Did y'all hear this show? Scroll down about 1/3 of the way and there's a link called "Mormons in Nauvoo". I don't know how to link to it directly. (Anybody know how to do that?)
Why are LDS in the media always portrayed as though we are some strange sect? It seems like since the U.S. movie and TV making industry is based in the west, where it's perfectly normal and ordinary to be LDS, that it would not be so. Of course, NPR is based in D.C., where I suppose it is uncommon.
Can you imagine a story like this about Catholics traveling to see the site of some apparition of the Virgin Mary and some of the locals saying, "Those Catholics are trying to TAKE OVER! It's us or them!"? <laughs> And the story didn't even make the explicit point about the similarity of attitudes of the original mob and these people. I couldn't tell if that thought was in the minds of the editors or not.
It's not that the story was favorable or unfavorable, it didn't mention anything bad that any Mormons did (other than exist in numbers larger than some of the locals were comfortable with). I just thought it was odd how they acted like it was strange to be Mormon.
What do you guys think?
Egalitarianism is flatly opposed to Mormon ideology? <laughs> No dissent is tolerated? Who are these people? Joseph Smith's descendants would be ridiculed and called names in school? Mormons are cattle thieves and just "bad people"? City council members say "there's a plan by the Mormons to take over", "they're smiling at us like 'we're going to have all of this someday'". <laughs> Beware of Mormons who smile.
EDIT: I wonder why it's vidEo and audIo? <laughs>
[ December 02, 2003, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I haven't checked out your link, but I would say that, in my experience, your statement that "it's perfectly normal and ordinary to be LDS" in the West is not necessarily correct. The movie industry is based in California, as is much of the television industry. Mormons are not considered particularly mainstream in any of the parts of California I'm familiar with. That's not to say that most people think Mormons are crazy or dangerous, but I have always gotten the impression that most people see Latter-Day Saints as more on the fringe.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I think it's a little funny that the modern residents of Nauvoo are so surprised and annoyed that decendants of the people that founded the city (since Nauvoo was founded by early Mormons) would want to visit or live there. I would like to think that there shouldn't be any tension between Mormon and non-Mormon residents. I guess whether there is or isn't is up to the people themselves.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think they mentioned the tension because they didn't want it to be a total fluff piece or be percieved as Mormon proganda. In order to get the other side, you need an issue that has sides. Apparently the momentary qualm of discomfort on the part of about 500 people before they take the money of these Mormon pioneers qualifies. *laugh*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There are Pilkingtons buried in the old pioneer Nauvoo cemetary, and during my own pilgrimage last year, I looked up and found the plot where the Pilkington house stood.
The funny thing is that the dates of death are from 1855 and 1860. Ten years after the exodus to the west. Ten years! I'm related to the ones that stayed behind! Great! I find my in-at-the-beginning ancestors, and they're the slackers! From the stories, they didn't join the other branch - they just didn't go west.
I come from a long line of luke-warm Mormons, I think. *sigh* Usually active, but not, say, hyperactive. Or particularly sober.
-----
Edit: *looks around wildly* Wasn't there a post here? It was a good one.
[ December 02, 2003, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Why are LDS in the media always portrayed as though we are some strange sect?"
Um.... You DO think that God lives on another planet with his wives, right? *ducks*
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Hobbes Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I heard this on my way to school this morning!
I don't think it was neccessarily biased, just a little uninformed. At one point the interviewer asked, "you realize that if you made these comments about any other minority group you would sound like a bigot?"
Overall, I think it was an interesting piece. And even negative press is good press as far as interest in the church is concerned. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I wish they'd had a few more voices from Nauvoo residents. I didn't think it was much of a cross-segment.
That was an interesting mention of how a building had been built from the stones of the Nauvoo temple (which was burned down by the mob that forced the Mormons out), used by the Catholics as a school, and then bulldozed for a Mormon vistor's center. Strange twist of events.
I can see why residents might get a little mad at the Mormons for overrunning the place, although all the visitors and tourism sure seems to be revitalizing the town. Hope they get used to it. Them Mormons ain't gonna be leavin' anytime soon.
I got a sense that the Mormons were perhaps treating Nauvoo as theirs all over again, which is what got local residents mad at them in the first place when they moved into Illinois and Missouri. Although this time they've got some good PR people to smooth things over. Posted by Sarcasm (Member # 4653) on :
quote:You DO think that God lives on another planet with his wives, right?
Yeah, and thinking that God is three beings in one who exists everywhere and nowhere is, like, not weird at all. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I had a friend once explain to me the atonement as a man sacrificing his son to save the ants in an ant farm. He was arguing against the Mormon idea of "eternal progression" by saying that the more insignificant people are, the more significant it is that God would think of us enough to sacrifice Jesus for us. At least, I think that is what he was trying to say. Just while we are on the topic of theological view points that can be made to sound weird.
I don't blame the residents of Nauvoo for feeling like someone was opening a Walmart just outside of town (culturally if not financially). I know the Nauvoo Family Inn would refer their overflow business to an inn in IOWA when there were still rooms available in Nauvoo. I surmise this based on the fact that when I drove in at 5:45 to go to the temple, I saw a motel with a virtually empty parking lot. It did not make me think unchristian thoughts at the time, but when I later found out the NFI was under new management I thought "Good."
What Nauvoo really needs is some kind of daycare set up. Going to the temple was nice, but it would have been better with my husband.
edit: spelling
[ December 02, 2003, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
My personal view on Mormonism is the same as it is on any other religion: whatever floats your boat, as long as you don't try to sink mine or anyone else's. (Course, I'm not a huge fan of the whole missionary thing in general, which is something about Mormonism and many other religious groups that rubs me the wrong way. But that's beside the point.)
However, I do think that for the most part Mormons are see as a fringe group. There's just not that many of you, to be honest. But I think one of the biggest reasons why Mormons are seen as "outsiders" is because of the history of polygamy. Obviously everybody here knows the church condemns polygamy now, but when you learn about Mormonism in history class and when you hear about it from parents or people who aren't as familiar with it, it's polygamy that's used to differentiate Mormonism from other religions. People may not jump straight to hating Mormons, but they'll probably think, "Ewww. Weird." It's that 'weird' factor, in my opinion, that makes people view Mormons as a fringe group. Swearing off alcohol, coffee, and tea doesn't help either -- alcohol is a staple of the social lives of the majority of Americans, and taking it away means that social interactions, while they may not be limited persay, are certainly changed. And coffee is an integral part of every office in America.
I'm not saying these things are bad or wrong -- alcohol causes tons of problems and caffeine sure isn't all that good for you. What I'm saying is that Mormons reject some of the things most Americans take for granted -- coffee, cocktails, monogamy -- or people think you do, regardless of the true nature of that rejection. I think that many non-Mormons don't see Mormons as bad, or evil, or threatening....mostly, they think you're just a little bit weird.
But I love you all!
[ December 02, 2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
Just a little hint the title should be spelt Audio that means to hear. Audeo means to dare, so it's not quite the same thing Don't mean to derail the thread.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin* I guess where the fringe is depends on where you're standing.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The admiration of folks like Howard Hughes and Ross Perot doesn't help our palatability much either.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Fortunately, Mark Twain thought we were boring and nuts.
Posted by bCurt (Member # 5476) on :
If I understand correctly, the number of Mormons in this country recently surpassed the number of Jews. It seems Jews get more respect than Mormons. Am I wrong (as it is just my perception)? Any Jews care to comment? Of course, there are all those conspiracy theories that the Jews control the country, etc. Of course, Mormons control the FBI and CIA . Maybe Jews and Mormons are in cahoots?
Posted by Sarcasm (Member # 4653) on :
Don't forget C. S. Lewis, Katie. He thought we were simply funny-underwear-wearing teetotaling vegetarians.
[ December 02, 2003, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Sarcasm ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*wince* Dang. That hurts.
I don't feel too bad about Mark Twain. He had a witty mouth and low tolerance for human frailties, but he was a very, very unhappy man for most of his years, especially towards the end. It's no mistake that his best books are about children and are drawn from his childhood years. The adult material is bitter in the extreme.
[ December 02, 2003, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
"I do think that for the most part Mormons are see as a fringe group. There's just not that many of you, to be honest."
An 11 million member fringe group!
"And coffee is an integral part of every office in America."
Not at Nu Skin Enterprises in Provo, Utah! People keep their coffee to themselves around here, if they do drink it. Which is too bad--I love the smell of coffee.
"It's polygamy that's used to differentiate Mormonism from other religions."
Abraham...Jacob...David...Solomon. Shared by a few religions, and polygamists all. What differentiates Mormons is that they have practiced it more recently.
Actually, I would have a hard time accepting polygamy as well. If I weren't a Mormon, boy, I'd have my doubts about them.
"What I'm saying is that Mormons reject some of the things most Americans take for granted -- coffee, cocktails, monogamy..."
Do Americans really take monogamy for granted? I think more Americans nowadays take not bothering to get married at all for granted, and having as many partners as they please. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<segue>
I saw an argument written by an apologist for Islamic polygamy, and while I don't agree with the practice, I loved this argument (I don't support the practice because I DO believe in sincere monogamy - one, just one, all your life):
It is better to keep the first wife and marry a second younger wife when hitting middle-age success than divorce the first one and force her into poverty in order to marry that second one. I don't think America in general supports monogamy. I think it is perfectly fashionable to support polygamy - it just happens generally one at a time, and the overlap is secretive.
[ December 02, 2003, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Haha, the only problem with all this is that you grew up with Mormons and are approaching the situation rationally. The majority of Americans have neither of these things going for them . Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*drags bCurt off into a corner*
*hisses* Hush! You're not supposed to discuss that in public!
Posted by Sarcasm (Member # 4653) on :
He's on to us, Rivka. If he keeps it up, he'll have to be silenced.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:said: Can you imagine a story like this about Catholics traveling to see the site of some apparition of the Virgin Mary and some of the locals saying, "Those Catholics are trying to TAKE OVER! It's us or them!"
Yes, actually. You think the KKK had large chapters in Oregon because of all the blacks that live there?
Dagonee
Posted by bCurt (Member # 5476) on :
*Whispers to Rivka* Oops. I thought everybody already knew anyway.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*whispers* They do, but they think it's a joke.
*loudly* And of course, it is just a joke. Control the media? Hah, have you heard the BBC recently?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
In my former downtown Salt Lake City neighborhood, a branch was trimmed off a tree. The running sap was thought by some to resemble a figure venerated by Catholics. The local Catholics have built a set of stairs leading up to the new relic and put a lot of candles around. It came up once in Sunday School as an example of something we wouldn't worship that others do. There was a bit of paranoia in the discussion. Just a little "how would you feel?" moment.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Rivka, bCurt,
Y'all should feel proud. After a fruitless search on google, I've concluded the imaginations of the countless conspiracy theorists are nothing compared to some of the minds here.
You'd think with all the conspiracy sites devoted to Catholicism, Judaism, LDS, Illuminati, Freemasons and the like, someone would have stumbled onto a joint LDS-Jewish conspiracy. Apparently, the limited minds of some of the finest conspiracy promoters out there cannot conceive of two or more of their paranoid fantasy organizations joining forces.
One good thing - checking out a few of the conspiracy sites put me back in touch with what "fringe" really means. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Got any cool reccomendations? Not anti-anything, just the average paranoid.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Sorry - didn't take note of specific sites. Just used google and typed in things like "Jewish Mormon Conspiracy" - I suspect you would find very scary stuff using the search term "zionist" in place of Jewish - scarier, that is.
A couple of sites collected the stuff and ridiculed the garbage - those looked cool.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I heard the report and it was a little strange, but I don't really think NPR was trying to spin it particularly. For example, the reporter DID point out to that woman that her opinions were bigoted. And she agreed. They were.
Well, here's the real problems:
1) Property values are at record highs -- a good thing if you own land already or are coming in from outside. Bad if you are just graduating and want to stay in town.
2) Unemployment is down -- tourism has created jobs serving the 1 Million (plus) visitors each year. These are necessarily low wage jobs (mostly) but it sure beats the surrounding areas which are still in the throes of an economic depression.
3) The town's 1000-or-so residents are mostly Catholic. They aren't really happy with the thought that their town council may someday soon become predominantly Mormon. They have been fed tales, no doubt, of how the ousting of the Mormons was justified because of polygamy, the autocratic ruling style of Joseph Smith (he ran the town, the militia, etc.), and even some exagerations about crime problems in the bad old days. The bottom line, though, is change. Small town America doesn't like change.
4) The Mormon leader that they interviewed was particularly "oily" sounding. He used the Rumsfeldian "answer my own question" style of talking. It was unnerving, really, to hear a guy saying things like: "Are we going to take over?" No. "Are we here to be friends?" Yes.
Yuck! Who talks like that? It's just creepy!
Oh well...
I think there's a lot of poetic justice here. Having been "burned out" of the town in the 19th century, the Mormons come back in the 21st century as prosperous as all get out and ready to just buy the town back, if necessary.
There's a fair amount of resentment that would come your way just for being wealthy tourists, honestly. Ask any of the service workers who live in the Orlando/Kissimmee area. It's pretty easy to build up a resentment towards the "invaders" no matter who they are.
The ignorance of what it means to be Mormon in today's world is just compounding the problem for these people who are caught up in a whirlwind of change.
Most of the people they interviewed had some fairly kind things to say as well. Just about likes the jobs and the higher property values, in general.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What Bob said. But
quote: The town's 1000-or-so residents are mostly Catholic.
quote: Small town America doesn't like change.
No one likes change that they haven't invited. If ten million Mormons started swamping Orlando and it looked like they were going to over-run the city and town council, I would be really unhappy, too, just like I"m sure Mormons in Salt Lake City would be unhappy if a ton of Muslims or Catholics or whoever came and looked like they were going to make them irrellevant and politically powerless.
[ December 02, 2003, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
This is like the Mormon version of slashdotting. Pick a town, everybody move in, now we control the government.
Seriously, I think it's more of a problem with the way majority rule works. This is not a hostile takeover. Just a majority shift.
But hey, I mean, come on, it's Nauvoo, and they just rebuilt the temple there. It was a huge event in the Church when they announced the temple rebuilding. It's never been "if," but "when" the Church returns there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:pooka said: The running sap was thought by some to resemble a figure venerated by Catholics. The local Catholics have built a set of stairs leading up to the new relic and put a lot of candles around. It came up once in Sunday School as an example of something we wouldn't worship that others do.
They were not “worshipping” the relic. This is a common misconception about Catholics - that we “worship Mary” or are “idolaters.” Please see this and this for a decent overview.
Dagonee
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
You know it's nice that we are reclaiming part of our history, but it'd be nicer if we weren't so damn smug about it.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:The Mormon leader that they interviewed was particularly "oily" sounding. He used the Rumsfeldian "answer my own question" style of talking. It was unnerving, really, to hear a guy saying things like: "Are we going to take over?" No. "Are we here to be friends?" Yes.
This is actually a rather Mormon way of answering questions in some situations. Why? Because Mormons hear particular criticisms over and over again to the point that they know what is coming and simply answer the questions before hand. Its more about frustration than "oily" presentation.
[ December 02, 2003, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:You'd think with all the conspiracy sites devoted to Catholicism, Judaism, LDS, Illuminati, Freemasons and the like, someone would have stumbled onto a joint LDS-Jewish conspiracy. Apparently, the limited minds of some of the finest conspiracy promoters out there cannot conceive of two or more of their paranoid fantasy organizations joining forces.
People just don't give Jack Chick the credit he deserves.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
That's a great point Occ, but I still think that it'd be better pr if we weren't so 'pr'ey.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think the Mormons have been less than PR enough for far too long. On the other hand, no one seems to be listening one way or the other, so does it really matter?
Ana Kata, your frustration is nothing new. Its not so much that Mormons would like to be liked, although that would be nice for a change, as much as simply be heard. At times I just don't think that is possible.
quote:I'm not saying these things are bad or wrong -- alcohol causes tons of problems and caffeine sure isn't all that good for you. What I'm saying is that Mormons reject some of the things most Americans take for granted -- coffee, cocktails, monogamy -- or people think you do, regardless of the true nature of that rejection. I think that many non-Mormons don't see Mormons as bad, or evil, or threatening....mostly, they think you're just a little bit weird.
This brings up a few questions. Are Mormons really that different? Should Mormons really care? Is the United States really that homoginous of a society?
[ December 02, 2003, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I think the Mormons have been less than PR enough for far too long."
Are you kidding? The Mormon church is just about 3/4ths Public Relations....
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
And 1/4 wierd doctrine.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: For example, the reporter DID point out to that woman that her opinions were bigoted. And she agreed. They were.
It sounded to me like her response was, "Yes, they are, but I have a right to be bigoted."
[ December 02, 2003, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: blacwolve ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, her response was more along the lines of "Yes they're bigoted and I don't care."
Which was really interesting and frustrating at the same time. She was obviously upset with the changes her town was going through and was ready to blame the Mormons for it all. As well as discount all the benefits (like jobs and a solid real estate market).
I don't know how common her viewpoint was, but I do understand a bit of where she might be coming from. Even if Mormons weren't buying up the town and were just visiting in the millions! I mean, it's like an invasion when the hordes of tourists arive. Assuming you have the same type of high & low/ boom and bust cycles throughout the year as places like Orlando and Vegas do, there are days where it seems like the townfolk are outnumbered 10 to 1. And that's probably true. Any given Saturday during Summer or spring break, I bet there are 10,000 tourists in town and only 1,000 residents.
It's easy to build up resentment quickly when your town is stretched to the breaking point like that. And then the hordes are gone and what do you have? Slowdowns. No money. It's a horrid existence relying on tourists for your livelihood.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Thinking about it logically, you're right. I just still find it very frustrating in this case. Posted by bCurt (Member # 5476) on :
I've always wanted to research my ancestors' land in Nauvoo and see if they were able to sell it and at what price before they fled Nauvoo. If they were unable to sell it or at an artificially low price I would reclaim the land! Actually, I wouldn't as those who currently live there probably had no connection whatsoever with those who occupied the land after my ancestors fled. However, in our sue happy society I'm sure many groups would (or at least try) if they were in the same position.
Will Mormons take over Nauvoo? Probably over time. Being a beautiful spot with a Temple and historic connections it is really a given. Heck, I wouldn't mind living there if I could make a living. Do I feel sorry for the current residents? Yes. However, there is no intent to "take over" in any malicious way despite what it may feel like for those current residents. Would there be a Nauvoo if it weren't for the Mormons? Probably would still be a swamp/marsh. The very name given to the city by the Mormons still stands.
I guess what I am saying is, the current residents can either live with the changes or move. Mormons now have the freedom to move there unlike the lack of protected right to stay there originally (though the freedom was supposedly there). There will be no forced expulsion this time. Hopefully the Mormons will be good neighbors but there will probably be a few bad apples as there are in any group.
[ December 03, 2003, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: bCurt ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, given Nauvoo's fear of losing to the "Mormon Invasion," and that Libertarian plan to take over New Hampshire, I'm half-tempted to try to find fifteen or sixteen people like me and move to a small town somewhere, where we'd completely dominate the school board. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Ooo, ooo move here! We could take over the city council in a year. I was almost roped into it this year, but I dodged. I might still get stuck on the library board, though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
We could change the name to Hatrack River, and it would be sunshine and lollipops every day.... Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:It seems like since the U.S. movie and TV making industry is based in the west, where it's perfectly normal and ordinary to be LDS, that it would not be so.
I don't know if it's perfectly normal and ordinary to be LDS anywhere except Utah and Idaho. It's individually pervasive and it's substantively different. Not a small differences, but a huge self-selecting ones that can't and should not be ignored. Judaism is the same way, but the LDS church has a lot working against it. The media, and for that matter the non-LDS American public, is going to be incredibly skeptical of any religion that believes in secret practices. I don't think it matters how rational the explanation, or how many leaks are rampant on the Internet, it's principle. Anytime the media talks about the college greek system and the various lodges, they go right at the secret rituals and assume the worst or use their imagination. But a satyr? It's not sexy because it's not hidden. The cultural inclinations of Jews may be substantively different than your American WASP, but gone are the feelings of secrecy or cabal.
Southern California just realized that it can't marginalize latinos, the LDS aren't even close. As an aside, to minority communities, the lds has a recent legacy of institutional, systematic, Voux Deux racial discrimination which isn't exactly the easiest PR problem to fix.
My answer is easy: The church should pump extraordinary sums of money into public works. Libraries, schools, hospitals, parks, etc. I mean getting membership can help, but gaining members isn't going to make you seem less weird. It's just going to seem like a fringe group that's gaining more members. *thinks* During the American Revolution, a full fifth of the people living in the colonies were black. 20 percent. That's huge, and you think the LDS have a marginalization problem. Public works, Public works, Public works. The temples are beautiful, but they just serve as a reminder of your otherness.
[ December 03, 2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin* Typical liberal - coming up with wonderful ways to spend other people's money, and acts like it's a favor.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Tom, can I come live in your town? And if you run the school board, will you hire me?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
That's just my two cents. You don't have to listen to me... but a lot of smart people do. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nobody's perfect.
I liked the rest of your post. The explanation of alienation makes sense. The proposed solution fails to account for all factors, though.
Primarily, I don't think public opinion can be bought off, and I don't think the church should spend tithing money trying.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The public works commitment is a gesture saying that you are ready to help the community on community's terms. You can keep the temples and the ritutals, but you aren't removing your civic commitment from the community qua American community.
It's not so much you trying to buy us off, as much as it's a reminder that while we have some differences and some secrets, we are all human, all in this together, and you are going to spend as much money and time in celebrating those differences and trying to gain more converts as you are in helping the community despite their religious inclinations. Everyone deserves good public works. A commitment to public works just reminds everyone that the LDS are, and are interested in remaining, a part of the public. The temples cresting the sky line of so many a major city don't quite send that message.
[ December 03, 2003, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's being bought off. The members are all citizens, and work together as such to produce those public works. Why should the church foot the bill?
Is that the solution for larger Latino acceptance, as well? Buy us stuff?
--------
If the question is being civically involved, that is encouraged. There's a letter from the First Presidency every year that tells everyone to vote and get involved, and to not use the church buildings or resources to promote a particular party or candidate.
[ December 03, 2003, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I would be a stunning show of altruism, christian, and civic ethic. But you say potato.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do you honestly think it would work?
"Thank you for all the stuff; I no longer think you're weird."
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
The LDS church already does participate quite a bit in public work, but it often does not publish that fact, for whatever reason. Missionaries (and I assume that this would still apply to the elderly missionary couples in Nauvoo) are required to provide public service in their area on a regular basis. For example, in Bulgaria, we provided free English lessons to anyone who wanted to come (and spent church money on the materials we needed to do so). My brother, who was in the Fresno area, provided service at wildlife shelters, among other things. I would be willing to bet that there is a church-run geneological library in Nauvoo (such geneological libraries are open to anyone to use, since Mormons aren't the only people interested in geneology).
I thought it interesting that, in the segment, they specifically mentioned that the church will be paying taxes on many tax-exempt parcels of land (property tax are one major way that counties fund public works), which I thought was quite amazing. How many other instances can you think of people knowingly paying taxes that are not required?
[ December 03, 2003, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by bCurt (Member # 5476) on :
The LDS Church is already heavily involved in humanitary and charitable efforts worldwide. In countries with poor infrastructure, the LDS Church is aiding in setting it up where it can.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Irami, the solution doesn't match the analysis. If your analysis is correct, those conditions will remain and therefor so will the problem, no matter how many libraries are built by the church.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
As long as you don't get ahold of Kirtland. Then we won't have to revise all our tracts... Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, Kirtland is totally next on the list. It's only a matter of time...
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I know the church does public work. All churches do public work. I'm talking about bold, huge, expensive, brazen, err on the side of right public works, right here at home, and that cannot be construed as a means of conversion. The Jewish Hospitals aren't trying to convert anybody. Catholic Hospitals or all of those Jesuit Schools, though you'd have to watch out for that, but Jesuit Schools aren't nearly as much about Catholicism as they are about a rigorous and classical education.
I know the church spends more money on non-LDS recruitment charity work as opposed to say, me, but we are talking about economies of scale. We are talking about good works at a people without an agenda other than you believe that the people should have good works.
____________________________________________
Kat,
I don't think so, because everyone will go to the library, just like everyone goes to Mt. Sinai. And there isn't an impetus for conversion when you check in. What I'm talking about is kind of like what the robber barons did right before they died.
[ December 03, 2003, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:I know the church spends more money on non-LDS recruitment charity work as opposed to say, me, but we are talking about economies of scale. We are talking about good works at a people without an agenda other than you believe that the people should have good works.
What about the payment of property taxes that are not owed?
Posted by bCurt (Member # 5476) on :
quote:non-LDS recruitment charity work
The LDS Church's charity work is no more or less for recruitment purposes than other religions' charity work.
I would like to see a percentage of charitable and humanitarian spending by number of church members of the LDS Church compared to other religions. I think many would be surprised by the tremendous amount the LDS Church does.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Now this is an example of good Mormon pr Not smug. Not heavy-handed. The emphasis is on helping those who aren't of our own faith [there is a perception that LDS are great at providing charity for their own, but don't reach out to those in need of other faiths]: Voices to Afghanistan.
---- [As a member of the public affairs committee, I worked on this project, and I pitched it to the SF Chronicle (although it was an easy sell because the people involved are interesting and the project itself is unique and cool)]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Lud,
If it were anywhere else accept Nauvoo, that wouldn't be an issue. Sorry, I'm just the messenger on this one. You can talk yourself into believing that non-LDS are comfortable with intentions of the Church, but you know, it's not true.
_______________________________________________
I don't know what they are. I know the Catholic Church does more good than the government in Los Angeles. They feed and clothe the poor, the ugly, the diseased and the disabled without qualification. The breadth of the churches commitment is astounding, enormous, breathtaking, and without an eye towards conversion.
The LDS are at a disadvantage, but putting up a Cedars would be a step in the right direction.
_____________
Nice program, Zal. It seems like you did good work, and the genuiness comes through in the article.
I don't mind the smug. Put your name on it. I think the church shouldn't hide its identity. I mean, if it's immediately clear that it's not for conversion, at least by the reasonably sensible non-conspiracy theorists, than a loud proclamation that this deed was for the good of the city and brought to them by the Church isn't a bad idea at all.
[ December 03, 2003, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by bCurt (Member # 5476) on :
quote:From 1985 to 2002, the Church has distributed 51,299 tons of donated clothing, provided 40,977 tons of food to the hungry, provided 5,262 tons of medical equipment and supplies for the sick, and given 4,386 tons of educational supplies to those seeking knowledge.
The Church has provided more than $544.8 million in total assistance to needy individuals in 150 countries
I can tell you a lot of that aid (most) was to those who are not part of the LDS Church.
[ December 03, 2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: bCurt ]
Posted by bCurt (Member # 5476) on :
quote:They, the Mormons, feed and clothe the poor, the ugly, the diseased and the disabled without qualification. The breadth of the churches commitment is astounding, enormous, breathtaking, and without an eye towards conversion.
Words in italics added by me to make another valid statement.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"but you aren't removing your civic commitment from the community qua American community."
I should warn you, Irami: in the utopian town of Hatrack River, people who use sentences with the word "qua" in them will be forced to work at Arby's.
[ December 03, 2003, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
We get an Arby's?!?
Definitely move here.
[ December 03, 2003, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by bCurt (Member # 5476) on :
Who are you to say what the intentions are of the LDS Church in providing humanitarian and charitable aid and what the intentions of the Catholic Church are not? The way I see it the Catholic Church has the same purposes in providing such aid as the LDS Church.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:If it were anywhere else accept Nauvoo, that wouldn't be an issue. Sorry, I'm just the messenger on this one. You can talk yourself into believing that non-LDS are comfortable with intentions of the Church, but you know, it's not true.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying. I don't presume to speak to what non-LDS people are or aren't comfortable with. Just because the property taxes I specifically mentioned are in Nauvoo they mean nothing? I see it as an attempt by the Church to show that they are trying to contribute to community with no ulterior motive, but like I said I don't know how non-LDS would see it. How do you interpret it?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:From 1985 to 2002, the Church has distributed 51,299 tons of donated clothing, provided 40,977 tons of food to the hungry, provided 5,262 tons of medical equipment and supplies for the sick, and given 4,386 tons of educational supplies to those seeking knowledge.
The Church has provided more than $544.8 million in total assistance to needy individuals in 150 countries
The problem is that I don't know what any of those numbers mean. I'll be honest, the Church is a Church. The bar is higher, I expect money to go to poor people. We are still talking about economies of scale, and I don't where that 551 million over 17 years, where it was going, why, and were there any strings, because sometimes strings exist. If you want, you can blame the Catholics of old and the Protestants of new for muddying the waters between basic aide and conversion. It's a tough road to hoe for no other reason than conversion can be seen by believers as the ultimate form of humanitarian aide. It's the problem that many Americans have with subsidizing faith based initiatives.
The second problem is that I don't know how much of the assistance was tied to some sort of ecumenical agenda. That's what separates the Mt. Sinai hospital, or even secular community based organizations, from a church. All of the religions are going to have a problem with it, just like all politicans are going to have a problem with it: "Did he do it to get votes, or did he do it because he believed in it." I think it's a hard pitch for anyone to sell, especially when on the other end you have to keep up conversion, you know, that army of well-clad young men and women that the church is duely proud of. I don't envy the PR part arm of Church, it's a hard sell and I don't know how much money we are talking about in the total budget and where it is being allocated and why, that's why I shy away from hard numbers until I can put them in scope.
____________
Geez, it's an incredibly hard sell. Can someone dispel a rumor for me? I've heard that there is a fund for financial assistance for members of the church. It's a great idea in theory, we are talking about people who need resources receiving them, and I'm sure it's taken advantage of by perfidious, albeit poor, fakers. But can't you see how a program like that, even with all of its benevolent intentions can be seen as just a little bit good and a little bit bad. It depends on the size and scope of the program, of course, and I don't know what kind of numbers we are talking about in terms of church governed member assistance, but you can see how the exclusivity of such a program may be looked askance at by the poor non-believers.
A loud and genuine commitment to public works doesn't need to be, or even be seen, as self -serving. Apparently you think that the church has already done or is currently doing and adequate amount of it, but something isn't selling. There needs to be more inclusive bent, is all. ____
A few years ago, I was talking to a group of the philanthropy chairs of the greek system in college about the importance of changing their name from philanthropy chairs to community service organizers. The sororities approach philanthropy with all of the bad connotations that that term carries. They weren't members of the community, they were in their own community, which every now and again believed in slogging down the hill and helping out the rabble, before going back up and having an iced tea. The girls were nice, honest, and genuinely benevolent, but considered the community a "they," but didn't understand why the community was wary of them. Anyway, that's a aside, I think I've said all I know on the subject, and a little bit more that I don't, so I'll let the discussion continue.
[ December 03, 2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
A town, hah! I have spent time living in an entire UNIVERSE conceived and executed by the god (DM) known as Tom Davidson, and it's a great place, even if time moves extremely slowly there sometimes.
[ December 03, 2003, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
You're not letting the Church practice its religion, Irami. The LDS Church, just like the Catholic Church, really does believe in Christ's biblical commandment to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the sick. That really is the motivation.
You know, the Church has grown from six original members to 11 million over the past 170 years despite times of incredible adversity and persecution. Now it has managed to spread across the earth, building temples, and it enjoys considerably more acceptance and has the resources to truly be a force for good in the world, something it pursues vigorously and most of the time without calling too much attention to itself. It is accomplishing its mission. But even after all that, it still needs a good PR man who really knows what would be the best path for it to take.
Get your resume in now, Irami! Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Just to be clear, there are four different areas that seem to be being discussed here:
Church Welfare Program: This is the one that provides for needy Latter-day Saints. It is funded through fast offering and administered through local congregations. All the other programs may benefit some LDS members, but they are mainly overall community-focused relief efforts.
Church Humanitarian Services: This program focuses on emergency disaster relief and programs to provide food, hygeine, and education and medical supplies to third world countries -- often in cooperation with other religious charities and non-religious ngo's. As I understand it, funds come through donations from church members, donations of goods and materials by church members and businesses, some fast offering monies (I may be wrong about this), and funds from Latter-day Saint Charities.
Latter-day Saint Charities: The official 501c non-profit. It makes grants to other LDS projects (including those organized by local organizations -- see below) with a focus on projects that benefit non-LDS and are on a large school (grants of $5,000 - $10,000 and above). It is funded via donations and via profits from church-owned companies (Bonneville Communications, etc.).
The actions of local members: This has become a larger focus for the LDS Church. This is what category the Voices to Afghanistan project fits in. Basically local congregations organize service projects, donations, etc. These are sometimes organized by the stake [a Mormon stake is roughly equivalent to a diocese and is made up of 4-12 congregations] public affairs committee in coordination with individual congregations or by the congregation's youth group, or women's group, or sometimes simply by a group of like-minded folks in the congregation. These service projects can either be one-time deals or an ongoing commitment [monthly turns in a soup kitchen, Christmas in April, painting and cleaning a home for assisted living, Habitat for Humanity, sub for Santa -- the basic stuff that religious groups do]. My stake president has recently asked that each congregation do at least one substantial community-focused service project a year.
Posted by MormonFunk (Member # 6002) on :
Who cares what anyone else thinks? The LDS Church should be concerned about what God has said it should be concerned about. You'll never convince those who say service provided by the LDS Church is only done to convert others that that is not the purpose. The Catholic Church, the Baptist Church and etc. provide assistance for the purpose of conversion as much as the LDS Church does. 'Nuf said.
Nauvoo today, Kirkland tomorrow!
Respectfully yours.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Dang it, somebody persecute us! We can't break 2 mil!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Who are you? I mean, I know you're Macc, but who is "we"?
[ December 03, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not sure about the LDS Church, but I assume their attitude toward charity frowns on bragging about, just as in other religions.
People often interpret the fact the missionaries do public or charitable works as attempts to "bribe" someone into the religion. If there is a conversion aspect to these works, it's based on the idea of demonstrating what it means to live a Christian life.
"Let them know you are Christian by your love" type of thing.
Dagonee
Posted by The Celt (Member # 5697) on :
There is also the point that the Church does its best not to flaunt the good deeds that it does. "Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth" and so on.
In my opinion, proclaiming loudly that all of these wonderful things have been done by the Church would smack of a desire to convert, whereas quietly stating that yes, the Church does participate in humanitarian efforts worldwide shows an interest in community without beating it into the heads of those receiving the benefit that "The LDS church did this for you, so you should be grateful to them." This leaves the benefactors free to be grateful without feeling obligated.
[/end two cents]
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:Can someone dispel a rumor for me? I've heard that there is a fund for financial assistance for members of the church. It's a great idea in theory, we are talking about people who need resources receiving them, and I'm sure it's taken advantage of by perfidious, albeit poor, fakers.
I think that you may be referring to the Perpetual Education Fund (introduced by the church within the last year or two). The money is obtained through donations from Church members and is designed to provide small loans to Church members (returned missionaries) in poor countries, so that they can learn a trade. This way, they learn a trade/skill (when they would probably otherwise be unable to do so), support themselves and their families, and (hopefully) help to improve the overall economic situation of their area. I am not sure what the screening process is like for those who wish to obtain such loans.
[ December 03, 2003, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Besides being opposed to principles, bribing people into joining simply doesn't work long-term. No one sticks with a religion out of gratefullness.
I think the Perpetual Education Fund goes mostly to return missionaries and young women in poorer countries. It's modeled after the Pepetual Emigration Fund, which was set up by Brigham Young to help the poorer Saints gear up to head West. Once they got West, they were supposed to repay the loan to enable other to follow. Same with Education fund.
You might mean fast offerings. That's the church welfare system Zal described above.
[ December 03, 2003, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Oops, sorry, Kat. I slipped into speaking of the churches of Christ collectively again. I can see how that would get confusing.
A good many conservatives in the churches of Christ have a persecution complex, but rarely did we get more than a little name-calling. Which, of course, we ought to be used to, since we do it to each other.
Not trying to derail the thread into talking about other churches--just making jokes.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*thinks* Is that different Church of God in Christ (COGIC)? I'm surprised there aren't more - there were COGIC churches all over Detroit.
[ December 04, 2003, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Yes, it's different. Most Churches of Christ are in the south.
I think the Church of God in Christ is a mostly black charismatic church, though I could be wrong.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You're right. The Church of God in Christ is the largest African-American Pentecostal organization in the US. Founded in 1897, it has over 5 million members in 15,300 or so churches. (According to the 11th edition Handbook of Denominations in the United States.)
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
I had no idea Church of Christ was so small. There are so many of them here in Birmingham. I see them all over. LDS are so rare here that I never met one before I decided to join the church (based on what I had learned about it online). That's really interesting.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The LDS church has often donated money to other humanitarian organization including the red cross, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and Catholic community services. Its hard to see how the LDS church could benefit by giving money to other churchs to aid them with helping the poor and needy.
LDS Humanitarian services donates food, aid kits, quilts, leper bandages, first aid items and medicine through out the world. The people who recieve these items never know they were sent by Mormons.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: donates food, aid kits, quilts,
I read that at first as "donates food, aid kits, kilts,". :lol:
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
ana, churches of Christ are very common in the South, especially in Tennessee (and an overflow into north Alabama) and Texas. This is partly due to a concentration of membership and partly due to church splits over what many denoms would consider trivial issues.
According to Flavil Yeakley (a statistics expert and professor of Bible at Harding U), the churches of Christ are more widely distributed than any other church in relation to our size, but there are still many more of us in the South than elsewhere. Our numbers in Birmingham are likely misleading.
In recent years, we have been growing, but so slowly we are not keeping pace with the population; that's how it's been since our last bout of growth in the fifties, discounting the bubble produced by the International Church of Christ that split from us.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: The people who recieve these items never know they were sent by Mormons.
Actually I don't think that's quite true. I remember helping pack hygiene kits for Freshman Orientation at BYU and in every bag, there was a card in ten languages telling who it was from and a small message. I sort of assumed that those same cards went in every thing they sent.
Also, I don't think it's fast offerings that go toward worldwide operations, but the Humanitarian fund. I'm probably wrong, but I thought Fast offerings were more on a local level.
[ December 03, 2003, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
leper bandages???
Is there still a lot of leprousy around?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Leprosy, or Hansen's disease, is still around, especially in tropical climates.
[ December 04, 2003, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, I suppose us Mormons will have to get used to "otherness," as that has been prophesied to be our lot in life. We are asked to be "in the world, but not of it," and Jesus indicated that people who try to live that way will be looked down upon.
However, I still don't see myself as any different than non-members as a person. If you prick us, do we not bleed? As I see it, if its alright to see Mormons as wierd and different, I don't see a reason to see Muslims, blacks, or any other labeled minority group as wiered and different.
Mmmm . . . Speaker for the Dead comes to mind for this subject.
[ December 04, 2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
Oh yeah, leper bandages are great. It turns out that the best ones are still the kind you crochet by hand from plain cotton, so every so often someone will offer you a bag with thread, instructions, and an envelope to send them off in. There's a little old lady in my ward who produces 3 a week, and does baby booties for newborn kits as well. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"As I see it, if its alright to see Mormons as wierd and different, I don't see a reason to see Muslims, blacks, or any other labeled minority group as wiered and different."
Oh, don't worry. You aren't NEARLY as persecuted yet as blacks, Muslims, or most other labeled minority groups. Just wait until black Muslims start moving en masse into small Midwestern towns, and see how they react....
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks for the link on Hansen's disease. I had no idea!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No problem. If you want to know too much about it, read the two Thomas Covenant trilogies.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Dagonee- I deliberately left both Mary and the word Idolatry out of my post. I guess all the circumlocution just came across as ironically sassy. Edit: The point I was making is we react the same to a religious "invasion"
A lot of Christians think we worship Joseph Smith and our prophet because we sing songs about them. Since we have a scripture "The song of the righteous is a prayer unto me" I guess that could be a problem.
I thought I read in a Time article about the Pope a few years back that he supports the doctrine of Mary as co-redemtrix with Jesus. Also the idea that she was immaculately conceived (to separate her from original sin?) to be a problem. But then, LDS don't believe in original sin anyway. Am I totally off base on these? I really want to understand.
And you are right that we follow secrecy in our donations, not just our observances.
[ December 04, 2003, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Dagonee, I wanted to find out if it was true the way leprosy was shown in the Thomas Covenant series. Is it true that once you have it you are never actually cured but have to stay on the medicine all your life and be ever-careful about any small cut or bruise and do a Visual Scan of Extremeties all the time? When someone in the U.S. gets it, does it usually cause a good bit of irreversible nerve damage before it is caught and checked? I had thought it was completely curable, aside from whatever damage occurs before it's caught and treated, but in the TC books it seemed like it was just sort of manageable (and not very easily) instead.
Diabetes also has the side-effect of causing your limbs to slowly rot from the ends inward. First circulation is compromised, then you start getting nerve damage, and you gradually lose feeling, and the ability to heal or fight off infection. Your hands and feet tend to ulcerate and then many people end up getting amputations because of gangrene.
By doing everything exactly the way you should, in both your food and medicine, you can delay this process, but it means putting it of 10 years, or 15, or something. Even if you do everything perfectly right, you still get those effects. Oh and blindness too, and organ damage to every organ, heart, kidneys, liver, intestines, and even brain as well.
Thank goodness diabetes isn't contagious or we would be treated just like lepers, I suppose. And really, by far the worst thing for poor Thomas Covenant was the way the people around him treated him. The disease itself was really nothing compared to that. Maybe I ought to learn how to crochet leper bandages. The church is very cool. I love to hear about humanitarian works in other countries.
We ought to come up with a way to use the internet to connect people all over the world into one close-knit community. I will make a thread about an idea for that I had, maybe.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, the worst think for TC was his rape of a young girl, knowing that he could also spread leprosy to her by doing so.
I know some people absolutely HATE those books because of that one scene. Too bad, really, because the books are very good, but Donaldson lost a fair sized audience by including that, it seems.
His next series (The Gap...) also featured violent sex. I wonder if he's got some sort of problem or history...exorcising demons?
I know his father was a doctor treating lepers in someplace like India (if I recall correctly).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Pooka - I didn't mean to imply you were promulgating the views I was describing. The Mary and idolatry portion was meant as an add on explanation about why Catholics are sensitive to the use of the word “worship.” Sorry for the misunderstanding.
quote: When the Church calls Mary the 'Co-Redemptrix,' she means that Mary uniquely participated in the Redemption of humanity with her Son Jesus Christ, although in a completely subordinate and dependent manner to that of her Son. Mary participated in Jesus' reconciliation of the human family with God like no other created person...How did the Mother of Jesus do this? First of all, Mary participated in Redemption by accepting the invitation of the angel to become the Mother of God and by giving flesh to the Savior. Early Church Fathers saw the Incarnation and Redemption as one, unified, saving act....and Mary brought the world its Redeemer at the Incarnation...Since the very instrument for the Redemption, the body of Jesus, was given to Him by Mary, the Mother of Jesus clearly played an intimate part in the redeeming of the human race with her Son, far beyond that of any other creature. (Dr. Mark Miravalle, An Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion, page 68-69). Bolding added.
The Newsweek was rife with inaccuracy and is a continuation of the myth about Catholic beliefs in Mary.
I assumed you followed secrecy in donations. Despite the theological differences, I have great respect for and admire LDS dedication to their faith. The few I’ve known in person have been dedicated, modest, willing to share their faith, but never pushy.
Dagonee
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Yeah, I almost put the books down and didn't pick them back up after reading the rape. I really did dislike Thomas for most of the series. There was something great about having such a flawed and tainted hero, though. Like Rodion he's a total mixture of evil and good. He doesn't even have that strain of pure selflessness like Rodion.
(Note that he could not have given her leprosy, since she could have been cured (as he was) by that hurtloam stuff. However, the rape did twist and damage her whole life, as well as that of her mother and her eventual husband. The books didn't try to pretend it was something less awful than it was. It was true and real.)
In fact, the taint was probably the most important theme in those books. Leprosy being the symbol of the physical part of it and The Rape being the symbol of the emotional or spiritual part. Foamfollower was the opposite symbol, the Pure One. I'm just seeing this now for the first time. Caamora purified him. Suffering. Agony.
Who was Pitchwife? He was physically damaged (though not really tainted) but spiritually pure. Those were good books. They had all sorts of true stuff in them that nobody had ever told before. But I'd like to know for positive if they were accurate about leprosy.
[ December 04, 2003, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Irami,
It isn't publicly advertised exactly where the money goes to, but every cent is accounted for. For the year, they keep a whiteboard up in the Humanitarian Center that accounts for the charities donated to, the countries donated to and what it was that got sent there. There are no strings attached except this: that the charity gets the goods and/or money to the actual people in need. This is why there are some charities the LDS church won't donate to.
The LDS church has also been known to donate money for the repair or building of churches of other religions. Two examples that come to mind here in Utah is the Catholic cathedral in Salt Lake and the Hari Krishna temple in, I think, Spanish Fork (Utah County, anyway, I've driven past the land). These things get a blurb in the paper, and then nothing more is said.
I've worked at the Humanitarian Center (definately one of the best things about being in Utah) and it is pretty cool.
But, Irami, as has been said, it isn't done for public relations reasons, so it isn't something that is pushed into the media. I would much rather we be doing that than building monuments to our moral rightness in the US so that we can gain favor in the public eye. That would be selling out.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Thanks, Dagonee. As it is, we do have this written about Joseph Smith by the third Prophet, John Taylor: honor to Joseph Smith
But we do respect and honor Mary. But not more than, say, Isaiah or Abraham or Joseph Smith.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My understanding is that Donaldson got his information on leprosy from his father, a doctor in India. Maybe it was outdated info, so didn't include the cure possibility.
I stopped reading for a week after the rape scene. I would find it intolerable except that it's never excused and the aftereffects dealt with honestly. His Unbelief makes the rape particularly difficult to comprehend.
I read the first Gap book. Didn't read the rest.
Dagonee
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Big ostentatious temples. Big ostentatious, even in their austerity, missionary programs. I don't see how anyone can be averse to a big beautiful hospital, library, or theatre which makes an unabashed statement this is where the ethic of our Church lies.
There are a lot of excuses on this thread. There is a time for humility, and there is a time for an unswerving undaunted commitment. There is nothing humble about the Temple or the impetus to convert, and to an extent, their shouldn't be, because the church believes these are important. I don't see where the viture is in working in the community, for the community, in secret. Good public works built and articulated with a clear purpose would help make the church less "other" by making a strong statement that the Church shares our values.
The SLC Olympics did a little bit of that, but that is still sports. I'd take a 60k square foot library.
[ December 04, 2003, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm suspicious of anyone who has great ideas of how someone else can be Christian.
Creating a library would be building a temple of a different sort. Does it come down to you approving of that kind of worship, but not the other?
What you are objecting to is the church spending money on the things they find important, but you don't find important.
[ December 04, 2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Yes, kat, that's true, he is. To how they spend THEIR money.
Or I guess, to be fair, he's saying if we want people not to think we are frightening and weird and taking over, we should spend our money the way he says. Only I don't think that would work either.
[ December 04, 2003, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I'm suspicious of anyone who has great ideas of how someone else can be Christian.
You spent two years on a mission teaching great ideas of how people can be Christian.
quote:Creating a library would be building a temple of a different sort. Does it come down to you approving of that kind of worship, but not the other?
What you are objecting to is the church spending money on the things they find important, but you don't find important.
Yep. And the Church has a problem in convincing people that their priorities aren't that far away from mine. Look, you want to know about how to end the alienation and get in good graces with the non-LDS. Play up the common ground. There is nothing seedy about it, unless the church is actually apathetic towards libraries, hospitals, and theatres.
[ December 04, 2003, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Butters the popcorn.
*munch*
*munch*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There are more ways to do that than the church footing the bill all of the time. If it comes to encouraging individuals members to be good citizens and work for public good individually, that does already happen. You've already said you don't approve of doing good works when they are hidden.
The whole concept of neglecting temples and missionary work to build things to buy good public opinion is very skeevy to me.
[ December 04, 2003, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Lalo is interested in biking across the US. I can't remember whether you went this summer or are planning on next summer, but it might be interesting to compare notes. You might even ride together for a bit if the planned routes were similar. I bet you two would get in some interesting philisophical arguments on the way but it wouldn't be boring!
AJ
(now back to your regularly scheduled discussion)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
You know, there's a parallel here to the Catholic Church which has for centuries been of the opinion that a grand church is important to the people's faith. Churches in the lowliest of places were often very ornate and adorned with precious metals, art objects, stained glass, etc. The churches were usually the best constructed buildings in the surrounding area.
It's an interesting thing to ponder. Would the world in general have been better off if the Catholic Church had spent its money on reducing poverty, feeding the poor, building homes for the homeless, etc., instead of collecting art and architecture?
Even today, when the church is less concerned with building new cathedrals and more concerned with maintaining the existing ones (the maintenance on some of these edifaces is enormous) the debate rages on. Couldn't we take care of the poor instead?
All the way back to Judas questioning the gift of expensive perfumes...
What's the answer?
To me the answer is to give money to those causes I believe in. I happen to believe more in the causes that help people get out of the rut of poverty and disease than I do in church-sponsored building programs. So that's what I give to.
It wouldn't bother me in the least to see churches selling off land to pay for upkeep on existing properties. It would bother me immensely to see churches stop the great work they do in caring for the less fortunate in the world and in our communities.
I don't begrudge a community its fine ediface, but I don't have to support it. So I don't.
Other people like that sort of thing and really do buy into the idea that a building can inspire holiness. And so, for them, it's a matter of giving so that they (and others) can have a nice place in which to worship and feel the presence of God.
Give me a shade tree any day.
Posted by MormonFunk (Member # 6002) on :
What churches have built libraries or theaters? As far as hospitals go, LDS Hospital in Utah was originally started by the LDS Church but they have since gotten out of the hospital business (from what I understand). The LDS Church also operates three Universities and a college plus some schools in Tonga and/or Somoa and probably some others in additional Third World countries.
The LDS Church does not have unlimited funds and has a primary mission to develop spirituality. I do not see how building libraries and theaters will do that. I do not see how building libraries and theaters will seem any less suspicious in reference to ulterior motives such as conversion opportunities.
More vital concerns exist other than libraries and theaters. Namely those are being addressed worldwide - humanitarian, welfare and education. Money is best spent in those endeavors when venturing outside of the primary spiritual mission of the LDS Church.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The one part of the NPR program that really got my goat was the scholar. The expultion of the Mormons from Nauvoo in 1846 and their earlier expultion from Missouri were Pogroms pure and simple. We learn in our history classes how those "bad" Russians and eastern Europeans drove the Jews in mass from their homes, it is rarely mentioned that Americans did exactly the same thing to the Mormons for pretty much exactly the same reasons.
Six of my ancestors were driven out of Nauvoo. On pair not only lost everything they owned but had two children die of exposure in Illinois and two more who died enroute to Utah. To maintain that the people who drove them out were motivated by some sort of Jeffersonian commitment to democracy and religious freedom is insulting.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think there was a point made about Jeffersonian Democracy as motivating the expulsion, but it had more to do with revulsion over the practices of Joseph Smith and his anti-democratic style of leadership than it did a failing of the people to appreciate the irony of what they were doing to the Mormons.
Basically, the show made Joseph Smith out to be an autocratic tin badge despot running Nauvoo like a factory town. That people were up in arms about polygamy didn't help matters either.
I'm not excusing their horrid behavior, mind you, but it wasn't like the people on either side were trying to accommodate each other. Seems to me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It wasn't the people who built and lived in Nauvoo (as a refuge, no less) who objected to Joseph Smith.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm sure... they were all his followers, right?
So where did this mob that drove them off come from? And was Abe Lincoln involved?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shakes head* I just mean that it wasn't the leader that was a political threat - it was numbers. They gathered there, and they would have overwhelmed local politics. In terms of numbers, they should have, or else it would have been like apartheid. There's no way to justify this under Jeffersonian democracy - the (justified) fear that you'll be outnumbered and outvoted.
The people who drove them out came from the countryside and the surrounding counties. The extermination order (Killing Mormons Okay!) came from the governor of Missouri, which is why they came to Nauvoo in the first place.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:That people were up in arms about polygamy didn't help matters either.
I'm sorry Bob, but this simply isn't historically accurate. Althought that there is evidence that Joseph Smith and a select group of the Church's leaders were practicing polygamy in Nauvoo, it was done in secret. Polygamy was not openly practiced by the Mormons until they established themselves in Utah. The key accusations made against the Mormons in Nauvoo were (1) lawlessness; (2) disrespect for and avoidance of United States legal proceedings; (3) unlawful accumulation of military force; and (4) dominance in local elections and bargaining for favors with corrupt politicians.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Is the LDS conference center the largest theatre in the world right now? But it's not really a theater unless we agree to rent it out to Michael Jackson or Madonna I guess. How big is the newly renovated library at BYU?
Anyway, my opinion of Oral Roberts wasn't changed by him attaching his name to a University.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
While Abe Lincoln did travel to New Orleans and had a personal awakening to the evilness of Slavery, I know of no evidence that he knew Joseph Smith, and futher he was considered an enemy to the church due to slavery and polygamy being equated by forward thinkers of the day. In the early days "mormons" were staunch democrats.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well...I'm a little confused. Joseph Smith was described as a "known polygamist" and since he never made it out of Illinois (having been murdered there), I assumed that it was general knowledge prior to his death, and that it was practiced openly in Illinois at least by some of the church leaders.
I don't have any historical research on it, it was an assumption based on the chronology and that one description of Smith.
I'm trying to find a modern equivalent to how the locals might've felt back then on finding that an enclave of a particular religious sect had moved next door.
The best I can come up with is the furor over the followers of Sun Yung Moon taking up residence out west a few years ago, buying and building a "compound."
Basically, these folks are fairly peaceful. They don't kill anyone (that you could prove) and they aren't particularly interested in anything beyond being left alone (and brainwashing your teenagers).
However, if I found out that "the Moonies" had landed in my neighborhood, I would be sorely tempted to sneak over there one night while they were all out annoying people at the airport and torch the place.
Oh well. I guess I'm a religious bigot too. Except I wouldn't torch the place, but that doesn't mean I'd have to like them being there or go out of my way to make them feel welcome.
Anyway, I don't think there's any excuse for religious sentiment ending in blows, let alone murder. But I do think that many of the people posting on this thread are trying to sanitize the LDS' history for some strange reason. The fact is that your church was into polygamy in an official way. Joseph Smith sounds like a cult leader from a modern perspective (and probably appeared even more scary for all that in the times he lived in), and the group was overwhelming in its numbers.
The mob violence that ensued was not the church's fault and the followers of Joseph Smith were innocent victims who never have received any compensation. If I were in your shoes, I'd file class action suits and take back Nauvoo with a vengence.
That you haven't says more about what it means to be a modern member of the LDS church than it does about your church's history, I think.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe every mormon alive today would've fit right in with Joseph Smith's autocratic enclave back then. I doubt it, though. No more than a modern Catholic would enjoy living in Europe in the Middle Ages. Or a Protestant of today would fit in during the Reformation.
These are different times and we are different people.
Heck, we've redefined what we mean by religious freedom even. I mean, can you imagine the founding fathers explicitly making room on the schedule for a Wiccan ceremony before sending the troops out to meet the British? I can't. But I believe that this is exactly what we SHOULD be thinking when we say we have "religious freedom."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Joseph Smith instituted polygamy, but it wasn't openly practiced until Utah. In fact, the RLDS don't believe he ever did institute it.
Cult is bad word.
Interestingly, why would you object to Moonies moving in next door?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The best I can come up with is the furor over the followers of Sun Yung Moon taking up residence out west a few years ago, buying and building a "compound."
Are you perhaps referring to the [URL=The best I can come up with is the furor over the followers of Sun Yung Moon taking up residence out west a few years ago, buying and building a "compound."]Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT)[/URL]?
This group bought a large ranch outside of Yellowstone National Park in the mid 80s and turned it into a compound, complete with bunkers. Large numbers of their followers moved to the area and established business and homes in the area.
There were lots of protests when they bought from groups ranging from the Greater Yellowstone Coaliition to the Christian Coalition. During the time I lived in Bozeman, they were commonly mocked, ridiculed and even sued, but no one was ever killed and driven from their home because they belongs to CUT.
The fact of the matter is that the expulsion of the Mormons from Missouri and Nauvoo is the worst case of religious persecution in US history. It is in most details exactly like the Pogroms that took place in Russia. The fact that there are still scholars who justify the people who drove the Mormons from their homes is appalling.
[ December 04, 2003, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
One of the definitions of a cult would include leadership by a charasmatic individual. From that perspective, all of Christianity started as a cult. So did Mormonism. And so is, today, the Universalist (or whatever Moon's church is called).
I don't consider it a bad term. It has a deliberately pejorative sense to it which I fully intended.
What Christianity became, what the LDS church is today, and maybe (if we're lucky) the Moonies might become someday, is something that outgrew its cult status.
Mainstream isn't just a question of size (although number of adherents does matter). It's also a question of integration into society as a whole. Early Christians actually prided themselves on being "outsiders." Today, Christians get very very upset if they are treated as anything but mainstream. In the LDS' history, it seems pretty plain that there was a tendency to form communities apart from the surrounding people which you all have definitely gotten away from. Seems that way anyway.
Oh well. I didn't really want to pick a fight here. Maybe I'm not choosing my words carefully enough. Maybe you all take your church's history a lot more seriously than I take the history of ANYTHING I am a part of. So I should just lay off.
Please forgive me if this came off as insulting. And thanks for not getting angry with me...yet.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I couldn't possibly be angry with Bob. You tell us about God.
[ December 04, 2003, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yeah... I'm really banking on this "Get out of Hell Free" card being valid.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:But I do think that many of the people posting on this thread are trying to sanitize the LDS' history for some strange reason.
There's no doubt that many Mormons (as well as official LDS Church discourse) tend to sanitize church history, but so far I don't see any of that on this thread.
quote:The fact is that your church was into polygamy in an official way. Joseph Smith sounds like a cult leader from a modern perspective (and probably appeared even more scary for all that in the times he lived in)
I think that your 'from a modern perspective' phrase here is key to this whole discussion. If you look closely at American history during this time from a modern perspective, then a lot of stuff looks pretty scary.
But what I find interesting is when I encounter academics or college-educated people who know a little bit about early Church history who are aghast at Joseph Smith ordering the destruction of a printing press that was being used to print items that were inflaming the community (this was a key action that led to his arrest that led to his murder), but who seem to care little about and certainly won't put Mormons in the category of victims of a pogrom.
It's just strange to me how easily we view past events through our own au courant lenses. Mormon apologists [and, yes, these are apologists, which means that they may overstate some things, but also may have some points and done some research that others haven't considered] have shown that Joseph Smith's actions related to the press were well within the rule of the law (and standard application of the law) at the time. The freedom of the press then wasn't quite what it is now.
EDIT: Just saw The Rabbit's follow up post above -- exactly.
Also: Bob -- No worries, I mean, look at all I do to try to entertain you. But I think that what's hard for us Mormons to take is that our dirty laundry (and supposed weirdness) gets dragged out by people all the time [And some of it is dirty -- Mountain Meadows was a massacre and the shedding of innocent blood and a stain on Mormondom no matter who 'knew' or 'didn't know' it was going to happen] and yet both our contributions to the building of America and the wrongs perpetrated against our ancestors are routinely ignored. Of course, I think it's good that Mormons don't do more to claim victim status, but I would like to see academics and the mainstream media give a more nuanced view of us, our culture and our history [of course, what non-majority group doesn't want that?].
How come there are no programs in Mormon studies in this country?
[ December 04, 2003, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Zalmoxis ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
None????!!! That surprises me too!
I would've thought BYU, at the least, would have such a course of study.
Oh well...
Hey, you know, I actually agree whole-heartedly with what you said about judging things from a modern perspective versus (more correctly) understanding the context in which they occurred.
In a sense, I don't think any of us can avoid sanitizing our history because we learn it from the sanitizers. Or worse yet, from people who teach it without questioning the sanitized nature of it. So we're too far removed from the removals to even know they happened.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
It depends on what you mean by a program in Mormon studies. At BYU there are several such things -- and they are required for graduation.
However, I see no reason for their to be any such progams in Mormon studies at any university. Considering the mainstream's attitudes I would be very wary of them.
As for sanitizing, there is plenty of that for sure. However, there is a huge difference between ignoring the gritty details, and rejecting a declairation of "pogram" as a sanitization. To me, that is in itself a sanitization of an awful historical event. Perhaps its becuase Mormons, unlike other groups, have taken their persecutions and pograms and made something out of them instead of hanging on to defeatist emotions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Perhaps its becuase Mormons, unlike other groups, have taken their persecutions and pograms and made something out of them instead of hanging on to defeatist emotions."
Like, say, Irish immigrants to this country?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Yea, like them.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'd like to go on record as NEVER having said there wasn't persecution, a pogrom, or any number of vile acts perpetrated against innocent Mormons.
I actually said at least 2x that nothing justifies the murder and ousting of Mormons from Nauvoo.
Oh, and how about the Italians?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
MormonFunk,
quote:What churches have built libraries or theaters?
scads
quote:As far as hospitals go, LDS Hospital in Utah was originally started by the LDS Church but they have since gotten out of the hospital business (from what I understand). The LDS Church also operates three Universities and a college plus some schools in Tonga and/or Somoa and probably some others in additional Third World countries.
These are all steps in the right direction.
quote: The LDS Church does not have unlimited funds and has a primary mission to develop spirituality. I do not see how building libraries and theaters will do that.
This is one I take issue with, maybe it's because books and theater are essentially tied to my spiritual development. I wish I could express their importance, but I haven't the words.
[ December 04, 2003, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Irami, to mine, most definitely, as well. And music. Especially music.
The teachings of the LDS stress education like no other religion I've been exposed to. I've heard Muslims are also enjoined to learn everything they can about everything. I think it's great that there's actual anti-fundamentalism text in the teachings of, say, Brigham Young. He said that all truths are part of our religion. Everything in science that's true is our doctrine too, and there is no conflict between the truths of any field and those of our teachings.
I don't know of any other religion in which that is spelled out quite so clearly. Brigham Young rocked!
I still feel like I will be coming to your baptism someday. Don't forget it's contagious.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Irami- in my opinion, the reason the Church no longer builds hospitals, theaters, etc, is because once the building is built, the use of that building may fall to contradict church teachings.
For example, abortions in a hospital named for Brigham Young.
'Baked Baby' being performed in a theater named for Hyrum Smith. ('Baked Baby' is a rabidly anti-mormon comedy, performed recently here in D.C.-- worse than Orgazmo, which I guess wasn't really anti-mormon so much as anti-Mormon lifestyle.)
You get the idea.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't know of any other religion in which that is spelled out quite so clearly."
The Baha'i Faith has that principle as one of its twelve major tenets.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What Scott said makes sense. Once the hospitals and theatres are built, there's the choice to hand them over to other organizations, or else run them themselves. If handed over, they'd want to dissassociate themselves from it, because of the kind of thing Scott talked about. So much for the PR - they aren't associated. It would be a very, very expensive one time shot in the arm.
If kept up, it means that church would from being a church whose primary mission was spiritual matters to being the library, theatre and hospital business. When Utah was newer, they did it because no one else was able to. Now, though, with a myriad of organizations and institutions devoted and able, they have rid themselves of the businesses.
The times when the church does build those structures is when no one else can or is willing to. That's why so many are in Utah, despite there actually being more Mormons in California.
[ December 05, 2003, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Most schools of Hindu and Buddhist teaching (neither of which is really a single religion any more than Christianity is; they have subcategories nicely analagous to LDS being a subcategory of Christianity) make the importance of all truth of great emphasis in their religion. This is likely because both of them emphasize the meany-faceted nature of truth and that all shall be unified therewith in eventual transendence (though the typical hindu view is that universal truth is a manifest entity, while the typical buddhist view is that universal truth is a philosophical unification accessible to all).
There are many religions that greatly emphasize that view of truth.
Posted by MormonFunk (Member # 6002) on :
quote:
quote:
What churches have built libraries or theaters?
scads
Name some - religious libraries and theaters don't count as they are used to promote or support the religion that built them.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Hmm. Scott poses an interesting dilemma.
Most organizations affiliated with the churches of Christ are not formally run by any church, but merely by members thereof. Fairly often, their charter will state restrictions on the number of nonmembers who can be on a governing board or in the faculty and so on.
However, this has limited the production of facilities--as far as I know, we have no hospitals or libraries, for instance. And despite whatever restrictions were written into its original rules, Pepperdine University has very nearly become a secular school.
Posted by MormonFunk (Member # 6002) on :
Bump for Irami's answer.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The geneology library that ludusti mentioned on the other page is an excellent example.
I'm currently fascinated with the job the Mason's did with St. John's and I kind of always have a soft spot for the Jesuits, even with their spotty past. ____________________ btw,
I went to high school with a family of LDS Funks, are you one of them?
[ December 08, 2003, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Whatever their checkered past (and it certainly has its dark spots), I have to admire this statement from the Jesuits.
(ooops, sorry. That might derail the thread...)
Oh well, it was sort of dying out anyway, right?
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
*grr* Bob, I'm not sure whether to take my response to that link out on you or the Jesuits. *snarl*
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Since I agree with them, maybe you should take it out on me???
Anyway, did anyone listen to NPR's show today on a small town that was taken over by Mexican immigrants? I'll have to check their website to find the story.
But basically, it was the same reaction as to Mormons (or anyone else) coming in large numbers and basically supplanting whoever was living there before.
So, it wasn't personal. It's just small town America and xenophobia at it's best...
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Irami seems not to have seen my comment about the conference center. While its use is controlled by the church, they regularly have cultural events free of charge. Though it can be tricky to get a ticket. Attached to the main auditorium is a 1,000 seat "little theater" where they have charged for admission.
Bob- Joseph Smith was killed in 1844 (while being incarcerated at Carthage Jail). He was being incarcerated for destroying a printing press. The printing press was publicizing a lewd expose of polygamy- hence polygamy was not widely known at the time.
As others have said, Smith's legal wife Emma only knew of two of his many marriages, and she later declined that anything of the sort ever happened. Now that I think of it, I don't know if Smith fathered any children with anyone besides his legal wife, so if not, that would support her view of things. The "rules of polygamy" underwent an evolution. I don't really know how it went, but OSC's book Saints is one view of how it could have worked.
At the time Smith was killed, polygamy was still a rumor. It was mainly this paranoia over population shifts and government control that motivated a mob to attack the jail where he was being held, killing him and his brother, and wounding the author of the quote I referred to for Dagonee.
After his death, things were quiet for a time, and then in the winter of 1846 (18 months later) mobs moved to expel the Mormons. Whether they chose to drive them out in deadly cold for spite or because that's when people weren't busy farming, the fact is hundreds died who probably wouldn't have otherwise. Not everyone did leave. Emma stayed. Agents of the church were appointed to stay and sell what they could, generally for pennies on the dollar.
So the death of Joseph Smith was mainly political. The later expulsion of the Mormons probably did have more to do with the rumors of polygamy.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
The problem seems to occur when the people who move in are perceived not as a number of individuals, but as a block, a "them", as opposed to "us". What is it that makes that happen? Is it any time the individuals share a language or culture or religion or any physical characteristic that is 1) not a majority group and 2) not one's own?
"All these blondes are taking over our town! If we brunettes want to have anything left we are going to have to fight for what's ours!" Not quite it. Being blonde is not in the majority, but it's considered a good thing in our culture. So this one can't happen.
Yet I can picture it being said about old people, or college age kids, of course (that was a big issue in my college town - for good reason), or mentally ill people or disabled people or deaf people or people of any ethnicity that isn't Northern European, or any religion that isn't Protestant Christianity. (Here in the U.S. I mean.)
If we could analyze this situation and understand what it would take to make it right, we could fix about 9/10ths of the wars and organized violence in the world. That would be a really good thing.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:"All these blondes are taking over our town! If we brunettes want to have anything left we are going to have to fight for what's ours!" Not quite it. Being blonde is not in the majority, but it's considered a good thing in our culture. So this one can't happen.
I think that the real issue is that there is no perception that blondes have a different set of values and desires than the rest of the population.
I think that animosity towards a group is generally centered on the belief that members of that group have values that are not only different from "our values" but which we see as being in direct conflict with "our values".
In order to resolve this problem, we somehow need to increase peoples understanding that we are all human. Despite our culture or our religion, our basic human needs and values are largely the same. We all need food, clothing, transportation, shelter, dignity and love. We all desire time to play, time to think, and time to grow. We all love our children and want the best for them. We all appreciate fresh air and good health. We have far more in common than we believe.
Posted by MormonFunk (Member # 6002) on :
St. John's was not established by a religion. Wheeling Jesuit is a religious school not a secular school started by a religion. Part of Wheeling's purpose is to develop spirituality.
Its not that kind of "funk", Irami . I have known some Funks in various places also but my member name uses no part of my actual name.
[ December 10, 2003, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: MormonFunk ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
a.k.:
I lived in a community that WAS overrun by elderly retirees. They came down for the winter months and a portion of them stayed year round. They had a chilling impact on our schools, I'd have to say. Being on a fixed income, I can understand that they aren't inclined to vote for increased property taxes to pay for education programs, but frankly it gets a bit old. When a sizable portion of the population is from a group that resists change, it's a problem no matter what, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Yeah, Bob, I was thinking of the college students, too, who lived next door to me in a wonderful old house that had been split up for apartments. They kept the bad music on 10 until 3 am on week nights, and left their empty beer cans, and the regurgitated contents of those cans all over the porch and yard. <shudders> I suppose it's not right to generalize from those particular kids to all college students, but after a few neighbors like that, I can certainly understand why the townies would want to ban students from their neighborhoods.
I guess there are always real issues, too, that get mixed up in the "us" and "them" stuff.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, there's a great Social Psychology theory that basically says that people actively gauge whether they can "mask" their prejudices before they act on them. Avoidance of the Handicapped was the seminal study in this a few years ago. Basically, if you put a wheel-chair bound person in a room with seats all around, and just loaded up the room with different numbers of "confederates" (non-handicapped people in the employ of the researcher). Then you send in the test subject and see where they sat. If it was down to two seats, one next to the handicapped person and one further away, then people would actually act against their prejudice and overwhelmingly take the seat near the handicapped person.
If, however, there were lots of seats and their choice would appear more or less "random" then people NEVER sat near the handicapped person.
It was actually pretty clever stuff as Social Psych experiments go.
The relevance, though, to overgeneralize in the extreme, is that if you have "issues" that make it look like you are just being a "concerned citizen" as opposed to a bigot, people will feel more comfortable acting out their prejudices -- avoiding the handicapped or making things uncomfortable for the outsiders. At least it'll work that way in the absence of open hostilities between the parties. Once things get that bad, all bets are off.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I find my in-at-the-beginning ancestors, and they're the slackers! From the stories, they didn't join the other branch - they just didn't go west. ![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Don't mean to derail the thread.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
How big is the newly renovated library at BYU?![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
Cult is bad word.