesthood powers is priestcraft, what is using church membership to get money? Maybe on that spectrum, in some cases. Aren't membership directories marked "not for commercial use" in any case?

#2 How are you defining MLMs? You mentioned ponzi schemes and Nu Skin, which seem like different categories. My understanding of where the law draws the line is where the money is made. Main source of revenue comes from people joining the organization= illegal and is also known as a "pyramid scheme." I'll state the obvious: illegal things are against church policy. Revenue comes from the sale of a product = legal.

Technically speaking, MLM is part of main stream business – real estate for instance. If an agent has more clients than time they often bring on other agents to show property to people and give them a cut of the sale. BAM. MLM. Same with hair stylists, insurance agents, Avon, etc.

And let's say I start a funny tee shirt company and get my friends to wear them/sell them for a cut. Then one of my friends gets his little brother to sell them to his friends for a cut of his cut. BAM. MLM.

However, let's say a drug cartel king successfully smuggles cocaine across the border in the bellies of stuffed animals where his drug lords receive it in their respective metropolises and distribute it to the dirty drug serfs on the streets. That's probably also MLM. BAM.

To conclude, I think it's what you do with MLM that makes it good or bad, not the business structure itself. But pyramid schemes are illegal, immoral, and may be akin to priestcraft.

Also, you guys rock.

"Family" does not only mean mother, father, and 10 kids – not even for faithful Mormons.

Awesome NT shout out. I've met them, very very sweet people.

-al

Also, Modern Family is funny no matter how you cut it. Though for each of us, a filtering of media we consume is always appropriate, it is rare for us (or the church) to call out any programs in particular as 'evil'.

-Al

wooohooo!

-al

I was in Girl Scouts as a kid and I remember we always had to sing grace before eating. I have a vague memory of Girl Scouts being associated with the Catholics, but it may have just been the troop I was in. Either way, I support Girl Scouts and their wonderful, wonderful cookies.

The Slate article, for instance, is not something we wrote or endorse, but it was an article of note. To answer what we are trying to do, it's pretty simple: Discuss any Mormon-related news of the week (good or bad) of relevance. If it makes waves, for better or worse, it is worthy of discussion. We support the mission of the Church, and I think that while we don't mind a bit of self-mockery, our allegiance is pretty clear.

Regarding Modern Family, I personally take no issue with it. It is not the media's, government's, or society's job to show me what proper familial relationships should be. How many people would condemn Modern Family but have no problem with the unwed lovers all over Grey's Anatomy? We can't designate one show as more "problematic" than another just because it has a gay couple in it.

Because within the "insidious attack on the family" lays a show that in the end, also shows the importance of people coming together, loving each other, and seeking to understand one another. Did we even get that sort of approach from Seinfeld?

I'm not saying it's a perfect show, and if someone is taking his or her cues on family dynamics from an ABC sitcom, that individual likely needs to reassess a great number of things. I look to the teachings of the scriptures and the prophets for tips on how to hold up my family. Shows like Modern Family don't drag me down or particularly lift me up. They are just entertainment. And I separate entertainment from legitimate counsel.

Thanks for your comment!

-Geoff

Look at you – with a whole New Era article about you. I'm so proud!

I cannot judge your sis at that age. She's too young. Just make her listen to the show and then choose between me or Al.

-Geoff

-Geoff

You guys who have a chosen a platform that represents the church seem to not work at taking that as seriously as you should. I found it super upsetting to read an article represented by your show last week (The Slate article on the I'm a Mormon campaig) that linked the readers to such sites as I'm an Ex-Mormon. I guess I'm less and less sure what you two are trying to do. Maybe you can enlighten me.

"The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) birth defects or serious trama have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer."

-Geoff

Your reference was interesting how the heterogenous nature of the "I'm a mormon" ads is having a subsequent effective within the church. I've always felt that the church is pretty diverse and accepting, but perhaps it is moreso in places where we just really want more members. I'll never forget my little ward growing up and the Samoan transgender who was always the first to volunteer for relief society choirs. I think from whichever standpoint you are, liberal, moderate, conservative, you will always feel that you are of one of the very few sane people in the room.

P.s. Love the shout out to my comment and your subsequent "friend requests."

I especially liked this quote:
"But by allowing individuals to claim the identity of Mormons for themselves, and tell their own stories, the campaign could, one imagines, actually begin to alter ideas within the church about what it means to be Mormon."

Thanks for the post. Love the bro love!

And I would be delighted to date your sister. Please pass along my info.

-Geoff

- Jeremy

I'm not saying change stakes or anything, I guess I'm just saying I know how you feel and I know how hard it is, waiting to go through the temple. And this will sound completely trite, but it really is worth the wait.

I understand that you wanted to go through on your own prior to marriage, but your comments basically defend those who denied you that opportunity and seem to cut down your own original point of view. I mean when you quote, "Church leaders should not urge young, unmarried members to obtain their endowments unless they are to be married in the Temple or are called to serve as missionaries" you are clearly trying to drive the point home that that's how it is. It's good and humble of you to have changed your point of view according to what you've been taught by your leaders, but your comments make it seem like you are someone who wanted to go through, was denied it, and now you have "fallen in line" because of your experience and think it is unnecessary for others to even attempt it. Make sense? Not trying to dig into you or anything.

Try the current Young Women's manual:

"An unmarried member may receive her own endowment if she is worthy and sufficiently mature to understand and keep the covenants made in the temple. Single members who desire to receive the endowment should counsel with their bishop and stake president." (Lesson 17: 'Preparing to Enter the Temple')

Now I'm not saying that the majority don't go through for missions or marriage, and that's fine. But your standpoint makes it seem like a bad thing for those pesky non-married, non-missioned people to have the audacity to want to receive their endowment. It depends on the maturity of the individual. The endowment is in no way linked to missions or marriage, other than as a font of knowledge for the former and a stepping stone to the latter. Other than that, it is its own, standalone ordinance, and anyone who is mature enough to take on the responsibility should and is allowed to participate in it, even if it's rare.

A lot of this stuff depends on leaders. I know women who were cleared by bishops to go to the temple, only to have a stake president put the kabosh on the whole thing. Likewise, I know others that realized the woman was serious and ready – even at 20 and with no mission plans – and they allowed it.

This sheltered, Utah notion that the endowment is for "special circumstances" is silly.

Also, not to slam you – because I love you – but the verbage, "My sister was not married until she was 26" makes it seem like that is somehow old or a bad thing. There are slews of members, male and female, well above 25 who live their lives and don't feel that they are behind the curve for not getting married at 22.

And Geoff, this is why we don't have commenters, cause you are a jerk.

My bishop had me read this and referred specifically to this paragraph

"There is wisdom in the counsel presently being given to young, unmarried Church members and, more particularly, to young women, that they do not seek the temple endowment until such time as temple marriage is imminent or a full-time mission call has been received. In a Priesthood Bulletin of the Church published in February 1973, there appears the following instruction: “Church leaders should not urge young, unmarried members to obtain their endowments unless they are to be married in the Temple or are called to serve as missionaries. Members should be authorized to obtain their endowments only when worthiness, age, and maturity justify it.” (Vol. 9, no. 1, p. 7.)"

And to say that "most haven't unless they served a mission" is pretty naive, and also reduced the temple experience to one ancillary to something "bigger" like a mission or marriage. I know hordes of women who are endowed and didn't serve missions or have been married.

-Geoff

Usually I am multi-tasking while listening to your show. I'll hear something and think, "I think I'll comment on that." Then some conversations are (interesting but) tangential. So, in the buzz, I forget what I wanted to say. The last time I made a comment happened to be last Spring. And I was determined to do so. Therefore, I relistened to much of the episode to jog my memory about what I wanted to comment on. In my case, at least, a summary at the end of the show would help me remember items on which I may have wanted to comment.

Speaking of tangential: do you have a stance on "preposition stranding?" Ok or not ok? I just did it both ways. Where is the line?

P.S. I LOVE BLINK! Shut it!

I am delighted with Mitch Mayne's call to serve in a bishopric. It places into action—in a very visible way—the directive from the new handbook, which has given hope to many who silently suffer or who have left the Church to find acceptance. Mitch will offer an LGTB perspective—not uncommon in the San Francisco area—on living actively in the Church. Though I am "open" to only some, I am a celibate gay member serving as the clerk in a stake presidency in Idaho. I have felt that suffering first hand; however, I am happily serving in a indispensable way in my stake. I offer a collection of talents nearly perfectly suited to my calling. I am so glad to be living in a time when I can be actively serving the Lord in His kingdom instead of left on the outside looking in.

And yes, Sherlock is a great TV show – can't wait for the next season!

Sorry you didn't get accepted to BYU.

Work on your GPA and apply again.