I just wanted to explain why I deleted the Ask Dr. Rabbit thread. Several things were becoming clear to me. First, the mix of tongue in cheek and dead serious was getting really weird and some people seemed to be having a hard time distinguishing what was what. Second, I was concerned that some of the questions were wandering in the anti-mormon direction and I thought I'd best put a stop to it before we offended the Cards. Finally, being tongue in cheek about religion is always a dangerous ground. The line between criticism and joke is often blurred. The direction of the discussion was such that I could easily see good nature turning to mortal offense and I wanted to end it before that happened rather than after.
If I was being over cautious and spoiled the fun, I'm sorry. If there is anyone out there who would like to have serious questions about the LDS church answered, I will still be happy to try and answer them privately (by e-mail).
In the future, I will try to avoid threads that mix the serious discussion of religion with the sacreligious joking.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's IS odd that Hatrack Mormons can't seem to discuss their religion with the same . . . seriousness that others can.
For example, Rivka's thread. Wonderfully informative, and in the right spirit of things.
Not that I think there's anything wrong with poking fun at one's own religion. I hope you're not confusing light-heartedness and light-mindedness.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I've been suppressing the jokes that I'm dying to link to in response to some questions in my thread -- and there were a few on the first page, iirc. Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Scott R:"It's IS odd that Hatrack Mormons can't seem to discuss their religion with the same . . . seriousness that others can."
Well I, for one, do it (joke around) on purpose, as a way of highlighting the differences between LDS religious beliefs and Mormon (especially Utah Mormon) culture. I take the former very seriously. The latter is often taken TOO seriously by Mormons, and is often confused with the former. That is, people assume that a Mormon cultural trait is somehow really a part of Mormon doctrine, and they get all huffy about it. I think this is ridiculous and pretty funny, but also a serious problem. So I make fun of it.
It helps that I went to the University of Utah, and already have reasons to crack jokes about BYU and Utah County and the kinds of stereotypes that are associated with those places.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I respect and support your decision, Rabbit, but I just wanted you to know that my question about the movie was an honest one, not making fun. It's a puzzle that has stayed with me for years.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
A god who can't respect and treasure humor is a god not worth worshipping.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Thus the popularity of the Church of Bob.
My guess -- only a guess -- is that the LDS community hasn't been around long enough to be taken for granted. That is, for example, Catholics have such a loooong history of substantial power and weight that mocking the Catholic Church practices (Father Guido Sarducci, "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!," The Pope Must Die(t), etc.) has less of the flavor of patronization.
And the LDS does seem to have much internal self-deprecatory humor, just not as comfortable with external humor about them. Again, I think this will change with growth in power and length of history.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:First, the mix of tongue in cheek and dead serious was getting really weird and some people seemed to be having a hard time distinguishing what was what.
Oh, come on... In my view, the ideal conversation is when tongue in cheek and dead serious are one. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I was having a hard time distinguishing what was what. Probably because some of the LDS here are so good at doing deadpan humor, and because some LDS beliefs are very different from other forms of Christianity. So it’s sometimes hard to tell when y’all are being serious and when you’re spoofing.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Surely at least some of the people here are familiar with the LDS humor of Robert Kirby. He is proof that there are at least some of us that are able to laugh at ourselves without becoming apostate devil-worshippers.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If there's confusion, though, I'm fine with the deletion.
We managed to keep things on a clear level with Hobbes' thread - maybe there was a general spoofy mood floating around?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The religiously oriented culture I can joke about. It's fugu that turns me into a nerd. <--- also a product of the U. I don't think my testimony would have survived BYU Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
Sometimes I think the only way my testimony survived BYU was because I hardly ever attended church while there.
Oh yeah, and because I took almost all of my required religion classes from engineering professors. That one post-mission "Sharing the Gospel" class from Reed Benson was pretty good, though. (Can you say easy A?)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm quite certain that the problem was with the way I started the thread. The long defunct "Ultimate Religion Thread" in which I did the original "Ask Dr. Rabbit" was entirely spoof. I tried to resurrect that and merge it with Grad_Students request for serious answers to Mormon questions.
The second problem is that because therer are so many LDS people on the board, its arrogant for anyone to set themselves up as the "one" who can answer questions. I didn't mean it to be, but I can see that it was. What's more, because there are controversies and different views within any religion, this thread was destined to end up as a debate between different LDS views. I suspect that Rivka's thread would have turned out quite differently if half the board were Jews.
Finally, while livid "anti-semitism" and "anti-catholicism" still abound, they are widely considered socially unacceptable and so it is unlikely that anyone would seriously ask a question like "is it true that Jews eat babies" in a public forum like this one. On the other hand, anti-Mormonism is so completely socially acceptable that people often don't even recognize that the stories they have heard are anti-Mormon. I've had good friends seriously ask me about the orgies we have in the temple and why the church changed its stand on drinking Coke after it purchased Coca Cola. As a result, it was becoming difficult for me to tell whether some questions were jokes or for real.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
If it means anything, I have horns and a blue tongue. My sister is now my second wife. My funny underwear is still wet from my shower this morning. And I had a blast at the temple last month!
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
You know, I have noticed Mormons getting a LOT more media exposure lately, perhaps since the Olympics and the whole Elizabeth Smart ordeal.
Been showing up much more frequently in Entertainment as well, mostly in ways that don't make Church members all that happy - They were featured predominantly in ANGELS IN AMERICA, there was a rather lengthy (and tasteless) Mormon joke on Gilmore Girls a couple weeks back, and South Park just aired an episode called 'All About The Mormons' which gave a musical anti-Mormon rendition of the Joseph Smith story (although inaccurate in quite a few places, it was obvious the creaters - who also made the Mormon-bashing ORGAZMO - are pretty well versed in LDS history), and now there's that movie about the gay LDS Missionary.
What the heck?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Taal, I think they go together. More media exposure will bring a lot of the bad with the good. The only thing to do is grit your teeth and try to clarify issues, but to do that, you leave yourself more exposed, which leads to more bad along with the good...
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I saw that South Park, my roomate told me he had it and he really wanted me to see it. It was pretty bad but almost cool because the very last part of it refrenced general confrence talk given this year (undoubtly without knowing it) almost verbatium.
The Mormon child (in the show) said he realizied that Mormons believed a lot of werid things about the founding of the Church ut now the Curch teaches good solid familys like the one he had so he likes it.
In General confence someone gave a speech in which he said (paraphrased) that a lot of people recognize that the Church does a lot of good things for the family, and if they just took out that part about an Angel appearing to Joseph Smith they could believe it. And then he said that a previous prophet responded to that by saying "ah, but then I could not believe, for that is at the heart of our Church".
Not sure why I felt the need to say that but it came up and I did.
(Note: I wrote this and then lost my wireless connection for about an hour so undoubtly this is reffering to a post 5 pages back, but too bad, I've written it and now I'm posting it.
Hobbes Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"I was having a hard time distinguishing what was what. Probably because some of the LDS here are so good at doing deadpan humor, and because some LDS beliefs are very different from other forms of Christianity. So it’s sometimes hard to tell when y’all are being serious and when you’re spoofing."
Who's fault is that really?
True, there are a lot of differences between Mormons and other religions. We don't always communicate what we believe very well. But, how can you question a geologist and much less understand the conversation without doing at least a little background reading yourself.
On the other hand, very few people care to do their homework -- or if they do it comes from questionable sources. The least you could do is know enough about the basics to recognize when a leg it getting pulled.
Some would say that is because Mormons are "secretive" and therefore it becomes hard to know what they believe. Nevermind that Mormonism is one of the most documented religions in existance -- both within and without its community.
To some extent secrecy is only true as far as how careful Mormons are in sharing anything with others. As Rabbit said more or less, once a Mormon has a chance to speak a person who disagrees with them will speak for them as if they know better. It becomes annoying and offputting as the intentions of a questioner becomes automatically suspect from past experiences. The "bait and switch" questioning is a very common practice for some toward Mormons. It is so common that a Mormon pretty much can tell when someone has become serious or not.
Not that there aren't actual "secrets" in Mormonism (those things that are considered by Mormons to be too Sacred to be discussed). But, all of them have to do with the Temple and are very deliniated exactly what is or is not to be talked about (and can usually get the idea through non-direct information anyway).
My point is simple. Before you ask a question, perhaps you should read a book by one of its adherents explaining beliefs first. If you want some sources to do some studying, there are plenty to recommmend. You should do this BEFORE reading from those who are against the Mormons as you will undoubtedly not recognize where they are being obtuse.
I haven't asked questions of Jews or Catholics myself because, frankly, I haven't done my homework.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:My point is simple. Before you ask a question, perhaps you should read a book by one of its adherents explaining beliefs first. If you want some sources to do some studying, there are plenty to recommmend. You should do this BEFORE reading from those who are against the Mormons as you will undoubtedly not recognize where they are being obtuse.
So in Rabbit's first post, she should have said "Go read a few books about the LDS church, and then after talking to a Missionary and searching the web, ask me a question and I'll be glad to answer it."
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Actually, that might have been a good idea.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
That's BS Occasional.
Its rude to ask questions unless you already know the answers? Are you so paranoid about critism directed toward your religion that only those people who are interested enough to spend 5+ hours researching it are allowed to ask questions about it?
That type of arrogance and elitism is exactly the opposite attitude that The Rabbit was trying to put forth.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'd also be willing to bet that 90%+ of the joking "Do Mormon's eat babies" type questions were put forth by LDS members.
Actually, I read the thread, and I'm pretty sure that every one of them were.
So those with genuine serious questions were those who knew the least about Mormonism.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
You are totally missunderstanding what I am saying. You don't need to spend five or more hours studying the religion. But, you at least need to have studied enough to come up with intelligent questions. This is, apparently, one of the most important conditions of the Hatrack community.
And, my beef isn't with the jokes. I KNOW that 90 percent of them came from Mormons (in fact, the jokes were about how ignorant non-mormons usually are when it comes to trying to understand even the basics of the religion). What worries me is the same thing that worried Rabbit enough to take the questions off in the first place. Too many non-Mormons don't know enough to realize a joke from a reality. dkw said as much. I was simply stating why that shouldn't have been the case.
[ February 14, 2004, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I've found a great resource to get the overviews is this book here, which is a link to the complete text of the book Gospel Principles on lds.org.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I have seen some great questions come from reading that. My biggest criticism, although it isn't because it doesn't do what it is meant for, is that it is at times too sketchy. Of course, its meant to be a starting point.
By the way I said "a book by one of its adherents," and not "Go read a few books about the LDS church, and then after talking to a Missionary and searching the web, ask me a question and I'll be glad to answer it." The above would be a pretty good one.
[ February 14, 2004, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't agree with Occasional. Hatrack's a resource. We ARE one of the places to consult. I can't imagine telling someone they hadn't read enough to be worth talking to yet. And humor is the LAST thing to aquire when learning a new culture. If you know enough to detect the jokes all the time, you don't need the thread.
[ February 15, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Actually, it wasn't telling the jokes from reality that was the issue for me. It was the other way around.
And the problem with the "study enough to ask intelligent questions" solution is that I wasn't asking any questions. I was just reading the thread.
So I can understand why Rabbit was concerned.
But I don't think the LDS on this forum have a problem discussing issues seriously, or taking their religion too lightly. You just have enough of a critical mass that you can get away with inside jokes. Heck, I'd be making connectionalism jokes in the United Methodist threads if I thought anyone would get them. (And if there were any United Methodist threads. )
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Too many non-Mormons don't know enough to realize a joke from a reality. dkw said as much. I was simply stating why that shouldn't have been the case.
That's what happens when more than two thirds of your doctrine is handled in a "Supar Sekret" manner not unlike stories of the Masons. This makes the people who are used to being secret about it fearful of ridicule, and it makes those who are kept uninformed (meaning everyone else) suspect that something is either blatantly dishonest about those being secretive, or that there is something possibly insulting to them in the things being kept secret.
It's a double-standard on both sides, and it isn't just the LDS where this holds true.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
what's connectionalism?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It’s UMC-lingo for our particular flavor of church polity. Sort of the opposite of congregationalism.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote: That's what happens when more than two thirds of your doctrine is handled in a "Supar Sekret" manner
It's so super secret that their entire canon of scriptures are posted on the Church's official website.
Commentaries, too!
[ February 15, 2004, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Taal, that's really nice that there are commentaries, but what about the temple layout, temple procedures, and all of those little things that Mormons get pissed off about when they are addressed in public?
Why are there threads about those plays that showcased Mormon practices where LDS members are saying it's insulting and damaging to have their personal, private doctrines played out for the public? Why are there actual posts where people say that they don't want to just open it up to the world?
Really, Taal, if you can't even admit that there is secrecy, you have to get a little perspective outside of LDS culture. If you aren't LDS, if you don't know what you are looking for, if you have no point of reference for what is what in the faith, the LDS website is not as helpful as you would like to think.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
actually, john, after the construction of each new temple there are public tours held before the building is dedicated, where someone walks you through all the rooms and explains what each one is for.
i for one do not feel offended when people are hesitant to blatantly discuss very sacred things, but maybe i am biased because i was brought up lds. to me it's like someone badmouthing your grandmother-- your grandma is super special to you, and you want everyone to meet her, but the fear of someone mocking her or misunderstanding her before they get to know her makes you careful. maybe that wasn't the best analogy, but i don't see the lds religion as a secretive one. ha, if we were so set on secrecy why would we send missionaries out by the thousands?
think about the martial arts for a minute. a master would not teach a beginner the most difficult of moves until they had worked to learn the basic principles and foundations of the art. it is not so very different within the church. you build knowledge upon knowledge, but everyone's testimony is valued equally.
[ February 15, 2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: porcelain girl ]
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
and btw, last i remember, taalcon is not LDS.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Woah, porce. You don't have to defend the faith to me. However, the secrecy is there. The tours are only held before it's finished, and I understand why. I don't think everything should automatically become open to the public, because the LDS has every right to have things that are sacred, and they deserve to have it as recognized as any other faith.
However, when you close your temples off to the public, when you don't openly speak of things like the dress, when there are activities that are only done in the temple, and a finished temple only allows LDS members, there is a definite air of secrecy.
Or hey—since you know me, and you know I have no ill will toward the LDS (Jacare once said he considers me a "dry Mormon"), why not give me a tour of your local temple? Can you explain why there are things I cannot be exposed to until I've committed myself first? That's kind of the spiritual equivalent of saying, "I'll tell you, but you have to promise me something first."
That's what I mean about how it puts people off. And one shouldn't have to feel put off by a faith that, as far as I've seen, is quite respectable and healthy. I feel the same way about Jehovah's Witness. This is something that Islam has had to struggle with, as well.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The whole business with the temples is one of the reasons I don't think I could ever convert to Mormonism. The idea of a temple and services closed to outsiders just doesn't gel with my conception of what Christ would want, or my thoughts on what a religion should be like. My view is that Christ would rather set up a shabby little hut outside the temple where he could preach to the lost sheep instead of the initiated.
I can also understand also why it would bother some people, or even entice them to poke fun at Mormons. Whenever you do something that appears to set yourself above everyone else, I think such responses are inevitable. Not that exclusivity doesn't have it's place - but it is naturally going to evoke certain responses from those excluded.
I suppose it's a bit like that particular scene in the Crystal City that made me so annoyed at Alvin...
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I'm not LDS And I was referring to your claim of 'More than 2/3' - either that was hyperbole, bub, our I'm pretty sure you're mistaken.
[ February 15, 2004, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
It's becoming less so lately, but there is still much that is, if not totally secret, kept hush-hush. Perhaps I should have pointed out the different levels of obfuscation? And to be honest, other protestant faiths aren't totally exempt from the issues that come up due to obfuscation of their tenets.
Posted by :Locke (Member # 2255) on :
But Tres, there needn't be a shack outside the temple. We send out thousands upon thousands of people to teach people exactly what they need to know to get in. But the uninitiated cannot appreciate the experience; there must first be preparation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"to me it's like someone badmouthing your grandmother"
Isn't it more like being afraid of having someone badmouth your grandmother, and therefore going to great lengths to hide your grandmother indoors and never let her talk to anyone unless they marry into the family first?
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
actually, it's more like if you don't believe what the church teaches you shouldn't give a rat's rear what they do in the temple, since it doesn't involve anything illegal and/or dangerous.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The funny thing is that there is nothing that goes on in the Temples that is not discussed outside of it -- although not in the exact order that you find therein. Heck, read the Pearl of Great Price, Genesis, and the Book of Revelations, a few sections of the Doctrine and Covenants and you get the idea of what the Temple is all about. On top of that, every critic seems to love to say how "Masonic" the Temple happens to be.
Seems to me that everyone thinks the Mormons are actually successful at keeping the Temple "Secret" and yet brag about how they know what goes on inside. If it was all about Secrecy, we would be doing a pretty horrible job.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But the uninitiated cannot appreciate the experience; there must first be preparation.
This is just the sentiment that doesn't gel with my conception of Christ, though.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Unless you consider the whole 'milk before meat' principle that is discussed in the Letters, I believe.
*wonders how long until there's going to be a "No More No More Ask Dr. Rabbit" thread*
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
The analogy I've always made is to sex within marriage.
There are quite a few apostates who've sold their books almost totally on the promise of revealing temple ceremonies. On one level, that seems like videotaping an unaware couple in bed.
Sex between married, committed people isn't weird or bizarre, but it is personal and sacred.
Although, thinking that analogy through, I can see why it may not help dispel the temple orgy rumor. Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:On top of that, every critic seems to love to say how "Masonic" the Temple happens to be.
Um, all you have to do is know a little history of the early church. Smith got many death threats from the masons, all of which had to do with his "revealing" their ritual by copying them in LDS ritual.
I'm not a critic in the sense that I think the LDS church is wrong or evil. I just said that the church reaps what it sows by not being more open with its worship. I have no problem with it, but when you keep things from the general public, there are parts of said public that are going to assume the worst. The same happens with things outside of religious groups.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Although, thinking that analogy through, I can see why it may not help dispel the temple orgy rumor.
Because of the LDS I know, I would find such rumors to be be incredibly silly and outlandish. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not only Smith, but numerous prominent people in the early church were masons.
To contine with the sex analogy, while generally one doesn't bring up sex in everyday conversation, Lalo notwithstanding, there are distinct and appropriate places to discuss sex with someone you aren't having it with, including for instance, if its someone you're potentially going to have it with, or if you and the person you're with are having relationship troubles and you're meeting with a counselor (though from what I've heard this will typically be in relatively general terms, it still tends to involve fairly frank discussion about sex).
While analogies are limited, its worth thinking about.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So, uh, yeah, there are appropriate times and places to discuss sacred things. Totally agree.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the difference here is that you define "appropriate times and places" much more narrowly than other people would.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Considering the popularity of gossip-rags, I'd have to say you're right, Tom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Leaving aside "gossip rags," Scott, I think most people would be comfortable discussing the rituals of their faith with close friends and family, even if those friends and family were not of the same religion. The LDS church is considerably more reticent about this than most other American churches.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I know-- and I agree with John L (Leto? Someone let me know) that the Church has to pay the price for its 'secrecy.'
It's worth paying, IMO.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Sacredness is about having a place set apart from the world. If we let the world in, even in ideological terms, then it wouldn't be set apart anymore, would it? If we could watch our most sacred doings on television with the guy who thinks its all bunk and makes fun of it, then what special significance will it retain in the temple? If we could just read it online, why go to the temple? And if we do go to the temple, even if we still only allowed people who have kept God's law, how would it be to know that this is no longer the only place on earth where we can study the sacred teachings?
If we made public everything, then we'd lose it. Just for a little respect by those not willing to accept that there can be sacred things in the world.
Do you really think some stranger's respect is is worth that much?
[ February 16, 2004, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Ironically the "Secrecy" is working. Think of how "special" people feel who reveal the "oh so secret" LDS Temple stuff. Sure, they mock it and all most of the time. Most who delve into this love to rub it in the Mormon's face -- thus making it special yet again. But, they still end up treating it as if set apart from everything else in a negative sort of way.
I am not saying I like this part of it, but as someone else said its worth the trouble when you understand the significants of the Temple. Aside from that, what ever happened to the idea of respecting peoples differences?
[ February 16, 2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If we could watch our most sacred doings on television with the guy who thinks its all bunk and makes fun of it, then what special significance will it retain in the temple?"
I see bad marriages all the time on TV, but I'd like to think that there's still some significance to my marriage.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I haven't really heard anyone mocking the Temple ceremonies here on Hatrack. . . nor do I think anyone is criticizing the Church for keeping the Temple ceremonies private.
Are they?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, Amka, as has been pointed out you can read it online -- but you still go to the Temple.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm hesitant to make anything of this world, that part of anything which is corruptible, sacred. (I understand this is a choice for me, by the way, and so not relevant to someone covenanted to a particular belief system. Just thinking it through.)
ak once wrote about the cheapest and gaudiest cross, thrown away in the gutter, having the power to be invested with meaning by one who needed it. That regardless of the material face it wore, the spiritual consequences could be just as pure and inviolable as ever, just as powerful.
So, for example, in the case of rape, one might say the violation of the body did not taint anything sacred, not the soul.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:ak once wrote about the cheapest and gaudiest cross, thrown away in the gutter, having the power to be invested with meaning by one who needed it.
What a good idea for a short story.
MINE! You keep you bloody hands off of it, you. . .
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
No, Scott R, I'm serious. It was a powerful metaphor in ak's hands. I just don't rite so gud. Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
What I'm arguing against isn't what is already there: people who have posted the temple ceremony online in order to show their disdain for the religion (even if they claim to be doing it for the purpose of studying the religion).
And I'm not claiming that disrespect has been shown on Hatrack.
What I'm arguing against is what TomD seems to be wanting: just have the church officially release everything that goes on in the temple. Do away with the secrecy and people will understand Mormons more. We might even gain converts that way.
What I'm saying is that we would lose far more than we would gain.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Yeah, Scott, it's me (Leto).
And I'm not saying the church should open up its secrets, but it can't begrudge the attitudes toward them from others because of that same secrecy.
Personally, I'd like to see the temples opened. Outside of faith in the divine, the closed nature of such things is what keeps me from being able to be open to the church. Of course, it's that way for other faiths, as well. I respect them greatly, but I won't commit spiritually to something I can't learn as wholly as I feel comfortable with. However, that's just me, and I don't think the whole religion should change to meet my personal preferences. Of course, I feel this way about certain Eastern faiths, as well, and I respect them just as much.
All I'm saying is that you reap what you sow.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
John: We agree.
The reaping/sowing anology is actually a good one, even for this discussion. Because you can't just skip from kernal to corn-- a growing process is required.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
What I have been arguing is that people should respect other people's beliefs about their own beliefs. When sacred means secret, than it should be respected that it is secret because it is considered sacred. There shouldn't be, at least for educated and respectful people, some kind of hidden adjenda read into that fact. Mormons shouldn't have to complain about, "the attitudes toward them from others because of that same secrecy." I WILL bedrudge those attitudes because they are a sign of disrespect and bigotry.
If you don't see the Temple "secrets" as sacred, that is both fine and natural. I am not acting as if anyone should who hasn't made those Covenants. However, it isn't right that I am judged harshly or seen as suspect because of what I consider Private! In other words, its none of your business any more than your life is any of mine.
[ February 16, 2004, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
The problem is that in general society, keeping something secret means a hidden agenda. This is what I mean about reaping and sowing: go ahead and keep whatever you want sacred, but when others get the impression of a hidden agenda, you have no right to expect them to believe otherwise just because you don't think of it that way. Just like you have the right to hold it sacred, they have the right to suspect. The only thing that can change that is something that not everyone will agree to.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"you have no right to expect them to believe otherwise just because you don't think of it that way."
I have EVERY RIGHT to expect them to believe otherwise. Its called respect for others.
I want to put this here, because it actually makes more sense here. Didn't know when I edit the above post it would be an answer to something:
quote:If you don't see the Temple "secrets" as sacred, that is both fine and natural. I am not acting as if anyone should who hasn't made those Covenants. However, it isn't right that I am judged harshly or seen as suspect because of what I consider Private! In other words, its none of your business any more than your life is any of mine.
[ February 16, 2004, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Perhaps I should have put it differently. You can expect people to believe otherwise all you wish, but you cannot FORCE them to believe what you do, and telling someone something is sacred and they are not worthy of knowing is plenty dubious.
[ February 16, 2004, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posted by LockeTreaty (Member # 5627) on :
If you have a secret you are fully aware of the fact that people are going to try to find out what that secret is. You have no right to make people not question what your secret is, and most inportantly to question them for reaching false conclusions. You made the decision to keep it a secret, so you are the one who has to deal with the consequences. By keeping something hidden, you are knowingly hanging it out in front of people, so they can try and grab it and know it. If people jump to wrong conclusions its not their fault. You are the one with the knowledge, and you are the one with holding it. Their incorrect answers are the fault of the people who are with holding the answer. I would say that you can keep your secrets, but if you want to blame anyone for false conclusions that are made, then blame yourselves. But if it doesn't bother you, then go ahead and keep your secret, it doesn't bother me(but people have the right to be bothered all the same).
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: I see bad marriages all the time on TV, but I'd like to think that there's still some significance to my marriage.
I stopped watching TV, and perhaps it's just a coincidence that my marriage got better.
Now if I could just get this Hatrack monkey off my back...
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Now for a shoe on the other foot... my sister just had a baby and they aren't telling anyone the name (even though they wrote it on the birth certificate) until the blessing (somewhat like a christening in being a public religious naming of the baby). My husband called them control freaks. I figure I do weirder stuff than that from time to time. But I guess my husband is demonstrating how people hate a "secret". I'm sure it would be possible to fanagle some way to learn this baby's name, but then what?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, we refused to tell anyone (including the birth certificate folks) any of our kids names until they were formally given them (at the bris for my son; at the naming for the girls).
It wasn't a control issue -- it just wasn't their NAME yet. (Especially considering that one got changed almost last minute!)
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
We told OSC, kacard, and docmagik what Superstation's name was going to be. I think we made everyone else wait until he was born before we told them.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm betting on Habakuk.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
(Especially considering that one got changed almost last minute!)