Enough tiptoeing and pussyfooting. There was a thread that quickly got hijacked, which was soon deleted. Then came the apology thread which in some small ways tried to bring up the issue again, but done in a way that seemed too formal and stiffnecked that it couldn't appear to be anything even remotely approaching sincere - no matter what the original intent.
So here's where I'll say what people have been trying to say for the last couple days, in plain and simple language.
There's been a problem with communication, and some clarification is in order.
It has been brought up that some seem to have recieved the view that those of one particular faith look down on those who don't belong to their particular 'group'.
Hell, I said I won't pussyfoot. People feel uncomfortable because the way they've come to understand things, if they're not Mormon, then Mormons just simply can't respect them as much as they can others who ARE members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And since there's a ton of these Mormons on these boards (and more seemingly popping up every month/week/day), there's a question of a ballance of respect, and what the official teachings are of this particular Church concerning those who, well, aren't.
In the previous two threads, an in depth talk was linked to which was used as a way to elegently state the thought of the teachings.
And that's all well and good - but for some it lacked the personal touch. "Yes," some may have thought, "This is what was taught, but what do you BELIEVE?"
A post by another LDS on that thread helped prove their point even deeper - that just because something is taught doesn't mean that it's accepted, and carried out by those who profess to carry that faith.
Yes, the official LDS teaching IS that looking down on those who aren't members of their church is actually a wrong, stupid, and downright idiotic thing to do.
And then there's the other question:
If you don't look down on us, you at least still think we'd be better off believing as you do, right? Isn't that a form of condescension?
To answer that, I'll speak for no one other than myself, in part reposting (and also adding to) something that I said over at another forum:
When I told my parents of my decision to join the Church, my mother said, frankly, "So basically, now you're going to be praying for us to convert, and we'll be praying for you to come back. Right?"
The thing is, I don't believe we do the converting. The way I believe things, only the Holy Spirit can convert someone. If a particular individual is offended by you overtly talking about your religion by them, and asks you to stop, then guess what? You should try to put them at ease, but still live the example.
Nothing turns people off of a religion more than people who 'won't leave them alone' once it's been made clear to them they have no interest. I was dating a member of the LDS church for a while, and while I actively tried to convert her, all she did was show her example, and react to my attacks on her faith in a Christlike manner.
Guess whose actions ended up having the most lasting effect?
Actions speak so much louder than words. It's all about attitude. As much as one might say, "Oh, you'll be happier as One Of Us", and even if you truly believe it, it'll look like arrogance to the others. So yes, offering to tell someone about your faith is fine. Telling about it if they ask is even better.
Making assumptions about what is best for someone RIGHT HERE and NOW - is absolutely wrong.
I truly believe that I'm better for having grown into adulthood without being a member of the LDS Church. Yes, I believe the faith I've now been converted to is the True one, but that doesn't mean that I'd have been better off always having been a member.
I fought against the church for a good while. And while I may be ashamed at the things I said and the ways I said them, I don't regret having that period in my life.
So no. I don't presume to think that anyone would be better Right Here, Right Now in a different faith, whether it be my own, or someone else's. According to my faith, all I can do is bear my testimony, and know that if the Spirit wishes to work in a person's life at a particular time, and the other person is ready and willing to accept it, they will. Otherwise, it's not up to me to judge.
So when it was posted that Mormons think others who are not should be - that's not accurate. Of course, the fact that it WAS posted does witness that some do believe that way. And of course, anyone who has found happiness and fulfillment in something (whether it be a religion, or a new flavor of Ice Cream at Ben and Jerry's), it's only natural for them to want to share it with others. Especially if you're in a faith that's given a commandment to share the 'Good News' to all creatures.
BUT.
I heartily believe that individuals who are NOT LDS, -extreme examples like Billy Graham, or Mother Theresa- have done more good in their life in their particular modes of faith than they may have been able to accomplish had they been a member of the LDS Church. Opportunities come to different people for different reasons at different times.
I, and hopefully the great majority of Latter Day Saints don't think LESS of nonmembers.
Especially us converts, 'cause we know exactly what its like to be a 'non-member'. In fact, very few of my friends are 'members'.
Would it be nice to be able to share that particular worldview with them? Sure. But their different views and perspectives have really enriched my life as well, in ways they wouldn't necessarily have if their philosophies and belief structure matched my own.
In short, the world as it exists today would be pretty dull if every single person on the earth was LDS. Hatrack even more so.
We need intellectual stimulation just as much as spiritual!
No, it's not taught that 'non-members' are Heathens Who Are Going To Burn Forever In The Pits Of Hell.
In fact, according to official theology, those who choose not to be baptized into our particular church but still live upright lives still recieve a pretty danged good outcome in the afterlife. In fact, what they get is pretty danged close to the 'mainstream Christianity' view of Heaven.
So no, all you who find the term 'non-member' as exclusionary. For us, it -should be- used as a clarifyer, not as a stand-alone-overly-descriptive-adjective. ("Oh so and so? Excuse their behavior. They're nonmembers").
So now I'll end this post the way it should've begun, with an apology.
An apology for those who recieved the wrong message - those who seemed to think that Mormons thought "Love your neighbor as yourself" only applied to those who lived in Salt Lake who could just asume that their neighbors were members. In fact, in OSC's A Storyteller In Zion[i], he has a wonderful parable entitled "The Coming of the Nonmembers" that plays on this viewpoint and some cultural prejudices that DO exist, but SHOULDN'T.
Yeah there's a lot of Mormons here. But there's a lot who aren't - and I enjoy the forum just as much as a Mormon as when I WASN'T. And I don't want that to change. If everyone here was Mormon, you might as well close it down, and send everybody to Nauvoo.com - which I don't even enjoy all that much, and there's nobody there BUT Mormons.
[i]Are we an exclusive bunch who look down on you as a poor immoral lost soul if you don't agree with our beliefs?
Well, I can't answer that for everybody. But as for me, I can tell you what I believe.
No, I don't belong to a group who would describe themselves in any way that seems similar to that viewpoint.
Love your neighbors as yourself. And part of myself is my historical nonmember self. Not loving and caring for nonmembers would be a lot like hating and denying part of myself. Which, to be honest, I used to do - but it had nothing to do with religion. It was merely adolescent ignorance and close-mindedness.
Which sounds a lot like religious bigotry to me.
I can disagree with your viewpoints and still fully respect and love you.
And in my not-so-humble opinion, it's those who can't who have the problem.
Who's with me?
[ June 08, 2004, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Hobbes Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:But their different views and perspectives have really enriched my life as well, in ways they wouldn't necessarily have if their philosophies and belief structure matched my own.
After all, how else would you have learned a macabre Hebrew lullaby?
Thank you, Dave. I appreciate the sentiments you have posted here, and I appreciate you as a friend.
I will most likely have more to say as I think about your comments, but I did want to acknowledge you with this initial post. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
No need for an apology, but I will say this:
As the percentage of Mormons becoming regulars on this site has risen, the operational utility of this board has diminished to some extent, IMO. This has nothing to do with Mormons, or anyone in particular. But when many "serious" threads end up with half the people reading from the same "playbook", the dialogue ends, by virtue of basic human psychology. If someone says something, and 3 others say "That's right," or "Exactly so!", it creates a sense that dialogue is pointless, the implicit social pressure of the concurrences quiets others, especially in a place like this where most posters try to maintain a certain level of civility and politeness (which is a credit to everyone here).
Umm, so I don't know where this is going, except that I, personally, feel that this board is going toward Nauvoo-lite. And that isn't a bad thing, particularly if it increases participation/communication, as that is what Hatrack is about; but it might mean less or ceasing participation of some members (not me, not yet, so don't throw any "Bokonon-is-gone" parties ).
EDIT: To merge my "decrease of operational utility" with the "increase participation". _I_ feel that I am getting less of whatever I get out of participating as a member of this community over the last year or so. That said, the way the board has moved in the last year may have, in the big picture, added many more regulars (and Hatrack certainly has gotten big since the days I could name all the posters off the top of my head). So one is personal perception, the other is the greater statistical reality.
-Bok
[ June 08, 2004, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
I think you've done a nice job of delineating some of the apparent tension lately.
As a non LDS person I can say that Skillery's comments bothered me not one whit. If he harangued me to convert I might be put off but his obvious joy at being a Mormon and his wish that those he cared for also share his faith is, to me, natural. There is a difference between expressing disdain/condescension and wishing that others could feel your joy. In today's politically correct climate it becomes difficult to express yourself without stepping on someone's toes. I for one have no problem reading that skillery thinks I should be a Mormon. It is his opinion and I will defend his right to have that opinion even if I don't happen to share it.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Statistical reality?
Thank you, Dave.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
celia, you just haven't taken the blue pill yet.
No, wait, it's the _red_ pill.
Or is it the fuscia pill this week?
Dang.
-Bok
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Taalcon,
I'm glad you posted this. I missed the deleted thread, but I can say that at some points since I've joined I've been concerned that not being a Mormon means you get left out.
space opera
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Just so everyone understands, I believe that Dave's post is partly in response to comments like this one.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, I'll be blunt. While the "official teaching" of the church is one of inclusion, and while the intended philosophy of its best members is ALSO one of inclusion, the church itself -- through doctrines of secrecy, ridiculously corporate cultural touchstones like "Home Teacher" and the dizzying array of various titles assigned to people doing basic jobs -- encourages cultural insularity and the deliberate rejection of the outside world.
In fact, this rejection is advice that has been handed down to Mormons; you are counseled to not be "of the world," to work within your own communities and bring people into them -- not to think the other way around.
At its worst, this kind of thinking can produce what I occasionally see when I pop over to lurk on Nauvoo. (Consider, for example, the largely lockstep political threads, in which people line up out of eagerness to agree with each other -- with the exception, of course, of one or two iconoclasts who almost always wind up getting too enthusiastic about their rebellion and leave the site in a huff.)
At its best, it produces a culture that plays well with itself -- but Mormon culture has never been and does not intend to be a culture that plays well with OTHERS. You confuse the word "sacred" with the word "secret," and the word "special" with the word "holy." You lack, as a general rule, much of a sense of humor (although Hatrackers are well above-par in this), and are not particularly keen on criticism.
But these things are not, as a general rule, crippling to individuals. Mormons as a bloc are generally insufferable; Mormons as people, as we've seen on Hatrack over the years, are generally fantastic.
I think what many people fear as the Mormon "bloc" on Hatrack becomes more and more aggressive and politicized is that the individuality of those members will be consumed by the rather faceless and scary nature of the religious mass itself. Me, I'm not particularly afraid of this; I just find recruitment staggeringly rude, which is why I don't endorse it. And, of course, I don't think the LDS church is based on the "Truth," which is why I don't applaud when people decide to join. But I don't think any of you are going to suddenly wind up turning into drooling zombies now, any more than you did when you joined up in the first place; I think that's a ridiculous worry, and am genuinely irritated when I see signs of that fear in other people whom I otherwise respect.
-----
So, to boil it down: yeah, it's great that you like us non-Mormons. *grin* But you don't need to bend over backwards to convince us that we really BELONG in your secret clubs, because we know for a fact that we don't -- and it's okay.
[ June 08, 2004, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
Nauvoo is a place where the terms and conditions delineate that you can't disagree with church doctrine. While I personally don't much, I like Hatrack better. I like talking about science and health and other issues. Sometimes even OSC. I know you aren't supposed to read Nauvoo, but at least check out their terms and conditions and realize what you suggest when you call this Nauvoo lite.
And saying all Mormons would be boring is no more valid that saying spending all your time with one person would be boring.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:ridiculously corporate cultural touchstones like...
Tom: You've always given me good advice when I needed to rein it in...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, before we go any farther, can you honestly tell me that you DON'T find the organization and titles of the LDS church at least a LITTLE silly? Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Silly perhaps, but not ridiculously so.
You gotta call 'em something.
[ June 08, 2004, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: skillery ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, so we differ on the extent to which they are silly. But yeah, I was out of line. Sorry about that.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Our problem is that we've run out of titles.
My Southern Baptist friends are all "ministers" without any further distinctions between them.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Let me clarify:
Since most Mormons on this site tend to agree on Mormon doctrine, insofar as it pertains to the topics that get brought up on this board, the result is functionally quite similar. Just because there are terms and conditions that allow you to dissent here and not at Nauvoo, doesn't mean people actually are (and my opinion was that fewer people are dissenting now than before, at least on "serious" threads).
With all THAT being said, I think that this general agreement is a compliment to the Church of LDS. I just think it's hurts some of the discourse on a certain subset of threads here.
-Bok
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
tom, i have always respected your opinions and the manner in which you presented them.
today it is not so. few things offend me, but the majority of that post succeeded. i wish there was some way to show you how differently i view the church and its teachings, and have experienced their interaction with the "outside world" much differently, but alas it sounds like you have your mind more than made up. i would prefer not to be labeled ridiculous more than once. i am truly sorry you feel that way. not because i feel like you are missing out, but because i had thought higher of you and the way in which you treated beliefs different from your own.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:I think what many people fear as the Mormon "bloc" on Hatrack becomes more and more aggressive and politicized is that the individuality of those members will be consumed by the rather faceless and scary nature of the religious mass itself. Me, I'm not particularly afraid of this; I just find recruitment staggeringly rude, which is why I don't endorse it. And, of course, I don't think the LDS church is based on the "Truth," which is why I don't applaud when people decide to join. But I don't think any of you are going to suddenly wind up turning into drooling zombies now, any more than you did when you joined up in the first place; I think that's a ridiculous worry, and am genuinely irritated when I see signs of that fear in other people whom I otherwise respect.
Tom, what I like about Hatrack, and have always liked about Hatrack, is the heterogeneity of the forum members, and the different religions and viewpoints we represent. If Hatrack became a predominantly LDS forum and/or I felt that there was pressure to become LDS, frankly, I would not stick around. I would also not stick around if the discussions turned into predominantly LDS topics. That's not what I'm here for.
So far I haven't seen that the individuality of Mormon Hatrackers, whether newly converted or longterm church members, has been threatened by being members of the church. I don't fear that will happen - I agree with you on that point.
I guess what I fear is a forum in which I will feel constantly left out due to subtle LDS references and nudges that only the initiated "get." Maybe it's a rediculous worry, but it's a real one, and it could be enough to drive me away from Hatrack, if too much of that starts to happen.
[ June 08, 2004, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I like the multi-faceted discussions that take place on Hatrack and the ideas expressed by all the people on this board (regardless of their religion). I remember talking to Ela recently about how awful I think Hatrack would be if its members were all Mormon. I need more diversity than that. I also appreciate diversity among Mormons (which I see a lot of here - we don't all agree on hardly anything, I don't think).
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote:I guess what I fear is a forum in which I will feel constantly left out due to subtle LDS references and nudges that only the initiated "get." Maybe it's a rediculous worry, but it's a real one, and it could be enough to drive me away from Hatrack, if too much of that starts to happen.
i would like to point out that any references made on this site are all about things that ANYONE, lds or no, can find out about and openly discuss. things that are not publicly discussed on this board are not publicly discussed anywhere, not even at an lds meetinghouse.
i personally make a point not to make such references because to me it defies the purpose of hatrack---at least the purpose of hatrack to me. that purpose is to communicate with people different than myself in many areas, while sharing common threads of a thirst for knowledge, a pleasure in open exchange of ideas, and perhaps sci fi. i would assume that the recent upsurge in lds topics would simply be because a few regular posters joined the church and just like most things in their life they decided to share with the board. i was happy for them, not because "another recruit!" but because they seemed to find something that brought them some joy in this existence. or a sense of purpose. i think that is wonderful. i felt honored to have them share this with me and am always interested in what most everyone has to say, regardless of their religious affiliation.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Okay, before we go any farther, can you honestly tell me that you DON'T find the organization and titles of the LDS church at least a LITTLE silly?
You used 'Home Teacher' as an example. What do they do? They go to a member's home and teaches. It's...pretty straight forward. Coming up with afunky special 'cool sounding' title would be even more silly, methinks.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:i would like to point out that any references made on this site are all about things that ANYONE, lds or no, can find out about and openly discuss. things that are not publicly discussed on this board are not publicly discussed anywhere, not even at an lds meetinghouse.
porce, this struck me as a very defensive response. I am not attacking you or anything about LDS. I am expressing a fear that I have. People do not always feel free to inquire about every reference, especially if they think they are outnumbered. I am not saying that this is the case for me, yet. Try to understand, instead of reacting as though I am attacking, please.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The thing hatrack mormons have been trying to say
All your base are belong to us.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
i'm sorry it sounded so defensive, ela. i guess i feel a little on the defense after responding to tom, because honestly i have never felt the need nor desire to defend my faith before, but then again i have never had someone i respected speak so resentfully and full of mockery towards something that is a part of me. i know you weren't attacking anyone, and i DO understand your concern. it may not make a whole lot of sense, but i felt SO out of place in utah. i spent my whole life being one of three mormon kids in a whole high school, and one of those other kids was my brother! i've been the only white girl on the bus, the only girl at the show, and the only american at a party. i know inside jokes and cultural references can definitely exclude people, but i suppose my back was still raised about the whole secrecy thing and wanted to make sure it was understood that there is no secrecy in what is discussed here at hatrack. i feel left outof certain topics, and if hatrack became a mormon forum i would leave, too. i have always enjoyed your family's presence on the board, and would be very upset if you didn't feel comfortable here, but i would also feel upset if people held my religion against me or made spiteful generalizations about my spiritual beliefs when they supposedly like my participation in this community. i think i have lost my point, so in conclusion, i do not feel attacked by you, ela, and i don''t think hatrack is hopping in a handbasket, and i empathize with a lot more than people realize. and i need a freakin' chocolate covered cherry, STAT.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
::hands out chocolate covered cherries to porce and all others in attendance::
porce, you are one of many on the forum with whom I have always felt comfortable. I have always enjoyed reading your viewpoints and interacting with you on the forum.
Glad we have that settled. Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The thing hatrack mormons have been trying to say --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All your base are belong to us.
Scott, if you keep your base to yourself, I promise to send you a bottle of zhug. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The thing hatrack mormons have been trying to say --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All your base are belong to us. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott, if you keep your base to yourself, I promise to send you a bottle of zhug.
What you say?!?
-Bok
Posted by CATS (Member # 5758) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The thing hatrack mormons have been trying to say --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All your base are belong to us. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott, if you keep your base to yourself, I promise to send you a bottle of zhug. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you say?!?
-Bok
HA HA HA HA...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Someone set us up the bomb!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
What I've been too afraid to try to say:
It's been pointed out, and I'd like to reinforce it, that individually, LDS members are fantastic. I have to say, every single person I've met who I found out was LDS has been a truly wonderful person. Not just full of faith, but also kind, generous, and careful of other people. I think that if a subculture in America can produce such genuinely nice people, it must have something positive going for it.
And while I find individual LDS members absolutely wonderful to be around, I do have a vague sense of "not-rightness" about the LDS church itself. And I have to explain that quickly because I don't mean "oh, you all are wrong about God" or "wrong about Jesus." I think EVERYONE is wrong about God and Jesus, so I don't really put the LDS in any special category on that score.
Where I have my issues with the LDS are in things like rejection of the "worldly," the continued sense of "persecution" despite the fact that you all have become a major religion, the vast ownership of land by the church (a mistake that I think the Catholic church made in prior centuries and that will come to haunt you in the future), and a certain survivalist undercurrent in much of what I hear. Not overt, mind you, but it's definitely there.
I can understand the isolationism following persecution. It makes perfect sense. But to me it is an immature attitude. A reasonable reaction to things of the past, but a reaction nonetheless and not really in line with current reality.
I have lots of problems doctrinally, but that stuff just stops me from considering ever becoming LDS. As I've said, these barriers are in no way unique to the LDS church. Most doctrines squick me out in some way or another.
This other stuff makes me a little uncomfortable with the LDS church in general. Not in any way that would make me shun or persecute Mormons, mind you, but in a way that makes me wonder about ultimate motivators. Add to that the somewhat closed nature of your proceedings, and the result is that there's nothing in my experience or in the experience of anyone who could be considered an impartial third party that would address the concerns.
And it's not concerns over much more than that your church seems to have decided that if the world goes to Hell in a handbasket, you'll have the resources to pick up the pieces and survive. Not bad to plan ahead. But it puts a stamp on your church's decisions. Anticipating disaster, as we've all seen since September 11, 2001, is a state of mind that colors ones perceptions of the world.
As I've said, this is nothing that any individual LDS member has ever communicated to me. I find most LDS people to be happy and productive, not focussed on the end times and staring fixedly at the coming disaster. Heck, y'all have children, so the fact that your church is focussed on the end of civilization must not bug you too much, right?
But the overall tenor of the Church's teachings and plans, as I have come to understand them, tends toward that mode of thinking.
I know this sounds like criticism and some might take it personally. I hope not. But if so, I hope you'll forgive. Chances are you'll just think I'm wrong and misinformed. And then you'll try to inform me. But, you see, it's not something an individual LDS member or a collective group of LDS members could ever hope to cure IN ME!
It's really that I understand your vision of eternity (as the church teaches it) and what is in store for the Earth, and I find it completely and utterly depressing.
To be fair, let me quickly add that I find the more mainstream Christian idea of Heaven fairly depressing too. And the concept of Heaven & Hell even more so.
Fortunately for my ability to continue in my path & my faith, I also realize that most of what I find depressing is the stuff that I can easily convince myself is made up by men.
Since I reject the notion that God dictated scripture, I feel fairly free to select those parts of it that are not uplifting. Not exactly mainstream theologically, of course, and it makes me eminently burnable at the stake, should the Inquisition ever be reinstated. But there it is.
And why have I been afraid to say this stuff? Because I don't want people I consider to be friends thinking I'm looking down on them. I'm not. Really I'm not.
Because, not only am I convinced that we ALL have it wrong. I'm convinced that I can't even begin to get it right. That the TRUTH is so much more bizarre than I can conceive of, that it is almost not worth trying.
But that's a big ALMOST. The fact is, it is worth trying. Because by trying to understand it all, we improve ourselves and get closer to what God really wants us to become, whatever that is.
I am just convinced that if I find it, it will not be depressing. To me personally, the answer will be uplifting and interesting and instantly fill me with the joy of discovery and the joy of knowledge.
I haven't found a major religion yet that has a view of the afterlife or the end of days that comes close to meeting that criterion. And thus none of it rings TRUE.
Does that mean I can't belong to any particular faith? Not necessarily. It does mean that I have to belong to a faith that has a mechanism for change.
You've all heard me admire the LDS church's mechanism for change in the past. The living prophet "idea" I think is a brilliant one.
I also admire the United Methodist Church because of the General Conference and how it makes change possible.
I used to admire the Baptists and other congregational churches because of their lack of central doctrine because I thought that meant there was a hope for grassroots movements within the church. But I found out what it really meant was schism if a movement got too big, and silent death for most movements. So I think the Baptists have actually hit upon a way to stifle change, not absorb it eventually, and certainly not ever embrace it.
Ah well...have I rambleed enough.
Have I said anything to get this post or thread deleted?
I hope not.
Hope you are all NOT fuming at me now.
I especially hope that those of you who liked me before still like me now.
Because I like you as individuals, not as representatives of a church. And I also think you all reflect well on a church whose members I deeply respect and admire.
- Bob
edit to add the NOT a few lines above. Ooops!
[ June 08, 2004, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
From my limited experience, Tom D. has caused a lot more people to pack up and leave than the number of Mormons who happen to be here has. Just a personal observation.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
bob, i have always appreciated your participation in this community, and you have in no way detered that appreciation. thank you for your comments, those are sentiments most people can understand.
i can only speak for myself, but i'm still up for a party. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I appriciate your comments Bob and can see how our "in the world, but not of it" can get outsiders squicked. Interesting enough, the end times has depressed me too. Sadly, current events as I see them don't exactly bring me to a personal sense of hope that things are going to be all right. And, even worse, books and statements by non-Mormons both religious and atheistic does not help remove the "historic persectution" complex that the Mormons inherited. Some of them are downright "Mien Kamph" and "Protocals of the Elders of Israel" like.
Like the leader of our church, I am glad and should feel happy that the dark days of the Church are long past. However, it is scary to compare some of the things said in the popular press with those said during those "dark days" of persecution. The differences are often sadly minor. So, I will keep my "persection complex" as soon as things go from "I like Mormons, but. . . " into "I like Mormons, and just disagree with . . . "
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Bob, you know I like you and always have even when I disagreed with you (and of course this time is no different). I am, however, going to have to take strong exception to the idea that the Church is focused around the end of the world, or anything similarly depressing. The Church is focused around the attonenment of Jesus Christ our Savior.
Hobbes Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
Is it good or bad that I had no idea that Porce is "mormon"?
I didn't find Tom or Bob's comments very uncharacteristic of what I understand about their beliefs. But I did miss yesterday's thread.
I agree with Ela that usages like "heathen" are offensive, not to mention inaccurate. Mormons have been known to call all non-mormons "gentiles" including (with unaware irony on some parts) Jews.
I do have one mormon acquaintance who has chosen celibacy over starting a family due to anxiety over the end of days. And that is considered pretty peculiar. The missing data that resolves our procreation with our expectation of the Apocalypse is that we don't think death is the worst thing that can happen to a person. Though killing an innocent person is still the worst sin of commission (thus why me and some other LDS on this board don't support capital punishment).
As far as heaven and hell goes, I personally believe that most people will go to their concept of heaven and feel pretty okay there, except for those who will be tormented by having a clear view of what they have done in this life. Areligious people will dwell with a loving aphysical presence. Christians will dwell with a resurrected Jesus. The Celestial Kingdom would be a pretty disturbing place for those with trinitarian theology. I believe fire and brimstone is a metaphor for guilt and remorse.
And I think that Home Teachers would be more effective if dubbed "Apostacy Avengers" and fitted with spandex and capes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Let me just comment on
quote: the continued sense of "persecution" despite the fact that you all have become a major religion
Down in the south, I have seriously had people surprised that I didn't have horns. Yes, kids had been taught by their parents that Mormons have horns, "just like the devil."
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Catholics do too.
Actually, the KKK used to also persecute catholics.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Who didn't they?
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Funny, mph. I've always pictured you with horns too. Just kidding, of course! It amazes me that parents would teach their children something like that.
space opera
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> I think EVERYONE is wrong about God and Jesus, so I don't really put the LDS in any special category on that score. <<
This is why Bob_S is one of my favourite people to listen to on the subject of religion.
I agree, in a large part, with both Tom's and Bob's posts. I won't add anything of my own, though; I don't like to talk about religion on Hatrack, just listen.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'd like to interject a couple thoughts.
A persecution complex isn't necessarily a bad thing. Its kept Jews alive over the last 1500 years. The problem is, it DOES make the community insular. And thats a problem that will dog LDS until the church figures out that not letting non-members into certain rites is more destructive then any good that comes out of it. Doing THAT will keep persecution alive and well, forever.
Obviously, for whatever reason, Mormons attach great importance to their rituals and their secrecy. But things done in secret inevitably cause fear. Jews have found this out, to our sorrow, and so did early christian martyrs. The longer rituals are done in secret, the longer fear will linger about those rituals.
Tom makes a good point about the insularity of the LDS church. It IS insular, and it DOES encourage insularity. THe fact you can't see that from the inside is unsurprising, if you don't see it, and if you do see it, it probably seems like strong community bonding, which it is. The flip side of having a strong community, is that it doesn't allow non-community members as much access to the members of the community, when members gather. Its the same thing that has dogged jews.
Personally, I agree with Tom in that LDS I have met have been wonderful people, but in clumps, I don't want to be near them. I never feel respected, or welcomed. I also have very large problems with certain aspects of LDS theology. You may have noticed this at times...
I want to stress that most LDS are wonderful people. But I think you should be aware that the path your church has chosen is the one that has caused jews world wide so much grief over the centuries, in terms of the insularity of the community.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, I would disagree with Paul. I think having a community that is strong and independent is a GOOD thing, regardless of how it may look to outsiders. I don't think insularity, for its own sake, is advised; however, sometimes it is necessary to protect the community from influences that are harmful.
I would argue that what has kept Jews alive for 2000+ years is not paranoia or a persecution complex. Rather, it is an ability to know who we are, and take pride in that knowledge. Assimilation into the surrounding culture means DEATH for the absorbed culture.
Insularity is not the problem (although it surely does cause problems of its own). Things which weaken the community are.
[ June 08, 2004, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
A strong vibrant independent community is a good thing, but only if it can also connect with the outside community, and I think thats where the LDS church fails.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I was totally unaware of this tension on Hatrack, and I wish to apologize if I have been one of the offenders. I don't always know how someone else will take my words, and I know that I have not hesitated to discuss my beliefs openly.
I have not particularly felt that tons of the other LDS Hatrack members have been right there beside me saying, "Yeah! We agree with you!" But I have seen a lot of agreement from a lot of people on a variety of different topics. There are a lot of people on this site who dislike Bush. There seem (to me) to be more vocality from liberals than conservatives. Should I feel threatened by that?
quote: deliberate rejection of the outside world.
Huh. I am surprised at this sentiment. I can understand many of the terminologies and cultural idiosyncricies making people feel like outsiders, but I never thought of it as being deliberate. It is as though you villify their intentions.
Mormons are a close-knit bunch and it isn't surprising that a unique culture would arise out of that. Especially in areas like Utah where there are so many. A lot of LDS roll their eyes at "Utah Mormons" for reasons such as those. The culture seems so "stagnant". It is one of the things I dislike about living here. Too much is the same. It is comfortable, being as I am LDS, but not very interesting. That is why I come here (Hatrack)! I love it. There are a lot of LDS and I enjoy that, but what I really enjoy is the wide spectrum of differing backgrounds and points of view. I have never gone to Nauvoo.com because it doesn't sound very interesting.
I think it is wonderful when there is diversity. I love learning about how different people view the world. I love sharing how I view it (and my faith is often a part of that) and I don't mind when people disagree. Like Bob, Tom, Twinky, and countless others. But it does make me feel sad when you insinuate motivations that I don't think are present, like in the above statement.
I do appreciate all of you who have had the courage to openly discuss your discomfort. I really admire that. I wish people felt more comfortable expressing their feelings because people here do such a good job of expressing those feelings in a respectful way and of not being quick to take offense.
I think it is interesting that there are a lot of similarities between the Jews and the Mormons in this respect in having a culture that arises out of being close-knit group and people feeling threatened by that. So are people on Hatrack threatened by Mormons but not by Jews? Why is that? Is it because of the terrible suffering the Jews have faced and that it is considered extremely rude and un-PC to even suggest anything bad about them? Is it because of the fact that what goes on in the LDS temples is not ever discussed outside the temple? Is it that Mormons proselyte and Jews don't? Is this a Hatrack issue because there are more Mormons than Jews on Hatrack? I guess since I don't at all feel threatened or suspicious of Jews I really wonder why people feel that way about Mormons. I don't get it.
I guess I worry that deep down, the people who have these concerns do see us negatively, even in a sinister light, despite the respect they have for individual Mormons.
[ June 08, 2004, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: And thats a problem that will dog LDS until the church figures out that not letting non-members into certain rites is more destructive then any good that comes out of it.
This statement expresses to me a misunderstanding of why the temple rites are guarded. It assumes alterior motives. The church certainly doesn't care if it bothers people, it is a very, very, important, key part of the faith. Assuming the LDS church's doctrine is a bunch of bunk and the first leaders "made up" the temple rites in order to control people, the fact is LDS today believe in these things deeply. It is not done for effect or to put anyone off. And just because it puts people off isn't going to stop anyone. Would you stop your traditions if they put me off?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
As far as I understand it, The Mormons are the only religion in America to have had an officially government sanctioned Extermination Order set out against them. That may have something to do with the history of persecution complexes.
[ June 08, 2004, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I am thinking about Paul's linking secret rites with persecution. Seems to me that the Masons are fairly well respected, except perhaps by those with religious reservations or those who worry about conspiracies. They don't bother me at all. The only secret societies that would bother me are those that use their secrecy to do evil in secret: murder, theft, etc. So do people have such concerns about Mormon's deep down?
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
I'm sure the websites that "expose" the temple rites are accurate. It wouldn't be that hard to sneak into a temple if that is what one really wanted to do. But it would be as pointless as a professional sports match is to me. Some things you have to want to understand to find them interesting.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote: And I think that Home Teachers would be more effective if dubbed "Apostacy Avengers" and fitted with spandex and capes.
Oh sweet jes-ooos . . . that was too good.
As I was saying earlier in some other thread, the home teachers that kept calling and showing up unannounced (and being gently told no, thank you, I have a church home) sent me a letter announcing the end of my membership in the LDS church, including the revocation of my baptism.
When I got through the initial shock and then done laughing, I thought - how sad! They don't even want to know why I chose a different path. They are closing the door on building understanding and mutual respect and healing.
That's okay - I'll continue to work with our local inter/intrafaith organization. And my church home for the last decade is perfectly happy to accept me for who I am - which is a lovely blessing - even when we disagree or when I choose something that is not "doctrinal".
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
It is easy to dismiss a group of people's "persecution complex" when you've never belonged to the group and never experienced the persecution. It's just as easy for some white people to make fun of black people's "persecution complex".
Personally, I don't love the fact that churches in southern California offer classes in how to argue with Mormons and tear down their beliefs. I don't love that anti-Mormon organizations advertise on street corners and at public fairs. I don't love being called a Satanist, a liar, or a deluded chump.
I also don't think about it most of the time Am I persecuted? Yeah, sometimes. Do I have a complex about it? Not really.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"This statement expresses to me a misunderstanding of why the temple rites are guarded"
Perhaps I should clarify.
To ME, and to people OUTSIDE the church, why the temple rites are gaurded doesn't really matter, in terms of the effect that gaurded religious rites can have on the fears of a population. It doesn't make me think you're killing babies and using their blood to make matzah. Nor will it make most posters on hatrack think that. But it does cause that SORT of complex. Things in secret either get ridiculed, or feared, and often both.
" It is not done for effect or to put anyone off. And just because it puts people off isn't going to stop anyone. Would you stop your traditions if they put me off?"
I'm not telling you, or even asking you, to stop. I'm asking you to understand that certain parts of your doctrine have effects on the outside world, and asking you to understand what those effects might be.
"It is not done for effect or to put anyone off."
I know its not. But it doesn't matter why you do it, in terms of how its perceived... it matters why people THINK you do it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: They don't even want to know why I chose a different path.
Doesn't sound like you were making it very easy for them to understand.
There is no shortage of close-mindedness among LDS, as in any large group of people. Is it even more common among LDS? Perhaps. I really don't know.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Paul, I think what is bothering me about your post is the "Why do you make people so suspicious of you?" idea - that there won't be tolerance until people stop doing the stuff that makes people decide it's okay to ostracize them. Like the law in France where the solution to the problem of Muslims being harassed in schools is to forbid head scarves so they are harder to identify. It takes the responsibility for the emotion away from the people who are indulging in the emotion.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, Paul, I think it is very understandable that it would bother people, but I don't understand why people let it bother them. Does that make sense?
It really doesn't bother me when someone has secret rites. Sure it makes me curious, but I respect their desire to keep their rites secret. But at the same time it doesn't surprise me at all that lots of people would be bothered by it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Paul, I think what is bothering me about your post is the "Why do you make people so suspicious of you?" idea - that there won't be tolerance until people stop doing the stuff that makes people decide it's okay to ostracize them. Like the law in France where the solution to the problem of Muslims being harassed in schools is to forbid head scarves so they are harder to identify. It takes the responsibility for the emotion away from the people who are indulging in the emotion.
Moreover, I think history clearly indicates that it isn't TRUE. Refuse to assimilate, and be labeled "different," "strange," "dangerous"; assimilate, and people will be sure you are part of a hidden conspiracy, secretly controlling the media -- oh, and "different," "strange," and "dangerous."
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Well, beverly - if they wanted to know, they could ask. Which they never bothered to do. *shrugs*
But see - there you have it - a prime example of the insularuty of the "in-group" opinion and methods.
A very nice demonstration if you ask me - Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I don't want to necessarily blame this on the influx of LDS, but I've seen a trend of self-righteousness on Hatrack that generally accompanies a strong religious self-identity. It doesn't have to, of course, and it's not a 'given', but certainly can be tendency and downfall of the proudly religious, and especially within a religion that on some levels separates itself to protect its ideals.
I'm fairly religious, myself, and in a religion that practices similar methods, so this is no slam on being theologically inclined. However, at a place like Hatrack, it just isn't necessary to come in with a badge and flash it at everyone. As conversations organically happen, so will the expression of your ideals and your identity.
It's like that joke that goes, "How can you tell within five minutes if someone is from New York?"
"They'll tell you."
If I know a person's religious affiliation even before I know their userhandle, I mentally role my eyes. And usually these people are the most practiced at unabashedly slamming everyone else's beliefs while simultaneously crying foul play at the smallest perceived insult. Admittedly, this turn for the alternately warm and fuzzy/righteously indignant has turned me off of many threads on Hatrack, and pushed me into hiatus mode a couple of times.
I don't believe this is necessarily LDS culture, or the religion, or them as a group. I honestly don't know enough of about the culture, religion, and society to state that these would be to blame. But I will say that if you're USED to standing out or being 'different', adopting a sort of abrasive reverse elitism is often a reality. And this is very off-putting to non-members.
Of course, then you have the Lalos (you know you're a pain in the ass, man, so don't even get defensive on this one) who act just as righteously indignant on the other side in an areligious sense. And the conservative self-identified Christians who come in to say "homosexuality is wrong cause it just IS!" and argue vehemently that LDS and any other religion they don't understand can't be Christian no matter what. And then you have the Scott R.'s who are so awesome that they make one want to run off to Mexico with them after a single post, and not just to get good prices on medical care (if you know what I mean).
And, actually, it could also just as easily be a bi-product of those damned smileys...
I'm sorry, what were we talking about again.
[ June 09, 2004, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Maybe it's because they are men. Men don't like to talk about "feelings". But seriously, I think Visiting Teachers (female version of Home Teachers) would probably try to understand where someone is coming from before "giving up". I think a lot of Home Teachers would too, but girls are a little better at verbal communication.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
That floors me. Why WOULDN'T they ask?
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
Excommunication for non attendance/attending elsewhere just boggles my mind. That happened to my aunt as well. I can't imagine the doctrinal justification for it. Whereas I know of at least one scripture (2 Nephi 26:24-26) that says God does not turn any away who come unto him.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I wouldn't think gender an excuse for simply not asking someone what had caused them to change their beliefs.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Thank you, Ralphie, for your thoughts and comments.
Mack - there's a long story behind it which is probably best shared via e-mail. Suffice to say that I dared to question certain behaviors and actions on the part of an Elder when I was 20.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Okay.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Shan:
quote:...sent me a letter announcing the end of my membership in the LDS church, including the revocation of my baptism...
That's awful. At least seventeen LDS church leaders would have had to drop the ball for that letter to find its way to your mailbox without you getting a say in the matter.
[ June 09, 2004, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: skillery ]
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
I think as a phenomenon, the Mormon saturation is not a lot different from when the LOTR fans start hitting on each other in Elvish.
P.S. One can tell them that one doesn't believe a sane adult can think that's cool, and they get all het up like you called their Grandma "George" or something.
[ June 09, 2004, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: skrika03 ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, I am puzzled at the suddenness of the letter also. I don't know much about how such things are supposed to be done, but that doesn't sound like it.
I am mostly joking when I talk about men being empty-headed and bungling this because of a lack of communication skills. There are plenty of stereotypes out there of the "inept" home teachers dropping the ball. Stereotypes of inept visiting teachers also. But I don't know anything about the situation here. There are always at least 2 sides to every story.
On a side note about all the titles and names for everything, I think that is a side-effect of how highly organized the LDS church is. If you knew the extent of it, you might exclaim that we are a church of anal-retentives. They keep record of *everything*. I personally think it is pretty cool.
[ June 09, 2004, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Would it help our interaction to have a glossary of all the terms used by the various faiths represented here? Put the glossary in a sticky thread at the top of the forum?
Or should newbies be informed that when using religious jargon they need to explain the terms they use? That would seem like common courtesy when entering a forum for the first time, but with the Cards in charge of this one, newbies may assume that everybody already knows all the words.
I think we need to address the issue of religious jargon because the issue came up early in this thread and seemed to rankle almost everybody.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
How about people stop thinking it's a religious site instead of a special interest one based on a sci-fi/fantasy writer, and use religious jargon extremely sparingly. Like everyone else does.
Then no one is rankled.
[ June 09, 2004, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
most people on the forum put explanations with jargon they may feel others are unfamiliar with, otherwise people ask. that goes with anything, not necessarily religious topics. a glossary is a little superfluous.
skrika, you probably didn't realize i was mormon because out of the five years i've been at hatrack i've probably mentioned it all of six times, perhaps twice in the past two years. i tend to avoid most religious-debate type threads, as i feel they are mostly counterproductive. for example... Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
There are lots of terms and new things to learn about Judaism also. Just look at the thread "Ask the Rebbetzin". Is that really a reason for such concern? We just need a "Mormon terminology" thread or something, like skillery said. People should feel as comfortable asking questions about Mormons as they do about Jews.
We don't bite-- haaaard.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Hey, Sara!
You and me - we got RESPECT. KnowhatI'msayin.
edit:
quote:There are lots of terms and new things to learn about Judaism also. Just look at the thread "Ask the Rebbetzin". Is that really a reason for such concern? We just need a "Mormon terminology" thread or something, like skillery said. People should feel as comfortable asking questions about Mormons as they do about Jews.
There's been about four million. For the record.
(Threads about LDS theology, not Jews. Maybe fifty Jews, tops.)
[ June 09, 2004, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
get on aim, you goober.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Can't. :/
But I'm sending Ralphie Luv your way. For serious.
Send me an e-mail or summin'. I still answer those. Sometimes. dandadodge@comcast.net
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
right, right. it's okay, ralphie, you can just say it. it's because i don't drink coffee. right? RIGHT??!!
jerk.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
What? You don't drink coffee?!
What are you, MORMON?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Nah, it's totally the alcohol, not coffee.
[Addit] Cuz if you won't drink coffee, I'll just have your share.[/addit]
[ June 09, 2004, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ralphie, but there doesn't have to be four million. There only needs to be one. I tried to start a thread asking questions about Jewish theology and practices, and I was kindly routed to the one main thread. If there were a similar thing for LDS questions, we could keep the mess all in one place. Why does it have to be treated so differently? This is my whole point.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Bev - If you could keep all the LDS discussion in one thread, I may actually believe you are the chosen people.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Beverly, there have been LDS question threads that have gone to fourteen pages. And I don’t think anyone here has ever felt uncomfortable asking questions about LDS theology. Nor have I noticed any of the LDS Hatrackers feeling uncomfortable about answering them. Sometimes when they weren’t even being asked. (To be fair, that last statement has never been true of Hatrack regulars. But we do get waves of newbies who pop into various threads, even non-religions ones, with “Well the LDS church teaches . . .”
And frankly, almost every religious thread turns into an LDS thread around here, just by virtue of the number of LDS posters compared to any other single religious group.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, Ralphie, I was just thinking about that. Many of the discussions on LDS theology can get pretty long.
I wonder why that is? More LDS Hatrack members? More desire to discuss things? More chaffing? Hmmm. Thinking aloud.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Porce, it's totally because you won't drink beer. I mean, duh. Look where Ralphie lives. It's all about the microbrews.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: And frankly, almost every religious thread turns into an LDS thread around here, just by virtue of the number of LDS posters compared to any other single religious group.
And a number of non-religious threads as well. I know I have been to blame for that. I can totally see how that could be annoying.
Posted by BlueJacsFan (Member # 6590) on :
Part of the problem on the terminology thing is that the same term may be used by different groups. Case in point, one of the threads over the last couple of days referenced the "omnipotence" of God. As the conversation went on, it became obvious that "omnipotent" in the Mormon terminoloy doesn't quite mean what I think it means (i.e. all-powerful, no restrictions).
"That word you keep using -- I do not think it means what you think it means."
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
i think it's because she wants my hot body, but is too ashamed to admit it. my beauty makes her uncomfortable. she's had me on her desktop for years. don't believe that poorly constructed lie on the desktop history thread.
edit: i think you know i am way too lazy to email you. it's all about the real time convos. yes, i sense the irony.
[ June 09, 2004, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: porcelain girl ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
That explains everything.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: And, actually, it could also just as easily be a bi-product of those damned smileys...
Bi-product - a product that swings both ways?
Yeah, I know it's irrelevant but it amused me...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I would like to point out that I never once used the phrase "persecution complex" and, I believe quite appropriately, put my comments about a "sense of persecution" in true and respectful context pretty far afield from what is generally implied when one uses the phrase "persecution complex."
I wasn't trying to be subtle in my post folks. I wasn't hinting that I thought y'all suffered from a persecution complex. I do believe there's a historical precedent that colors your perceptions, however. And that's not a "complex." It's a fact of existence. One that has its parallels in the newfound security consciousness of the US post-9/11. It may "increase safety" but it also shapes a view of the world that is no more true than the one that largely ignored terrorism prior to that fateful day.
And the irony is that while I didn't use that phrase, so many of y'all did.
And maybe that's because you assumed that's what I was thinking.
Or maybe it's just because you don't really have another way of interpreting the world.
The Christian Right Wing is going through a similar thing now. The "we are under attack" mentality has taken hold of them. And now they see it everywhere. And all events are interpreted in light of the belief that Christianity is under attack.
So, things that are simple attempts at fairness in public institutions become fresh attacks on God-fearing Christians.
I understand where they are coming from. I just don't think they have a rational basis for their current mindset.
And I daresay that is also true of the LDS church. The current suffering from verbal "slings and arrows" is not the same as the historical experience of being burned out of your villages or having a government edict against your existence.
Beware, because out of such beliefs can arise paranoia. Out of paranoia, fear. And out of fear, any number and depth of horrible behaviors are possible. The very things that were done TO you can end being done BY you in the name of safety.
That's what I worry about most with this country. I have no opinion on it with regard to the LDS church. But I see us as a Nation using security concerns (paranoia in large part) to excuse a raft of behaviors that would've horrified us a few years ago. And I'm not just talking about prisoner abuse. That's bad enough. I'm also talking about official statements that rules against torture don't apply in some cases. Like the "rules" are different if you're really really scared of a particular enemy.
The sense of persecution does do something to your psyche. And its up to you whether that is a good thing or not. You decide what influences you want in your lives, not me. It doesn't matter a hill of beans if I understand it, or if I would feel persecuted if I were in your shoes. What matters is that you live it or not.
I want our country to find a way to feel less afraid even in the face of further terrorist attacks. Because I think we become irrational and warped when we become afraid. It's understandable. And bad for us.
And once again, let me say that I meant no criticism.
In fact, there is only one criticism I have of the LDS members I encounter here at Hatrack. And that is that you all see anything less than a glowing positive statement about the LDS church AS a criticism. And you rush to the defense.
Again, only natural. But it makes discussion difficult.
And it is immature. As in you are a young faith, not as in childish.
But the fact is, you've already grown out of this. And it's annoying.
Just as America's continuing to act like a newbie nation has gotten tiresome to the rest of the world. We're old enough to know better. And yet we still run off half-cocked and get really upset if anyone disagrees with us.
It is immature. We are acting less than our age.
And I probably won't be posting back in this thread anymore because: 1) People latched on to something I DIDN'T say, 2) Made it into something far more negative than my words would EVER warrant. and 3) I don't want to be a source of pain or hurt to any of you.
I thought I was being clear. But even me at my most clear is something seen as through a glass darkly sometimes. I just don't have the words to express my horror at being thougt of as someone who would accuse a persecuted people of having a persecution complex. That anyone would think me that insensitive really does hurt.
[ June 09, 2004, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote: Bi-product - a product that swings both ways?
Yeah, I know it's irrelevant but it amused me...
Every time I drive near a Bi-Mart I think their slogan should be, "Bi-Mart... Curious?"
[ June 09, 2004, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*snort*
Bob...your puns cause me pain. Just so you know.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Ralphie
I needed that.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Bob, two does not a plethora make. I personally think you are overreacting on this particular matter, and I mean that in the nicest way possible.
But I haven't been around here very long, and I imagine there has been lots of bad blood that I haven't seen. Sometimes just a little thing can be "too much".
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I hope I have never made anyone feel uncomfortable for whatever their religious affiliation or lack of one may be.
I also hope anything I say on hatrack is taken as being representative of just me, and not representative of LDS people or females or engineers or any other group to which I may belong. After all, we know each other, here, don't we? We are individuals to one another, or so I hope and have always thought.
I really truly hope I've never come across as being exclusive of anyone. If so I apologize heartily and would like a chance to make amends.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Small digression, cause there is something I don't really understand, though I don't think it needs a separate thread.
Out of curiosity, how many people are there in Utah? Over 2 million? It's like a small country in itself. There are European countries just as small.
When people speak about the Utah culture, how different is it from Poland which - though much bigger - is 90+ % catholic, and yet I don't find it boring or stale. Or take Silesia, the area where I live,which might be comprable in terms of population - very homogenous, with most people from exactly the same backround and upbringing. So where does this feeling about Utah come from?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Bob, I'm not dead certain what you think we're supposed to do. I mean, we're not being burned out of our homes anymore, so we don't stock loaded weapons and we don't keep ourselves prepared to leave town at a moment's notice.
But we do face a lot of questions and verbal attacks over the course of our lives, and so we typically get a bit jumpy about it, and make sure we know the answers to the questions. This isn't because we've cultivated or maintained some artificial sense of persecution. It's because we've learned from experience that a certain degree of expectation and preparation can help us out when the persecution does happen.
Personally, I don't think the Mormon "sense of persecution" is a major problem, compared with the others that have come up in this thread. It's a defense mechanism, and an understandable one for a group of people that still make up only 1% of the population of the country, and individually experience persecution, not on a daily basis, or even on a monthly basis, but often enough to make us somewhat wary. Wariness isn't a fault, as far as I've seen ...
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Kama, I think it comes, in part, from the general disdain that America has for quaint or old-fashioned versions of its own culture. Utahns cultivate a culture of order, family unity, adherence to rules, conformity, etc, that reminds many Americans of the 1950's. Since we all know from watching movies that the 1950's were the worst time ever in history Utah must therefore be an insipid and obnoxious place.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Since we all know from watching movies that the 1950's were the worst time ever in history
Hey! What about Pleasantville? The girl chose to stay after all..
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
I still don't see how the presence of an "LDS group" here is any worse than the presence of other groups. I often feel left out of various groups here because (1) I don't live in the correct region to get together with anybody; (2) I don't think Strongbad is funny; (3) I actually like Bush; (4) I'm not interested in Mafia, Begging the Question, Last Post, or any of the other game threads; (5) I'm not a Wench; (6) I have no children, nor am I currently gestating an offspring.
So what if I want to discuss religion, something I actually DO have in common with some people here? I guess we could restrict religious discussions to Nauvoo, but Nauvoo is actually a lousy place to discuss most things, because it was invaded years ago by several closed-minded jerks: most of the really cool posters were driven away at that time, and the board has never quite recovered.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Don't forget the group of people beholden to IM one another They send their little four-word posts and make everyone feel left out ...
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Mormons as a bloc are generally insufferable; Mormons as people, as we've seen on Hatrack over the years, are generally fantastic.
So we're like E. coli? Harmless and even necessary in small quantities, but causing violent diarrhea when populations expand beyond certain levels?
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Thanks, Dog. I don't know how I forgot that group! They're all over the fricking place!
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote: So we're like E. coli? Harmless and even necessary in small quantities, but causing violent diarrhea when populations expand beyond certain levels?
I really don't think the sarcasm is neccessary, Yozhik.
[ June 09, 2004, 06:15 AM: Message edited by: Kama ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:i know inside jokes and cultural references can definitely exclude people, but i suppose my back was still raised about the whole secrecy thing and wanted to make sure it was understood that there is no secrecy in what is discussed here at hatrack.
Unless I'm horribly mistaken, a post I wrote last night replying to this comment was deleted, making the irony a tad amusing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If you knew the extent of it, you might exclaim that we are a church of anal-retentives."
I MIGHT, but I think that would make porce even more mad at me.
--------
Seriously, Yoz, I think there are aspects of the church that, while downright wholesome and healthy and helpful when a minority influence, become oppressive and destructive when majority is attained. This isn't actually an uncommon phenomenon, and certainly not unique to Mormon culture. IMO, as long as Mormons are in the minority, they're a useful voice; once they become the majority, I believe they tend to stagnate very rapidly.
[ June 09, 2004, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Uh, I don't really like the Utah culture, and I don't think it has anything to do with a disdain for order. It's because...there are just as many human weakneses and failings there are anywhere else, and they are justified just as much as anywhere else, only the thing they are using to justify the bigger house than they can afford/posturing/lack of respect for others/chauvinism is a twisting of the gospel. Especially if you're trying to figure out what it means to be a disciple, that can be very confusing when things that are distinctly NOT part of the gospel (women's prayers are always subject to question of the nearest guy around) are passed off as essential.
I hate that.
I don't like the mixing of tradition, culture, and doctrine.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
tra-DITION!!!
(sorry, that's all I can think of now when I hear the word.)
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Thank you Aja, for giving me a much needed laugh at the end of this thread Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
any-TIME!!
Edit: Or maybe "your-WELCOMEEEE!!!!" has a better ring to it.... I'll have to try it the next time I feel a need to explain my people to someone through song and dance.
[ June 09, 2004, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
When I left last night, people were joking about "all your base." When I came back this morning, the thread was to 3 pages.
Richard, I seem to remember your post, on page 1, right? To tell you the truth, I didn't understand it, so I ignored it. Maybe that's an example of the type of unexplained reference we are trying to avoid?
Just wanted to comment on some of the other things people said. For example, Tom seems to have ignored this comment by Occasional, but I admit I am mystified by it:
quote:From my limited experience, Tom D. has caused a lot more people to pack up and leave than the number of Mormons who happen to be here has. Just a personal observation.
Maybe I am just clueless, but I can't think of a single example of someone who left because of Tom. Tom speaks his mind, but it has been my observation that he tries to do it without offending people.
quote:Down in the south, I have seriously had people surprised that I didn't have horns. Yes, kids had been taught by their parents that Mormons have horns, "just like the devil."
Plenty of people think Jews have horns, too, MPH, and not just in the south.
quote:So are people on Hatrack threatened by Mormons but not by Jews? Why is that? Is it because of the terrible suffering the Jews have faced and that it is considered extremely rude and un-PC to even suggest anything bad about them? Is it because of the fact that what goes on in the LDS temples is not ever discussed outside the temple? Is it that Mormons proselyte and Jews don't? Is this a Hatrack issue because there are more Mormons than Jews on Hatrack?
Probably all of the above reasons, beverly.
I want to make a comment, though, about proselytization. I have a tendency to become a bit cautious when first meeting someone of a proselytizing Christian faith, especially when the subject turns to religion. Sometimes I even feel uncomfortable around someone I know well, if they talk about religion a lot and I know they are secretly hoping that I will convert to their way of thinking. Maybe this is because missionaries of many Christian faiths specifically target Jews for conversion. They have tracts specifically aimed at Jews and Jewish way of thinking. So it's a topic that gets my hackles up. (I am not aware of any such programs specifically aimed at Jews within LDS, btw, but I know that the Baptists have one.)
I have a lot more to say, here, but I have to go run and pick up my son from school.
**Ela**
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
This happened a while back, but I've been sick and not on top of things.
Ralphie:
quote:Then no one is rankled.
For some reason, I read this as "Then no one is spanked." Suddenly I had an unexplainable urge to start throwing around religious jargon if that's what it would take to get spanked by Ralphie.
Relief Society! Bishopric! Primary! MTC!
*waits*
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Another thing that rankles is people offering up the sacred or esoteric knowledge of their own faith, or people asking about the sacred knowledge of another faith and refusing to be satisfied.
Of course, making light of that sacred knowledge is offensive.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: But we do face a lot of questions and verbal attacks over the course of our lives, and so we typically get a bit jumpy about it, and make sure we know the answers to the questions.
And where this becomes a problem, and tends to stifle discussion, is when you hear something that sounds like a question or attack you’ve heard before, and go into your pre-prepared answer to it, without reading closely enough to realize that it wasn’t, in fact, an attack, or was a different question altogether. (That was a general “you,” btw, not aimed specifically at Dog.)
I hate generalizing, but I also don’t want to point fingers, so I’m not sure how to phrase this. The “secret” thing is a good example. Anytime the word is used in connection with a religious discussion, whether or not it’s being used as a critique, someone will pop up with the “it’s not secret it’s sacred” defense. I remember that happening when a non-LDS poster was talking about something in his church that is kept secret, and an LDS poster felt the need to post a long defense of LDS “sacred, not secret” things. Which was completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
The same thing happened in the last two baptism threads – in both of them there were posters who came in several pages into the discussion, hadn’t read the thread, but “knew” what all the non-LDS objections to posthumous baptism were and gave their answers to those objections. It seriously made me wonder why I bother writing in-depth posts at all.
**
And now I feel like all I’ve been doing is whining. *sigh* I wouldn’t have brought any of this stuff up on my own. But since the discussion was already going, I had to throw my 2 cents in. *grin*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think...that this is what makes Utah culture so annoying. The very traits and habits of a sub-culture that make it possible to survive are a bit oppressive when it turns into the dominant culture.
When I first came to Hatrack, I honestly don't remember so many Mormons being there. Maybe I wasn't paying attention, or maybe there was a different balance of threads, but for whatever it was, it seemed like the balance of things has changed. That is not bad, but...this is what I was trying to say in the other thread and apparently did not explain well enough.
When the circumstances change, the dynamic needs to. If you're the only Mormon voice amid 20 others, then having only one or two notes is often not bad, and have just one person chime in is heart-warming. Those same characteristics in 10 of the 20 voices is overwhelming. Maybe we need to change from seeing ourselves as a sub-culture here to aknowledging that it's the largest bloc? I'm still not sure if its a majority, but it's definitely the largest coherent bloc.
In that case, the obligations change. There's a responsibility to pay attention outside yourself. There's always that onus, of course, but it's even greater when circumstances have given you a measure of conversational power.
What do you think?
[ June 09, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:So are people on Hatrack threatened by Mormons but not by Jews? Why is that? Is it because of the terrible suffering the Jews have faced and that it is considered extremely rude and un-PC to even suggest anything bad about them? Is it because of the fact that what goes on in the LDS temples is not ever discussed outside the temple? Is it that Mormons proselyte and Jews don't? Is this a Hatrack issue because there are more Mormons than Jews on Hatrack?
When it comes to the issue at hand, non-LDS people at Hatrack feeling left out/threatened by the growing Mormon population here, the proselytizing may be a factor. The LDS church is famous for wanting to expand its flocks, with the huge numbers of missionaries going door-to-door and the encouragement to have as many children as possible. It's no secret that they want people, as many as possible, to join their ranks. Am I wrong?
The religion you've chosen to compare to, on the other hand, has NO apparent interest in drawing in new converts. If anything, I've gotten a sense that the Jewish religion isn't particularly interested in anyone new joining, and they certainly don't seem to actively recruit.
When it comes to a community like this where diversity is supposedly encouraged and differing opinions are the point of conversations, it can seem a little threatening to see the number of members who you know are looking for new recruits suddenly spike.
It's especially unsettling, for me, to see recruitment actually happening here. I grew up in a non-proselytizing faith, and I'm marrying into another one, and the concept of actively trying to convert people is totally foreign and unsettling to me. I know that religions have every right to do it, but it still makes me really uncomfortable to wonder if person X of proselytizing faith Y is going to spring Jesus on me when I'm not looking, or if person Z of p-faith Q is thinking to themselves that I would be way better off as a Q.
[ June 09, 2004, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It's especially unsettling, for me, to see recruitment actually happening here.
Okay, this has come up a few times. Who's actually recruiting?
Everyone who feels they have been pressured or forced into a recruitment conversation when they did not start by asking questions, raise your hand.
I was so floored when Tom accused me of that that I asked Dave if he ever felt pressured. He said yes, but not by any Hatrackers.
I mean, it's like Lalo wandering around soliciting sex on a regular basis. You can always say no.
[ June 09, 2004, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, there are few things worse than a sprung Jesus.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Uh, that's a good example of why people get defensive. For every what-harm-I-didn't-mean-that, there's always someone who thinks profanity is hilarious.
[ June 09, 2004, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Whenever I get too inundated with all things religious I tend to toss out some profanity for good measure to even things out. If only in my own mind.
And boy howdy, I've gotten A LOT more profane in the past few months.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Did the profanity get deleted? I got all excited when Katie mentioned it and kept scrolling up, looking for some. But there wasn't any. Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Are you seriously complaining that what I wrote was profane? Am I not allowed to use the name "Jesus" in a way that isn't 100% reverent and worshipful? What?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I thought she was referring to your sprung Jesus comment.
Which I found both witty and insightful, just so's you know.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Uh, not Ayelar. I meant Tom.
Main Entry: pro·fan·i·ty Pronunciation: prO-'fa-n&-tE, pr&- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties 1 a : the quality or state of being profane
Main Entry: 1pro·fane Pronunciation: prO-'fAn, pr&- Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): pro·faned; pro·fan·ing Etymology: Middle English prophanen, from Latin profanare, from profanus 1 : to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt : DESECRATE 2 : to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use
---
Sorry. There are a few things about which I have no sense of humor. The culture is completely up for grabs, but not everything.
---
Dagnabbit, don't tell me this is going to overshadow what I wrote about the dynamics between community members needing to change when the circumstances do.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
k:"I think...that this is what makes Utah culture so annoying. The very traits and habits of a sub-culture that make it possible to survive are a bit oppressive when it turns into the dominant culture."
I don't know. I think that about 95% of the annoyance factor of Utah Mormon culture comes from one single thing. That thing is confusion between Church and culture.
When the majority of the people in your community are of your faith, it is too easy to look at all of the things you have in common with them as if they, too, were a result of your shared faith. In fact, a lot of the commonalities are likely to be a result of geography, or climate, or history, or the stores you shop at, or the local political scene, or any number of other things. But people don't pay enough attention to that.
So, making the mistaken assumption that it's all about Mormonism, people blunder into all kinds of other errors and end up upsetting a lot of people inadvertently.
Mormons who live in other places easily can see that many of the things they share in common with their neighbors have nothing to do with Mormonism, because they're not Mormons. Likewise, people who convert to Mormonism later in life rather than being raised in it can more easily see what parts of their life are connected to their new faith and which were always there.
I grew up a Utah Mormon, but I hate to be called that. I was shown the difference between my religion and my culture in my early teens, and the process of separating the two in my mind was occasionally a painful one. It left enough scars that, even now, I tend to be overly sensitive about the issue. I get quite perturbed when I hear other Utah-type Mormons make what I consider to be silly mistakes about it. But I also see where they're coming from, so I also try to speak out in their defense when they are lambasted by others, particularly other Mormons (not saying you, kat, are doing any lambasting).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, any Jesus I'd consider following would have a sense of humor about his status. You worship him on a pedestal in a sealed glass box, if you like, if you think your Jesus is fragile enough to wilt in the sun, but MY Jesus would at least like some holes put in.
Seriously, kat, if you can't joke about God, what good is God at all?
[ June 09, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Well heck, "Jesus" isn't sacred to me, and I doubt it's sacred to Tom... so it's not profanity, right?
I mean, is your set of beliefs so rigid that you can't stand to be in the presence of those who would use the name Jesus with humorous intent? Because if that's the case, then nervousness about a growing LDS population here might just be spot-on.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom:
You're a fan of those Buddy Jesus statues, aren't you.
---
Is this a question about why I don't have a sense of humor about certain topics? I'm not sure. Let me think about it.
I think...it's because humor is often distancing.
---
Ayelar, and that's why people get defensive. You be as disrespectful as you want, and other people can be suspicious that you're disrespecting them.
That's part of the deal in asking someone to let down their defenses - no sucker punches.
[ June 09, 2004, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
I love the Jesus action figures, yes.
For me, it's more of a question of to what extent your lack of humor about an issue I find totally innocent and lighthearted leads you to consider me a threat that must be put in its place.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ayelar, I think with the several recent conversions of Hatrack members there comes the assumption that there is pressuring going on. You are making an accusation without knowing the actual situation. I guess people are assuming that that *must* be what is happening. Is that really fair? Don't judge when you don't know the story.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tom, Ayelar, I would not crack jokes about Alah around a Muslim. I would not crack jokes about Yaweh around a Jew. Buddah around a Buddist, etc. It seems impolite, disrespectful. If you do it around others who hold those things sacred, you are doing it to shock them. That isn't playing nice.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ayelar, didn't you about freak out because you didn't think Fiddler on the Roof treated Judaism respectfully enough?
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
So then kat..... using the name "Jesus" in a lighthearted manner around you is disrespectful. Personally, I don't see a darn thing wrong with a simple use of the name in a way that sounds amusing, though I would avoid spray painting "JESUS SUX" on an overpass or something. The phrase "sprung Jesus" doesn't even come close to crossing my "offensive" line, or the lines of anyone I know in real life.
However, since it is a disrespectful use of the name within your faith, you say that I am disrespecting you, and pulling a "sucker punch"? Which leads me to feel like, yes, I have to conform to YOUR standards of morality and social acceptability when I'm here. The standards which YOUR religion leads you to follow, not mine. It makes me feel like there's a huge line that I can't cross without getting slapped down, a line that's drawn on LDS terms. But I'm NOT LDS, and I don't want to have to follow its rules.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I'm NOT a big fan of "Buddy Jesus," precisely because I think people misunderstand what's being mocked -- and because it's being mocked at all. The idea behind those "Buddy Jesus" dolls, as I understand it, was to poke fun at the increasing "mainstream" nature and commercialization of Christianity; the idea that Christ can be added to a shopping cart like a household cleanser. I think it's the same reason that the "popener" -- and I own one -- is so fascinating to people; the idea that someone would turn the Pope, the highest official of one of the largest churches in the world, into a face on a bottle opener is just baffling and horrifying.
THAT, to me, is disrespect. And so "Buddy Jesus," by trying to address that disrespect in a humorous way, is (oddly enough) intended to be respectful.
But the message gets twisted too easily. For one thing, a LOT of people buy popeners -- real Catholics, people who visit the Vatican and want a souvenir and really, really want something with the Pope's face on it because they love him so much. People buy those "Jesus playing soccer" figurines for their grandchildren, not because they're fascinated and horrified by the kitsch factor but because they honestly think sending little Billy a resin mold of Jesus will help him think about God more often.
So when SOME people see "Buddy Jesus," they're not shocked; they just see another statue of Jesus.
And then here's the problem: there are people out there who will buy a statue of Buddy Jesus not because they're horrified by the commercialization of a beloved prophet, but because they're horrified by the kind of people who would buy Popeners. The "Buddy Jesus" thing or the Darwin fish or similar bits of ironic kitsch become direct personal attacks on what the owner BELIEVES is the kind of person who'd own one; it's an accusation that faith does not exist, and has been replaced by fad.
It's more hostile than the kind of humor I generally enjoy.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Kat, before we get too far away from it, I appreciated and agree with your thoughts on community dynamics and recognizing conversational power. I read that post and thought, “yep, she hit the nail on the head.”
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
There go the non-Utah Mormons, up on their Rameumptom again. (Rameumptom is a term for someone who believes theirs is the only true way). I actually grew up outside Utah, but I married a Utah Mormon. And I lived downtown, where only 25% of the people who are Mormon go to church. I imagine it is similar to being a Catholic in some parts of Europe.
Mormonism in Utah is just as complex as it is outside. Kama is correct, Utah is just over 2 million people. I believe 75% are Mormon. But the more rural, the higher the percentage. In Salt Lake city, I think the membership rate may be 50%, and in parts only a quarter of that 50% is "active" (churchgoing). So you've got one in eight, which is higher than the national average, but with those you have three in eight who are for whatever reason disaffected with the church. This is only in cental city. I don't know what it's like elsewhere in Salt Lake or in Utah Valley (Provo) or elsewhere in Utah. I imagine each neighborhood and community is different. Lumping us all together as Utah Mormons, and you're so happy you're not one of us, is kind of prideful. IMnsHO.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
So Ayelar, if you made a light comment about a girl's headscarf and she asked you nicely not to talk about her headscarf that way you would ignore her request because she was asking you to act in accordance with a morality you don't personally hold? That's very mature of you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thanks, Dana.
--
My family lives in and I went to high school in 97% LDS, 90% active Farmington. I'm not working on someone else's stories.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I will start joking about Utah culture again once I have lived away from Utah for about 5 years. It's a bigger deal to people in the "mission field" anyway. Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Hey, kat! I had no idea we were such close neighbors growing up. I grew up in Layton, just ten minutes up the road from you.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
beverly, that wouldn't be lighthearted, that would be a personal attack on the girl.
As I said, I wouldn't go out and actively demonize Jesus or start screaming at Christians that Jesus sucks, but my "springing Jesus" phrase did nothing of the sort.
As anyone who's been around here for a few years probably knows, I'm one of the first people to cry foul on the part of the offended. However, when a group of people decides that EVERYTHING offends them, and lumps general lighthearted remarks in with actual attacks, I can't help but feel they're being oversensitive and taking advantage of the current culture of political correctness. And when this belief that ANYTHING I say on a certain topic is going to be offensive is also the majority view.... it's enough to make a person feel pretty unwelcome.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
afr, here's something I've wondered about for a long time. Does anybody actually still use the term "mission field" in the sense that you used it? I mean, I know that it used to be used to mean "all of the U.S. outside of the Idaho-Utah-Northern Arizona corridor," but I haven't heard it used that way seriously in decades. The only people I hear use it anymore are those who make fun of Utah Mormons for using it.
But I figure, if the Utah Mormons don't use it anymore, is the joke still funny? And then I think, maybe some clueless Utah Mormons are still using it, but always outside of my presence.
So do you still hear it used seriously? Does anybody?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ayelar, neither I nor kat were bothered by your comment. I can see how the misunderstanding could crop up if you thought we were. It was the sexual reference by Tom that caused the concern.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ayelar, I agree. None of the above was ever directed at you. It's not always about you.
[ June 09, 2004, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Oh man. I hear "mission field" all the time to refer to "outside U-daho". I kinda cringe every time.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The "Sprung Jesus" comment made me uncomfortable. Not that anybody asked.
-o-
Tom, I wish I could understand your discourse on religion and kitsch well enough to figure out if I agree with you or not.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Okay, now that I've gone and looked it up, I get it. However, until it was mentioned that it was a sexual reference, I didn't.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I must be evil. The "sprung Jesus" remark made me giggle. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think I giggled too, but I laugh at a lot of things that offend me.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
I totally didn't see it as sexual either. Did Tom? Is it only the religious people who saw it as a sexual reference? That would be hilarious. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh gosh. That explains a lot.
I have NO DOUBT that Tom knew ALL the ramifications of his comment. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
That's the thing, U of U. I don't really have my finger on the pulse of Utah culture to know if the phrase is still in vogue or not. I was using it as a codeword—a shibboleth, if you will—in the context of this thread.
I thought it was funny the first time I heard it, and it's still vaguely humorous, I guess, like Utah's comeback for all the jibes aimed at Utah culture. I don't think it's used seriously by anyone, and definitely not that frequently.
I've been less and less critical of the culture here the longer I've lived here, mainly because people who come to Utah and criticize it always sound like such boors. And I don't represent all of Utah, and frankly, I don't care if there's supposed to be an overall culture, and there's really nothing I can do about it. I certainly won't apologize for it (in the classical sense).
You have to live somewhere, and wherever you live, there's a "culture" that gets joked about. Utah doesn't have the monopoly on that, not by a long shot. Heck, when I moved here from Minnesota, everybody would try out their best Swedish Chef accent on me. Yeah. Ha-ha. No, I've never heard anyone actually talk like that. Yes, they give you a lake when you move there. No, I don't like ice fishing and I suck at hockey.
Tom, I see where you're coming from. There's a "commercial" Jesus that has pretty much nothing to do with anything I hold sacred, and that Jesus gets tossed around and joked about, made into bobble-head dolls, etc. It's like all the jokes about God as a stodgy, absent-minded bearded old guy who is totally out of touch with modern America. The kicker is that from a purely human standpoint, I've heard very few of these kind of jokes that are actually funny. The spirit they're told in usually negates any humor that they possibly could have had as well. *shrug*
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
um, I'm not religious.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
shh, stop ruining my theory!
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Kama, I think it comes, in part, from the general disdain that America has for quaint or old-fashioned versions of its own culture. Utahns cultivate a culture of order, family unity, adherence to rules, conformity, etc, that reminds many Americans of the 1950's. Since we all know from watching movies that the 1950's were the worst time ever in history Utah must therefore be an insipid and obnoxious place.
Geoff, was this really fair or necessary?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think it's "people who know the words to 'Baby Got Back'"
'cause that's the only reason I thought of that. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
And I am religious, and missed the reference entirely.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Mike, what did you find out of line about that?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that a thread about why non-Mormons feel left out had been at least partially derailed into a discussion of Utah vs non-Utah Mormon culture?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
AFR, I hear "mission field" used in all seriousness frequently by the Utah-LDS here. The people here are so used to living around other Mormons, they have little experience dealing with people who think differently. There is a bit of the "us/them" mentality that can understandably make people from other viewpoints feel unwelcome.
I try not to hold it against them. If they had more opportunities to interact with people who look at things differntly, they might be more understanding.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
ahem, for those not so current on all colloquialisms, i am going to explain in not so delicate terms why "sprung jesus" was offensive. if tom did not mean it this way then i am not offended, but perhaps you'll be less critical if you weren't in the know..
the term "sprung" is often used to mean that someone has an erection. i do not like the idea of someone humorously tossing around the idea of someone else's god walking around with a hard-on. it's base, and rude, especially when you know the offender has no belief nor respect for said god. and before anyone tells me how funny THEIR jesus would be, let me just say it would be equally offensive and in poor taste to talk about a sprung scott r, a sprung bob scopatz, or a sprung tom davidson.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I like big butts and I can not lie You other brothers can't deny That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waste And a round thing in your face You get sprung....
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I can tell you what I found offensive in Geoff's post in the exact same spot saxon75 did.
It is that he says that "Americans" have disdain for Utah. We aren't talking about "Americans" in general here, we are talking about "Hatrackers" and you've suddenly lumped us into a horrible generallity. If you look, you will see that most of the Utah jokes, that are the worst come from LDS hatrackers themselves, not the non-LDS that the comment is targeted to. There might be an occasional gentle jibe by a non-LDS hatracker but generally the jibe is extremely gentle compared to the relative scale.
AJ
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
He doesn't say that Americans have a disdain for Utah. He says that Americans have a disdain for quaint versions of American culture. And, while I hadn't thought of that before, I found myself nodding my head when I read that passage, and thinking he was on to something, because it helps explain the extreme antipathy I see toward my town and the people who live in it.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
On the other hand, if people want to make comments about a sprung Bob the Lawyer in the same spirit that Tom made his joke, I'm more than willing to bet I'd laugh at it.
Here's the thing, everyone makes a line in the sand on what will and will not offend them. And, frankly, I really don't care if you find that comment offensive. There's a difference in my mind between making a comment with the intention of making people laugh and making one where the intention is to belittle (a la the head scarf comment).
Look, I don't have a problem with you pointing out your line in the sand. Props to you. But I can assure you that I won't remember. It's just not worth the effort to me. I don't mean to put you down and I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just being honest. If I see something that I think is funny my mouth/fingers will move before my brain sorts out whether it's offensive to someone else or not.
Just fair warning is all.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
oh, this entire thread is a gorgeous array of generalizations. i nearly suffocated under so many blankets. so i took my exclusionary aim type convo to another thread for all to participate in. i hardly talk to anyone from hatrack on aim anymore. jerks.
[ June 09, 2004, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: porcelain girl ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
That's okay, nobody from Hatrack ever wants to talk to me on AIM anymore . . . Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I'm willing to bet Tom knew it would offend. He understands a great deal about the religious beliefs and feelings of others. Also, he might have apologized instead of justifying had it been unintentional offense.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
How did this thread go so quickly from the interactions of us individuals on hatrack to commentary on cultural perceptions? I find it a little upsetting.
Dave: I understand that some of you feel you aren't welcome, but that isn't true, we aren't trying to get rid of you. Reasonable Poster: Thanks, Dave. I have been feeling like I don't belong because I'm not part of the vocal majority. TomD: Individuals=cool. Group=Insufferable. Overreacting LDS: Our group is cool! PAGES OF DISCUSSION OF GROUP, INCLUDING WHY THEIR FEELING OF PERSECUTION IS VALID AS THOUGH THIS WERE SOME SORT OF ANTI-MORMON THREAD.
This isn't a Mormons versus the world thing. This is a some people aren't sure they have a place here anymore thing. HERE on Hatrack. And while people on 'both' sides are trying to explain it away by explaining the LDS faith, that isn't it. If suddenly every thread was about showing dogs, I would wonder if I still belonged. Does that mean I hate dogs, or people who show them? Of course not! It just means that I'm suddenly in a place I don't feel I belong in.
It's like the fluff phases. And before you get all offended, I'm not calling your religion fluff, I'm drawing a parallel. Occasionally we hit a period where every thread is a game or a joke and some people find themselves suddenly without a serious conversation to be involved in. And they complain, and we throw electronic snowballs at them and they start serious threads and all is right with the 'rack.
Only this is worse because people take their beliefs so much more seriously than anything else. And anyone that addresses them in less than a supportive manner evokes a threatened response. On all sides. And suddenly we forget what we're even talking about. It's not about the validity of any religions practices, people.
This is about Hatrack. Us as individuals who belong to that one group that is Hatrack. Us as individuals who wonder if we still belong when we don't see any place we fit.
It will pass or it will not pass. I think that the more time we spend trying to define what side we're on, the less likely it is to pass. Those sides only exist if you pick one. I don't want to pick a side; I want to pick people. I want to pick you. I want to pick us.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Icarus? You are on AIM?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
PepeIcaro
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I copied this from the Joseph Smith version at http://scriptures.lds.org/1_pet/3 It appears to be identical in the standard King James.
I'm not into normally quoting passages of scripture but this particular passage is one of the big ones used for why you should have answers "prepared" ahead of time. When I re-read it just now in context a couple of things jumped out at me. I'll tell you what they are after the passage.
From I Peter 3
quote:14 But and if ye suffer• for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
15 But sanctify• the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an• answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear•:
16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation• in Christ.
17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
The first thing that jumped out is that NO one of any religion that subscribes to this particular bit as Scripture should be whining about any "persecution" percieved or otherwise but quite possibly rejoicing. But more importantly the "Be ready to give an answer bit" has a second part "with meekness and fear". A spouted out canned answer drilled into your brain, does not give the appearance of meekness. Also, a canned answer leaves out room for any sort of Holy Spirit to work through the individuality of the person giving the answer.
Furthermore a canned response is lazy. It means you don't have to think in the moment, when that is EXACTLY what you are supposed to be doing. Needing canned answers is a shallowness of faith. If you were deeply enough immersed in your religion (regardless of which religion) you don't NEED canned answers. Yes you want to have unanimity in doctrine, but the canned responses which it appears the LDS church teaches are to my non-LDS eyes insipid, bland and occasionally trite.
What I love is when I actually see individuals here, sit and truly THINK about their responses on a religious topic rather than post off the cuff their "automatic" defense response. It used to happen more than I see it now, though I don't think that spark is completely dead. If I did think it was dead I'd probably leave hatrack.
AJ (edits to add some accidentally dropped words)
[ June 09, 2004, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:He doesn't say that Americans have a disdain for Utah. He says that Americans have a disdain for quaint versions of American culture. And, while I hadn't thought of that before, I found myself nodding my head when I read that passage, and thinking he was on to something, because it helps explain the extreme antipathy I see toward my town and the people who live in it.
Taken out of context, his post would mean that. In that case, I would disagree with what he's saying, but it wouldn't offend me. But you can't really take it out of context. He said what he said in response to a question. The question was about the general impression of cultural homogeneity in Utah and why it was a bad thing. In the context of this thread, I have to assume that the question arose from what people in this thread were saying about Utah and "Utah Mormon" culture.
So, in the context of this thread, what I got from his post was that he was writing off the opinions of people in this thread who don't like the "Utah Mormon" culture as the opinions of mindless puppets of the liberal media. Maybe that's not what he meant. That's what I read, though.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Hey, no one ever IMs me out of the blue.
Never have, really.
If Jatraqueros are a bunch of jerks, then in my experience you are all one of the nicest bunch of jerks I have interacted with. ---
Oh, and kat TOTALLY plagiarized my first post in this thread, and yeah, she prettied up them thar words with that lit-crit education of hers, and yeah, she did it from an LDS perspective, but well, okay, I guess I have no point.
-Bok
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Ela:
About zhug-- I'm sorry, but your base already belongs to me, as does your zhug. I even wrote a poem about it.
Zhug so spicy, zhug so strong I eat zhug the whole day long. On toast, in stew, on birthday cake, Zhug on tzimmes, cheese, and steak!
I like zhug, I cannot lie I like zhug on ham and rye! Smell the zhug upon my breath-- Sniff too much, and meet your death.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
AJ, I agree. Scott, you crack me up.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
AJ, do you think there can be a middle ground? Because I bet that, as Geoff mentioned, sometimes the people asking have put study into their challenges. Not on Hatrack I mean, but in general. And so if I were religious, I would want to have throught about the common objections to my beliefs and formulated my answers, if for no other reason than to justiofy it to myself, but, as you say, not let that preclude really listening and responding on a case by case basis.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I don't think I have seen much in the way of "canned answers" from the regulars here. I don't think anything Geoff said was canned. But I do think he is responding emotionally to things he personally has had to deal with that may or may not have anything to do with his Hatrack experience.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bok: Great minds. And it was the first post on the other now-defunct thread. --
quote:I think it's "people who know the words to 'Baby Got Back'"
Bingo. ---- Somewhere, celia remembered when the blatant and only-between-Mormons discussions were directed to Nauvoo.
I think that's a good idea. I read Nauvoo sometimes, and there is a lot of crossover. Out of respect, maybe we can move the UtahMormons are cool discussion there? I actively participated in that, so I'm just as much a part of it.
We are largely self-moderated here, and it is a compliment in a way. A request by anyone to move a discussion to Nauvoo would not be out of line for the following reasons:
1. Nauvoo exists exactly for that purpose. 2. We have to moderate ourselves. 3. Something needs to be done to change the dynamic.
Things like Mack's announcement thread and the LDS equivelent of Ask the Rebettzin thread would still be okay, because only LDS can post at Nauvoo, but a lot of the discussions could be moved there.
[ June 09, 2004, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I am running in and out again, but I just wanted to comment on Katie's remarks:
quote:When I first came to Hatrack, I honestly don't remember so many Mormons being there. Maybe I wasn't paying attention, or maybe there was a different balance of threads, but for whatever it was, it seemed like the balance of things has changed. That is not bad, but...this is what I was trying to say in the other thread and apparently did not explain well enough.
When the circumstances change, the dynamic needs to. If you're the only Mormon voice amid 20 others, then having only one or two notes is often not bad, and have just one person chime in is heart-warming. Those same characteristics in 10 of the 20 voices is overwhelming. Maybe we need to change from seeing ourselves as a sub-culture here to aknowledging that it's the largest bloc? I'm still not sure if its a majority, but it's definitely the largest coherent bloc.
In that case, the obligations change. There's a responsibility to pay attention outside yourself. There's always that onus, of course, but it's even greater when circumstances have given you a measure of conversational power.
What do you think?
I agree with you, Katie. The balance at Hatrack feels different to me than it felt when I first came here. I was aware that OSC is a Mormon writer, and attracted many fans of his own faith, but there were also plenty of people here of other faiths, or even of no particular faith. Religion was not an overriding concern in our discussions here, for the most part (except when someone specifically started a thread about a religious topic) - our love of OSC's writing, along with other shared interests we discovered along the way, were important.
I found myself nodding my head when I read Dana's comment, a page or two back, stating that many threads seem to turn into discussions of LDS in one way or the other. I guess that is what I hoped, apparently along with Katie, that people would be made more aware of in this discussion.
Let me paste something I said elsewhere, in a discussion with Hatrackers:
quote:Part of the problem, I think, is that some of the new members coming to Hatrack seem to assume automatically that it's a Mormon forum, since Scott is a Mormon writer. I don't know, maybe they just don't get the fact that his appeal is far wider.
I sort of felt that way about you, beverly, when you first stated posting. It seemed to me that at every opportunity you jumped right in there with comments relating to LDS. I don't feel that way about you anymore, though, in case you're wondering.
Gotta run, again. I'm a shuttle mom today. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Wow, I go away for 12 hours and look what happens! I just want to say I've never felt excluded here because of religion. I think everybody here is really super cool. In Hatrack there is actually the air of respect for all so you can actually let yourself feel safe and part of an actual e-community. If that's from being religious more power to it! And I don't think it will stifle debates or free thought. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
But Icky, as celia so eloquently pointed out this issue is about HATRACK and how the people here feel about being left out or included or ignored, it isn't about generalizations about America at large.
Geoff's response earlier is a perfect example of a canned response discussing LDS culture, that had nothing to do with the point all the non-lds were actually discussing but morphing it to a distinctly LDS pet topic, and rebutting that topic rather than the one that is actually at hand.
Yes there is a middle ground of forethought and measured response but I'm not seeing that happening very often.
AJ
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:since Scott is a Mormon writer.
For the briefest of prideful moments, I thought this was directed at me.
Then I read it in context.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
kat:
Sadly (or not, since the thread is gone), I never read that thread before it was vaporized. (A side note: has anyone ever thought of what it "sounds" like when a thread is deleted? I "hear" a 'FVuuump!'-type sound.)
-Bok
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Celia:
quote:It will pass or it will not pass. I think that the more time we spend trying to define what side we're on, the less likely it is to pass. Those sides only exist if you pick one. I don't want to pick a side; I want to pick people. I want to pick you. I want to pick us.
Word. To all you all.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Scott:
I have the power to name you a Mormon writer.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Zal, the proper phrase is "all y'all", sometimes pronounced as "all a y'all".
Yesterday, I heard "all a y'alls". I got an overplurality headache.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:A side note: has anyone ever thought of what it "sounds" like when a thread is deleted? I "hear" a 'FVuuump!'-type sound.
Never thought of it before, but when I imagine it now it sounds a lot like the sound that a Terran Dropship makes when loading units in Starcraft.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, I didn't mean "sprung" in a sexual context at all, and never considered that it could be taken that way. I was thinking like "clockwork."
Although now that people have made the erection connection for me, I've got to admit that the mental image is one that's hard to shake. *shudder*
[ June 09, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ela: Huh. I think I'm just as "bad" about that as I ever was. Perhaps you don't feel that way about me as much now because I have been posting less.
It is nice to know how others view me though. I am sorry if I have been annoying. I freely admit that I am a fairly proselyting-minded individual. I like to discuss faith and religion when others are willing. Sometimes no one wants to "play" so I shut up.
I hope me saying that doesn't make anyone even more uncomfortable about me. I do not wish to overwhelm anyone, but I enjoy very much having civil, respectful discussions about my and other's religious beliefs. (Couldn't get that at Nauvoo.com, now, could I?) I am not so much out to convince as to seek understanding and understand in turn. At least that is how I see myself. I have no idea if that is how I come across.
Edit: Oh, but I never assumed this was a "Mormon" site. Only that there was a higher population of LDS here than in the general population. I felt comfortable enough talking about my religious beliefs that I bring them up frequently. That's just the way I am.
[ June 09, 2004, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tom, I sincerely apologize for assuming that you intended the sexual connotation. I have a dirty mind. Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I assumed he did, which is why I laughed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom: The last time you gave a sexual twist to a religious phrase, I didn't get it at all. You have to admit it's not inconceivable that this was meant the same way.
But if you didn't mean it that, I apologize for misconstruing your intent.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: It will pass or it will not pass. I think that the more time we spend trying to define what side we're on, the less likely it is to pass. Those sides only exist if you pick one. I don't want to pick a side; I want to pick people. I want to pick you. I want to pick us.
Nicely said, celia.
And Scott, if it helps, I thought of you before I thought of Uncle Orson.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Now that I know what Tom's connotation was I'm visualizing an inside-out Dali-esque disssected clock.
AJ
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
I also thought of Scott R first and was confused for like 3 seconds when nothing about Blackberry Witch struck me as relevant to the thread.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Banna:
quote:I copied this from the Joseph Smith version at http://scriptures.lds.org/1_pet/3 It appears to be identical in the standard King James.
Actually, that is the King James Version. The JST only appears in footnotes, and a few selections in an appendix.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: But if you didn't mean it that, I apologize for misconstruing your intent.
Since he already said he didn't, it seems like you are either calling him a flat out liar, or just don't really believe what he said, making him, what, someone whose word you don't trust. A liar?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, Kayla. That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm calling Tom a big old liar, and there's a rumble behind the dumpsters when school gets out. You can hold his coat.
[ June 09, 2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Geez, don't you guys get it?
It's about ME.
Mormonism, Hatrack, EVERYTHING is about me.
And zhug.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
To the mods:
In case this thread gets ugly bitter, go ahead and delete it.
I've posted the Zhug poem (the only REALLY important addition to this whole discussion) on the Potry thread.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I've seen some significant wording changes from KJV the JST text in spots, I don't know if the quotes I was seeing of the JST were taken from the footnotes or not. But I figured I'd take the version from the LDS site to be safe and make sure there weren't any major differences.
AJ
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Two HUNDRED!
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
and one!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, kat, there's honestly no reason to apologize. Frankly, if I were making jokes about Jesus' penis, I'd fully expect people to be offended. And I would CERTAINLY have recognized it as vulgarity.
Since I don't think I've made a scatological joke in years, and don't really acknowledge 'em when they're made, the whole concept was off my radar. Consequently, I thought you were over-reacting. So, really, I should apologize.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Bob the Lawyer:
quote:frankly, I really don't care if you find that comment offensive...I can assure you that I won't remember. It's just not worth the effort to me
If people insist on tromping around Hatrack in big boots, then we're just going to have to grow thicker skins and not be so easily offended.
Tom:
quote:...hard to shake
I must have a dirty mind too.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
lurk more.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i know inside jokes and cultural references can definitely exclude people, but i suppose my back was still raised about the whole secrecy thing and wanted to make sure it was understood that there is no secrecy in what is discussed here at hatrack. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless I'm horribly mistaken, a post I wrote last night replying to this comment was deleted, making the irony a tad amusing.
quote:Richard, I seem to remember your post, on page 1, right? To tell you the truth, I didn't understand it, so I ignored it. Maybe that's an example of the type of unexplained reference we are trying to avoid?
I'm terrible with names, so I have to admit I don't even know whether you're LDS, Ela
Anyway, the post made reference to a practice that I had reason to believe was still secret, although I openly admitted to having no personal experience. Assuming I'm not hallucinating, I was right.
quote:Kama, I think it comes, in part, from the general disdain that America has for quaint or old-fashioned versions of its own culture.
I don't have any problems with this statement. It's less true of Hatrackers, of course; this place is nothing if not quaint Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I'm confused, I'm supposed to make big boots out of people with thick skins?
What are you trying to say, Skill?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*blink* I thought YOU deleted that post, Richard. I was wondering where it went. I really, REALLY hate when the mods delete things without reason or notification.
[ June 09, 2004, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Bob, I'm trying to say that people should be allowed a certain amount of reckless tromping without fear of offending anyone and without having to apologise.
People with thin skins need to toughen up and stop whining.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Screw toughening up my skin. For what do you think Robotech exoskeletons were invented?
-Bok
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
and people that tromp need to pull their boots up a little higher and deal with the whining.
it goes both ways and comes in all colors.
this is not in reference to anyone's specific comments or cause. this is just a test. of how much time i really have to waste. dear heavens i hope i don't die tomorrow, that would be really disappointing.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
i've missed your lack of capitals porcelain dear
AJ
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:That's okay, nobody from Hatrack ever wants to talk to me on AIM anymore . . .
Maybe if you weren't always away . . .
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
edit: Ignore this post. It never happened.
[ June 09, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Actually, that's a very Spanish construction, which serves to make me all the more curious about Bok.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i know inside jokes and cultural references can definitely exclude people, but i suppose my back was still raised about the whole secrecy thing and wanted to make sure it was understood that there is no secrecy in what is discussed here at hatrack. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless I'm horribly mistaken, a post I wrote last night replying to this comment was deleted, making the irony a tad amusing.
quote:Richard, I seem to remember your post, on page 1, right? To tell you the truth, I didn't understand it, so I ignored it. Maybe that's an example of the type of unexplained reference we are trying to avoid?
I'm terrible with names, so I have to admit I don't even know whether you're LDS, Ela
Anyway, the post made reference to a practice that I had reason to believe was still secret, although I openly admitted to having no personal experience. Assuming I'm not hallucinating, I was right.
quote:Kama, I think it comes, in part, from the general disdain that America has for quaint or old-fashioned versions of its own culture.
I don't have any problems with this statement. It's less true of Hatrackers, of course; this place is nothing if not quaint
quote:When I first came to Hatrack, I honestly don't remember so many Mormons being there. Maybe I wasn't paying attention, or maybe there was a different balance of threads, but for whatever it was, it seemed like the balance of things has changed. That is not bad, but...this is what I was trying to say in the other thread and apparently did not explain well enough.
I think there are numerically more Mormons right now than ever before, but in my opinion they don't command any larger mindshare than they did in 1997. My perception may be slightly biased by the fact that before I found this place I had barely even heard of the religion's existance, making the multifaceted discussions a little overwhelming at first, but I don't think it's inaccurate. Tom, AK, Yozhik, etc. feel free to correct me.
What _has_ changed is the number of threads. Duh. But since it's the same core group of people writing 10 posts per day instead of 10 per month, we end up covering a lot more details. In the early days the contentious topics were broad enough (gays, evolution, theism, etc.) that you couldn't tell at a glance who was a conservative Mormon vs. a conservative Protestant. The change since then has been a good thing, at least educationally.
As for the proliferation of fluff threads, social cliques, AIM, foobonic, etc. -- it's impossible to worry about them. Every community (especially online) has subcommunities. Take part if it appeals to you, or don't. It's not like they're measuring cup size at the sorority door entrance.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:This sentence is a good example of why dangling participles are a good thing.
I don't think that means what you think that means. Actually, that's not true. I know that doesn't mean what you think it means.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Berg, Tom:
Do you HONESTLY have no clue why that post was deleted? The Cards are NOT tollerant of having Temple rituals discussed or described on their site. And no, it's not even allowed on Nauvoo.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
But they don't go around deleting every post about eating babies, do they?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Frisco does have a point... Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Argh! You are correct! Let me try this again:
quote: For what do you think Robotech exoskeletons were invented?
This sentence is a good example of why it is good to end a sentence with a preposition.
[ June 09, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What an interesting thread. I'm likely to be self-indulgent and will speak in generalities which will not hold true in specific cases. Also, the opinions expressed in this post reflect those of one person who doesn't spend much time around here recently. You've been warned.
Banna, You put your finger on one of the main complaints I have about Hatrack in a way I've never really thought of it before. No doubt other people see it differently, but, to me, Hatrack has become (or maybe has continued to be) far too sterile.
From my perspective, with rare exceptions, this is not a place where things grow. There's an essential lack of creative vitality, such that even keeping a simple productive thread like a book discussion (or dkw's Bible discussion) going is a major chore and will generally come down to two or three people fighting to keep it alive.
What vitality there is generally takes the psuedo-life form of people yelling at each other or a sort of bs, often passive-agressive, taking offense. In my opinion, such empty passion doesn't constitute interesting or lively debate.
quote:We speak with passion. We listen with respect.
I used to think that these problems came from a lack of commitment to the second problem of this statement. Now, while I still think that there is a very problematical lack of respect here, I think that there is also a failure to live up to the first part. It might be more accurately said that "We react with passion."
To me, there is a big difference from the sort of reactive, defensive passion that we seem to have in great supply and a more internal, creative one. Maybe I'm just deluding myself, but I tend to think that I am a priori passionate about ideas. I like it when people disagree with me, or at least when there is an air of mutual respect between us. I tend to not really care and to walk away from people who I don't think it would be productive to talk to. They don't interest me. Often here I see the opposite pattern. People seem to be specifically drawn to non-productive discussions or aspects of discussions that at the least give them an excuse to act angry. I worry sometimes that they think that this is the only way they can feel passion. Life is more - much more - than sound and fury, signifying nothing.
To touch briefy on the lack of respect issue, one of my favorite theorists once said something like "It's common for people to say that 'To a person with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.' I want to expand that to say that 'To a person with a hammer, a screw looks like a deformed nail.'" To often, people seem to treat others' screws as deformed nails and the people themselves as incompetent carpenters. There are an infinite number of ways to build a life. Deriding someone else's and believing them incapable of recognizing good construction solely because they use a different method than the one that works for you is supremely foolish. Your One True Way wraps astounding amounts of hubris along with disrespect in one contemptible little package.
If you combine these two ideas, you get the sort of canned answer style of debate that you were talking about. I am constantly suprised by how lacking in complexity people's views of their own beliefs and of other people in general are. The canned answer, irrespective of context, is a prime example of this. If you can sum up the "right" way of thinking about these complex issues in a couple of pre-packaged ideas, you're either deluding yourself or a much wiser person than I. I also get the feeling like it's not worth giving the people who disagree with you more than this or to expect anything of value back from them, because they're too stupid/evil/liberal/conservative/etc. to have good reasons for what they believe anyway.
OF course, me saying that is sort of ironic, because that's almost the stance I've more or less taken with Hatrack. I've largely stopped posting the interesting thoughts that I have in response to what other people have said (for example, there's a whole sacred/profane angle to this thread that I think is really interesting) because I've come to regard this as largely pointless here. Maybe it's just that people aren't interested in the things that interest me, but it seems to me that maybe people aren't interested - perhaps are largely incapable of being interested - at all.
----
Obviously, I'm completely wrong here and you should feel free to dismiss everything I've said. However, maybe keep it just a little bit in mind. Live with it a little while before passing a final judgement on it.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Squick, if Hatrack is so uninterested and uninteresting, why do you keep coming back?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:This isn't a Mormons versus the world thing. This is a some people aren't sure they have a place here anymore thing. HERE on Hatrack. And while people on 'both' sides are trying to explain it away by explaining the LDS faith, that isn't it. If suddenly every thread was about showing dogs, I would wonder if I still belonged. Does that mean I hate dogs, or people who show them? Of course not! It just means that I'm suddenly in a place I don't feel I belong in.
It's like the fluff phases. And before you get all offended, I'm not calling your religion fluff, I'm drawing a parallel. Occasionally we hit a period where every thread is a game or a joke and some people find themselves suddenly without a serious conversation to be involved in. And they complain, and we throw electronic snowballs at them and they start serious threads and all is right with the 'rack.
Only this is worse because people take their beliefs so much more seriously than anything else. And anyone that addresses them in less than a supportive manner evokes a threatened response. On all sides. And suddenly we forget what we're even talking about. It's not about the validity of any religions practices, people.
This is about Hatrack. Us as individuals who belong to that one group that is Hatrack. Us as individuals who wonder if we still belong when we don't see any place we fit.
It will pass or it will not pass. I think that the more time we spend trying to define what side we're on, the less likely it is to pass. Those sides only exist if you pick one. I don't want to pick a side; I want to pick people. I want to pick you. I want to pick us.
You hit the nail on the head, celia
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
*applauds*
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
*Secedes from the clump, becomes an Independent Mormon*
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
WOW! I had no idea this topic would be so incendiary.
I am curious as to whether or not any of those who have indicated frustration/indignation feel better? Has this thread been cathartic or has it been exacerbatory.
Apparently I have a very thick skin when it comes to proselytization. I've actually had fun when approached by LDS folks. I enjoy a good religious discussion. Perhaps my enjoyment of debate and fencing with words make me less than a ideal candidate for conversion though.
I still maintain that skillery or any other Mormon Hatracker that indicates that they would be ecstatic if all their loved ones converted is being truthful as opposed to being disdainful
I am passionate about making and judging beer. If someone asked I would sing the praises of ale and lager. I would bore you to tears with the minutia of zymurgy. I would regale you with reasons not to drink American Light Lagers. Does this make me a snob? Perhaps, but more likely it just makes me passionate about my beloved hobby.
I think that we all need to have a cold one, or not, and realize that this is a pretty damn good message board.
If you think the thread has been cathartic and cleared the air then, wonderful. If you aren't feeling happy ask yourself if you believe that further posting will remedy this for you. I for one have enjoyed it. So, thanks to everyone that contributed.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Squick. Bah. Really. As if all the religious people in the world are going to give up the "chosen people" status that comes with knowing you've found truth. As if anyone could prove that our somehow becoming homogenously accepting of one another's totally different paths to truth would bring on some sort of life-changing enlightenment for humanity. Even Hindus, with their much-vaunted multiple paths and gods (you can devote yourself to any of them as they are all aspects of Brahman) often end up hating and killing each other. Ditto the different "rafts" in Buddhism (big, little, diamond, etc.). So don't be surprised when people blow off your elitist psychobabble, doc.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I learned, as a wee child, that ending a sentence with a preposition was generally bad style.
I have never been a stickler on this point.
That said, I guess I'd been noticing I'd done it a lot today, to the point that my "sentence-ending preposition) capacity was full, and so I switched it up (consciously).
I still think it reads okay, if affected.
-Bok
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
You old foggies think everything was better in the "good ol' days"
Whee! Look at me! I'm young and carefree!
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*thwaps punwit* Back in your box newbie. You clearly haven't been around long enough to think the thread is over or cathartic yet. This thread is probably going to go on for at least another five pages and degenerate several times into fluff before the end.
It's a classic hatrack introspection thread. But I think this time there is a deeper undertone than others because we are getting to the core of some big issues here.
AJ
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
...and prolific!
Edit: to beverly.
[ June 09, 2004, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote: I am curious as to whether or not any of those who have indicated frustration/indignation feel better? Has this thread been cathartic or has it been exacerbatory.
I haven't indicated frustration, but these threads are uniformly frustrating. It's like everyone is speaking at once.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
*reads with enthusiasm*
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Oww, BannaOj would you please be kind enough to let me outa this "newbie box" when it is relevant to post my thoughts. I would really appreciate that. Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Oh, and Scott, I loved your zhug poem.
It made me laugh out loud. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Hmmmm, yes, I am prolific. I have had three children in 5 years and I post waaaay too much.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
whoops I guess I should have added a smiley so you'd know I was teasing punwit! AJ
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
punwit:
quote:I think that we all need to have a cold one
And for those mourning the disappearance of good root beer extract, River City Homebrew has you covered.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
i had two friends in the central valley. i told them to date eachother.
now i'm prolific.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Somewhere, celia remembered when the blatant and only-between-Mormons discussions were directed to Nauvoo.
That was me, Katie. Just setting the record straight. Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
It's ok BannaOj Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
shh, ela, i was enjoying that credit. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I'm kinda against abortion, making me prolific.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*looks at self* hmm I'm transparent I must be an old foggy
AJ
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Taalcon, please, it's blatantly obvious why the post was deleted.
Porce: I just want to assure everyone there are no secrets on Hatrack Richard: I'm pretty sure [this] is still secret TPTB: maybe if we're sneaky nobody will notice that Porc was wrong
For the record, all I did was mention a name that would have no meaning to those without pretty in-depth knowledge of Mormon theology. No descriptions were given. If that's not allowed here, fine, but don't pretend like this is an open society.
Oh, and it wasn't a mendacious troll like that anti-Mormon website that got a thread deleted a couple weeks ago. I had an LDS source tell me by private email that it was actually overly charitable.
Tom, don't let deletions get you down. If you have something truly meaningful you don't want to lose, just don't post it (or be sure to keep good archives). Their loss.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
::laughs at celia:: Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Hmm, strange 1.5X-post up there. Didn't know the crack would take effect so quickly.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
AJ: Ooops. Somehow putting just one "g" in that word feels... wrong.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Where I come from fog is usually rather opaque.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*grumble* stupid details.... AJ
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
If AJ were made of fog, she would be transparent. ::nod::
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
no bev he's technically right. Transparent means clearly able to see through like clear glass or even colored glass. Opaque transmits light but is blurry to see through.
Or am I just so vapid if I were made of fog I would be transparent?
AJ
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Isn't that transluscent?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
transubstansiated?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
that means she'd have to be consumed RIGHT AWAY.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Actually, opaque means no light gets through. Translucent is when some of the light gets through.
Edit: In other words, yes to beverly.
[ June 09, 2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Ela: Huh. I think I'm just as "bad" about that as I ever was. Perhaps you don't feel that way about me as much now because I have been posting less.
It is nice to know how others view me though. I am sorry if I have been annoying. I freely admit that I am a fairly proselyting-minded individual. I like to discuss faith and religion when others are willing. Sometimes no one wants to "play" so I shut up.
I hope me saying that doesn't make anyone even more uncomfortable about me. I do not wish to overwhelm anyone, but I enjoy very much having civil, respectful discussions about my and other's religious beliefs. (Couldn't get that at Nauvoo.com, now, could I?) I am not so much out to convince as to seek understanding and understand in turn. At least that is how I see myself. I have no idea if that is how I come across.
Edit: Oh, but I never assumed this was a "Mormon" site. Only that there was a higher population of LDS here than in the general population. I felt comfortable enough talking about my religious beliefs that I bring them up frequently. That's just the way I am.
Well, okay, maybe you are as "bad" as you always were, and just aren't posting as much.
Your remarks in this thread, though, led me to believe that you are at least aware of why too frequent religious references might be problematic for some people. People here have generally tended to bring up religion casually, as part of a conversation, and not constantly, unless it's a specifically religious thread. At least until recently.
Hence Richard Berg not knowing what religion I am, even though I have made no secret of it. But I don't know what religion he is either. Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
translucent, actually. edit: okay duh i missed that whole conversation somehow. i feel like someone is swapping all the posts around in this thread.
[ June 09, 2004, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: porcelain girl ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
What the crap. I'm away for a few hours, and suddenly, my last post, along with all my intentions behind it, have been derided, and then the conversation has moved on without giving me a chance to respond! Must you all talk so much?
First of all, it took me a couple of posts from saxon to figure out exactly what he thought was offensive about my post. I was trying to make the point that in America, certain cultural features are considered "quaint" and therefore pathetic and undesirable, and that is why, in my opinion, most people treat Utah Mormon culture with contempt.
When I brought up the representation of the 1950's in film, I wasn't trying to allege that there is some kind of liberal bias or conspiracy going on to warp our perceptions of the past, or of Mormon culture in particular. I was trying to use it as an example of how Americans in general view "quaint" cultures. Those movies aren't designed to insidiously alter our perceptions. On the contrary, they resonate with people because that's the way they already feel. I guess I didn't make that clear enough.
Americans look at modest clothing, polite teenagers, decorous speech, business suits, and other such features of Mormon culture as dorky, out-of-fashion, and even scary things that people should know better than to get involved with. I don't think I'm really that far off the mark in my description here, am I? I mean, I have the same reactions, and I was raised with the stuff. We're all affected to one degree or another by cultural bias, and we can't help that. All we can do is be aware of it and compensate for any inappropriate reactions.
Now, as I said above, my comments were about "most people". Ie, your average American. Most people in this country have never been to Utah, deal very rarely with the Mormon church, and know very little about the true behaviors of Mormon communities. Thus they react to us and to Utah on a very superficial, unconscious level, and many of the issues we've been discussing here don't come into play. I believed that the question I was answering was about the common perception of Utah and Mormon culture by Americans that don't live there and don't know anything about it, and I thought my answer was appropriate.
And it certainly wasn't "canned" as someone alleged. It's not a question I've ever been asked before, so I made up the answer that seemed to make the most sense to me at the time. I'm sorry it came across to some as antagonistic. It certainly wasn't meant to be.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I stand corrected again, I guess I got it right to begin with. This is why I wasn't a physics major...
AJ
(on the termonology stuff I mean, ARND I will think about your post and post a serious response as I have time, which may be tomorrow)
The "canned" bit was directed very generally to the LDS posters in general, but your post seemed specifically "canned" which is why I used it as an example. I'll have to analyze why I thought this now that I know you didn't think it was. (And now that I've managed to confuse even myself I'm going home from work!)
AJ
[ June 09, 2004, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Americans look at modest clothing, polite teenagers, decorous speech, business suits, and other such features of Mormon culture as dorky, out-of-fashion, and even scary things that people should know better than to get involved with
American teenagers, you mean? I've never met anyone who dislikes Utah because it's "quaint". I, personally, dislike it because of how difficult it is to get a decent margarita.
Now, if you're equating "quaint" with "ultra-conservative", then I might agree.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Geoff,
I think that you are correct in saying that we all affected by a cultural bias. I didn't understand that that was what you meant by your comment about small-town America in the movies.
Here's the sequence of events that I saw:
First, one or more people mentioned that they didn't really like living in Utah because of the homogeneity. Looking back I can only see one such reference to "Utah Mormons," and that was made by beverly.
Then, Kama pointed out that Poland is at least as religiously homogeneous as Utah, but that she didn't think it was boring, so what made people think that about Utah?
Finally, you responded to Kama. Now, given the context that I had understood from the rest of the thread, I interpreted your post as rather disdainful of people who found Utah culture to be "stale or boring," especially given the graemlin you chose to put in the last sentence. Actually, re-reading your post, it still reads that way to me even after you having explained what you meant. The difference is that you were talking about people who had never been there and had made up their minds anyway--in which case they may well be deserving of disdain--whereas I thought you were talking about the people in this thread who held that opinion. Can you see why I thought it was a little inappropriate?
In any case, I misunderstood and I apologize. I suppose what I'm curious about now is whether Kama was asking about the "average American" or people who have actually experienced it.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Occasional wrote on the first page: From my limited experience, Tom D. has caused a lot more people to pack up and leave than the number of Mormons who happen to be here has. Just a personal observation.
Well, I have to say that TomD. has made it more comfortable for me to stay. He offers a viewpoint that is at a different end of the religious spectrum from the LDS religion - and I am far closer to his viewpoint than the LDS one. I thoroughly enjoy his posts.
quote:beverly wrote on the second page: But seriously, I think Visiting Teachers (female version of Home Teachers) would probably try to understand where someone is coming from before "giving up". I think a lot of Home Teachers would too, but girls are a little better at verbal communication.
This is part of what is offputting (to me) about the LDS church as a "bloc" - what I perceive as blatant sexism. Why are there female and male versions of the same job? Why do you think girls are a little better at verbal communication (a large portion of men are lawyers - are you saying those male lawyers don't have great verbal skills?)? I think there is implicit acceptance of conservative gender roles even though gender is merely a social construct (this is separating sex (the biological differences between men and women) from gender - which is a social role).
And yes, other religions do this as well. Which doesn't mean it isn't wrong. But I don't think they recruit as aggressively either.
----
Hmmm, I had the above reactions to two posts, but other than that, I've enjoyed the posts in this thread. They were pretty interesting and varied. There have been a large number of people posting in a short period of time - not just a back and forth attack between 3 or 4 people.
I also found it hard to find a decent drink in Utah. Particularly, a Tanq 'n tonic. Well the part of Utah that isn't Moab, anyway. They all wanted you to join some "club" or they only had beer. OTOH, I bet they have far fewer alcohol related deaths. to drink.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
In response to the issue of "canned" responses:
I put quite a bit of thought into every post I write having to do with my religion and beliefs. I really do consider my feelings about the issue at hand, and I respond very carefully. The fact that my stance, my adherence to my beliefs, and the source material I use doesn't change much from post to post might make me sound "canned." But in that sense, many of the posts on the other side of the debate sound "canned" to me because nobody's budging much and everybody pretty much brings up the same points over and over again.
And hey, even though I very seldomly get replies to my posts, I learn a lot by composing them. It's a good chance to really sort out my thoughts and feelings on different subjects.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Well, from personal experience, my home teachers (such as they were ) have far outshone my visiting teachers. The visiting teachers have been generally nonexistant, or more interested in...I don't know - things that were not me. My home teachers have been good, and one was spectacular. He put up with a lot of crap that I gave him, and was concerned with my spiritual wellbeing. He was great - all the way up until the day he called off the home teacher - home teachee relationship in what can only be described as a jealous huff. It was hilarious.
Tip: If you accidentally blow him off to talk to a friend, don't tell him why.
[ June 09, 2004, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
My experience is along the lines of Katharina's re: home vs. visiting teachers. Although I was recently assigned a visiting teacher with whom I actually have something in common, so things are going along well there.
quote:Why are there female and male versions of the same job?
Becaise home teaching and visiting teaching AREN'T the same job, in my experience. I tend to discuss relationship issues more with my VT, and doctrine issues with the HT, although this is not an absolute division, it's just a trend. My new VT and I talk about doctrine a lot, and about the difference between doctrine and culture.
[ June 10, 2004, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Just wanted to say that I agree with this post of Ralphie's.
quote:I'm fairly religious, myself, and in a religion that practices similar methods, so this is no slam on being theologically inclined. However, at a place like Hatrack, it just isn't necessary to come in with a badge and flash it at everyone. As conversations organically happen, so will the expression of your ideals and your identity.
I think this was basically what I was trying to say in my response to beverly, above.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:This is part of what is offputting (to me) about the LDS church as a "bloc" - what I perceive as blatant sexism. Why are there female and male versions of the same job? Why do you think girls are a little better at verbal communication (a large portion of men are lawyers - are you saying those male lawyers don't have great verbal skills?)? I think there is implicit acceptance of conservative gender roles even though gender is merely a social construct (this is separating sex (the biological differences between men and women) from gender - which is a social role).
Considering that one of the major purposes of Home/Visiting Teaching is to help inactive members start returning to church and help family members who don't belong to the church learn more and become interested, you might want to start at "I don't like the church's recruitment policies" with everyone else. Once you get past that, then you can start talking about how dividing up that particular responsibility between men and women is sexist.
Edit: Sorry, I'm grumpy, I'm going home.
[ June 09, 2004, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ouch. I certainly didn't read that post of Ralphie's and think, "That applies to me."
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
JNSB, sorry I should have said that girls tend to be stronger in verbal skills. It is a biological fact. I wasn't trying to be sexist.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But I don't think HT/VT is all about verbal skills.
Besides, I know too many exceptions either way to see those as...useful generalizations.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Last I heard we hadn't proved anything about verbal skills being biologically linked. Could you point me to an authoritative journal article?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Squick, I feel compelled to say something to you:
The reason the things in which you're interested generally draw very little discussion is that you only rarely post when you haven't already made your mind up about a subject and feel like lecturing us "little people." You don't actually expect DISCUSSION; you expect us to play the peasant in your Socratic dialogue. IMO, your wording in particular sucks the life out of a lot of your more interesting comments; you tend to speak in a very precise, stultifying way that does not invite further comment.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
saxon, in your defense, I had been in and out of skimming this thread up to that point, and didn't fully understand the larger context of the question when I answered it. And honestly, your bad reaction made me think more closely about what I was saying. My more recent explanation is, in fact, what I think about the matter. My earlier comments were more careless and flippant. Sorry I ticked you off Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Mr. Squicky... I thought your post was insightful.
Geoff: I've been puzzling over something for awhile, I think your latest posts have helped crystalize it for me. When I see the LDS folks on this board become defensive, it almost always turns out to be a misunderstanding. No great surprise, really, that's often the case with any rapid defensive reaction by any human. But there's a part of it that really has a particular flavor among LDS members -- circling the wagons.
It's familial, I think.
Here's what I mean:
In my mother's family, the members are allowed to criticize each other directly and passively. Things are said to and about each other that would crumble masonry and bend steel if unleashed against something as flimsy as a building. But let some outsider say exactly the same thing and that person better be able to run fast. Really really fast.
But there's another side to it too. All that "inside the family" versus "outside the family" stuff means that you've practiced responses to a whole raft of criticisms. And, in fact, are ready to respond with any of a large set of prepared defenses to any perceived attack. I've said it a bunch of times now...I understand why...it makes perfect sense...but it's still something less than wholly positive.
There's a lack, I think, of outside perspective going on here. There's an assumption that the responses you've learned are all that needs to be said. That no outsider could ever have an original thought about something related to the inside of your group. So, if someone says something that sounds even the least bit negative, all you've got to do is select the appropriate rejoinder and you'll melt their objections away.
Well, frankly, it's an assumption that really doesn't work in a discussion format. And that's what the problem is for it at Hatrack. You think I said "persecution complex" so you pull out the standard defenses and go for it.
Other people pay closer attention and maybe get what I was trying to convey.
And despite the fact that I told you how I viewed my observations as NOT criticisms at all, you felt the need to tell me how they'd missed the mark and there was far more "telling" stuff posted in this thread. Again, seeing criticism where there was none stated or implied.
I don't feel critical towards LDS members or the LDS church. Not in the least.
But here's the thing: I can usually listen to what another person says and judge whether it has a kernel of truth in it. And maybe use that to my benefit. Many LDS members do not seem to have that capacity when it comes to any statement about their religion made by anyone from the outside. And that, to me, is the hallmark of an insular group not yet grown into its own status in the world. The fact that the LDS church is a major world religion (grown to be at least numbered in the top 5 in the US and maybe the top 10 in the world) seems not to have sunk in yet.
It means there are some special vulnerabilities for you all in the future. For example, people already are joining your church because it is powerful. But I bet that's not even recognized explicitly in your proselytizing. I could be wrong, of course, I don't know that much about how the church does its work. So forgive me if this is so far off base. But I'm guessing that this is a growing problem or at least a somewhat uncertain cultural shift within your family (the LDS family). I mean, there are the 5th generation folks whose family stories include the murders and flight from Nauvoo. And then there are some of the new folks attracted to a church that can flex a significant amount of muscle in certain quarters of the globe. Do those new people really understand the mindset of the LDS cultural traditions? Are they sufficiently in tune to the persecution of the past and mindful of it as a 5th generation person would be? Or are they a new breed of LDS member? One that sees the church as a force to be reckoned with and eager to flex that muscle?
I see your church and family as in a major transition period. Again, I could be wrong. But you look a lot more like the Catholic Church at its rising heights than you do a 150 year young (give or take) splinter group fighting for identity and acceptance.
Your land purchases and building program are probably second to none in the US. Again, I could be wrong, but I don't see any other denominations doing the kinds of things you are. Lots of reasons for that, but two obvious ones are massive growth and boatloads of money.
That does something to the psyche too.
But, forget I said anything. I really really really am not criticising. I'm telling you what it looks like from the outside from a perspective of one who is curious and admires much about what LDS members do individually and what the LDS church does collectively.
And before you do it once again, you don't have to explain or justify it to me. OF COURSE it's understandable. I never once said ANY LDS person or policy was irrational. I bet there's even a good reason for wearing suits despite how dorky that seems to the rest of America.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Oh, and Icarus, there's wrinkle to the scoffing at Celebration that you didn't address. It's not simply the purposeful mimicking of a rosey-tinted vision of a past America. It's the insistence that it is a TRUE reflection and that this created fantasy is in any way a "return" to anything that ever existed.
And it's funny that the hallmark era has become "the 1950's." In truth, Walt Disney was look backward to a time like the 1890's through 1910 or 20. He was looking at "small town" America. And that's the image he wanted to bring to his park -- created in the horribly awry era in which he dreamed it -- the 1950's.
Celebration is a cool town in its own right. I actually really like it there. I would like it more if people simply said: we bought here because there's a good chance that people won't turn it into a frequin' trailer park like they do every other subdivision in Central Florida.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
celia - That was a great post. Did I write that and send it to you? I can't remember.
Scott R. - I totally wrote something extremely flattering about you, and you so for serious dinnit respond. It made Ralphie's heart sad.
porce - We made a good effort, kid.
Icarus - Hey, man. I don't talk to anyone on AIM anymore, but if I did, it would be you. Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
eh, besides reactivation home-teaching and visiting-teaching has a lot to do with community building. it forces people out of their comfort zones and into the lives of others. it also helps to monitor families in the way of temporal welfare and spiritual concerns.
bob, interesting point of view. i would just like to introduce the following thought: the more kids that spring up or move in within a growing population, the more schools that need to be built. that could be one aspect of the land-buying/building construction.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Bob, I don't agree with your judgment of Celebration. Guess you've been reading too much Mark Pino. I don't believe people who move here are wearing rosy-tinted glasses or trying to live in a fantasy world. The architecture is modeled after the 1940s, true, but in many other ways, the community is cutting edge. The design of the town is based on New Urbanism. and there are some pretty high-tech elements of our infrastructure (some of which worked better than others, admittedly.) My beliefs about what is being attempted and what has been accomplished here is not that it's a return to anything, but that it's an attempt to mix the best of the past with the best of today. It's only an attempt to create ones reality insofar as everybody attempts to create their reality, and everybody attempts to live in the best neighborhood that they can afford.
I don't really know that very many people who move here think that they're returning to an earlier time, so I think what you are refuting is perhaps an implication from the original advertising, or a straw-man created by the same people who say that all of us who move here are naïve and racist. (Kind of like that song by Chumba-Wumba, who never visited our town, but simply wrote it based on a story they saw on the BBC.)
How many other residents of Celebration do you know, upon which to base your claim that most Celebration residents believe that what has been created here is a true recreation of a better time?
(Sorry. I am touchy about this. Defensive, even. I have read far too many statements about what a bunch of freak idiots we all are. Google "celebration florida" sometime and you'll see what I mean. And so when I read a post by someone I consider a very close friend that seems to have bought uncritically into that stereotype . . . )
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:There's an assumption that the responses you've learned are all that needs to be said. That no outsider could ever have an original thought about something related to the inside of your group. So, if someone says something that sounds even the least bit negative, all you've got to do is select the appropriate rejoinder and you'll melt their objections away.
I think you're underestimating us, Bob. I've had experience with two kinds of critics of the Church. There are those who really are mindlessly parroting what they've been told. While some Mormons go after these folks with canned responses to their canned questions, in truth, these critics aren't worth answering directly — the things they parrot aren't their real concerns. Their real concern is that they are afraid of anything strange and foreign, and what they really need is to be shown that Mormons are friendly, normal, human people.
I don't see that type here at Hatrack. Or when I do, they don't last very long People at Hatrack typically come from very interesting intellectual backgrounds that they have shaped on their own through a wide variety of different experiences. They don't parrot other people's opinions, nor do they come up with typical concerns. So when there are questions, answering them is a fun and interesting challenge. I know that people here expect more of me than just an answer. They expect a good, well-thought-out answer, and that I try to provide.
But there are limits to how varied my responses to the same questions can get. I mean, if the same question is asked twice, more than likely, I will answer in similar ways. Unless the Church changes dramatically between the two questions, the facts that I'm drawing from are basically the same, and unless I go through a major shift in my life between the two questions, my perspective is likely to be just about the same.
Now, there have been Mormons here who have understood their own beliefs less than your average Hatracker is expected to, or who have adhered more closely to the typical party line than you might expect, and those Mormons' answers might sound a bit more rehearsed. But I hope that most of us here have managed to earn enough of your respect that you don't think we're just mindlessly parroting practiced responses to you. I certainly don't feel like I am, and when you speak as though my responses, in particular, are practiced, canned, rehearsed, or whatever word you wish to use ... well, it's insulting. And I'm wondering if you really mean it that way.
As far as disrespect for outsiders' opinions go, you have to admit, most outsiders to our or any faith are pretty ignorant of the internal circumstances of that faith. I recognize that it's possible for a well-informed outsider to have a useful opinion, and even the most ignorant, closedminded outsider can teach members of a faith a lot about themselves just by their immediate, uninformed reactions ...
... but seriously, I don't feel like I'm in a position to analyze the way that Sikhs, Buddhists, Baha'i, or Muslims behave in their communities. And even looking at Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelicals, with whom I have much more of a common ground, I still feel like I'm a decently-informed outsider who might have an interesting perspective, but certainly doesn't know enough to tell them definitively what's wrong with their churches. And I wouldn't be surprised if they got offended if I tried.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Everyone, just forget I used the term "verbal skills" at all. While I feel there is strong evidence for the case that women's and men's brains tend to work differently because of the differences in hormones I am not interested in derailing this thread to discuss it.
*sigh* My point was that in my experience women are more interested in knowing details about people's lives then men are. I didn't mean to insinuate that men have poor verbal skills and make sucky lawyers. Though I did joke about the stereotypes.
But maybe this had nothing to do with the situation Shan experienced.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Icarus...let us not forget the lady who came to the school board meeting that one fateful day to explain how people in Celebration really love their children (and by implication, other people who don't live in Celebration don't).
There is an element in that town that bought into the myth.
The fact that the town is better than the original hype is due to the many fine people who live there and make it a community.
You've got nothing to be defensive about. For crying out loud! There's not a community in a 90 mile radius that's outperforming Celebration in terms of return on investment. Nothing even comes close!
That's got to be a sore spot for the rest of Central Florida. That, to a certain extent, the people who said "it's a better place to live than where you live" were actually right.
Ugh!
Fine Celebration is perfect.
I was wrong.
I'm going to sleep.
When I awaken, the fluff threads will be ready to welcome me back.
Why, oh why, did I come into this thread again? All I seem to be able to do is touch sore spots with people.
Crud.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Bob, we've tried and tried to teach you the difference between good touch and bad touch. *heavy sigh*
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Would that be like using one finger to pet the kitty with? Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Shan!
TMI, girl.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:But here's the thing: I can usually listen to what another person says and judge whether it has a kernel of truth in it. And maybe use that to my benefit. Many LDS members do not seem to have that capacity when it comes to any statement about their religion made by anyone from the outside. And that, to me, is the hallmark of an insular group not yet grown into its own status in the world. The fact that the LDS church is a major world religion (grown to be at least numbered in the top 5 in the US and maybe the top 10 in the world) seems not to have sunk in yet.
And the fact that Mormons are still treated as if they were a splinter group that often gets called a cult at this stage is a Hallmark to me that we haven't gotten the respect the allows for non-measured responses to questions. I want you to do something.
Consider it a social test. Ask any one of your neighbors what they think of "Mormons" and the "Mormon" Church and listen to their reactions. I would, if I were a betting person, give good money if they didn't say rude, nasty, bigoted responses from more than half of the respondents. They can't be Mormon of course.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Yeah, that lady is an idiot, but idiots abound everywhere.
quote: Fine Celebration is perfect.
I was wrong.
I'm going to sleep.
Shit Bob. Celebration is not perfect. And nobody who lives here is. And I wasn't so much angry as venting. Sorry if I've got you mad at me now. All I really want to say is that we are no different in our imperfection than anyone else is. The simplistic/naïve/gullible/retrograde charge is just one that I'm touchy about, because I believe it's often unfairly applied. And so that's why Geoff's description of why he felt Utahns get a bad rap struck a chord with me, because I could definitely identify with what he was saying. And so, from that perspective, your post seemed to come in and say that those perpetrating that stereotype were right! It's like if I said, yeah, I love Utah, but I would love it better if it didn't have this backward, insular, holier-than-thou attitude. And don't get me started on the polygamy!
At least you didn't mention The Truman Show, Pleasantville, or The Stepford Wives.
Please don't leave the serious threads. You more than anyone else create middle ground and understanding here. I'm the one who's not accomplishing anything here except to muddy the waters.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Geoff, I've obviously become irritating to you. Once again.
I'm not being deliberately insulting. But, for my poor ability to communicate I am truly sorry.
Could we maybe discuss the following? I'd be interested.
Do you think the LDS is in transition with the growth it has experienced and the new membership demographics? If so, what changes do you see?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Ouch. I certainly didn't read that post of Ralphie's and think, "That applies to me."
You know, when I quoted Ralphie, I didn't have the thought, "I am quoting this because it applies to beverly." I think it may have applied to you when you first came to the forum, though. As I said earlier, I don't see you doing so much religious referencing in every post as you did initially.
The reason I posted what Ralphie said was that it rings true to me about the way Hatrack has been, and the way I would hope it to continues to be.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The changes because of growth have been about finding good leaders in local areas. Because, as you noticed, there isn't that insular culture build-up that has been talked so much about in this thread. And, because leadership is self-taught most of the time in the LDS Church and not "scholasticised," (couldn't think of a better term) then it can become a challenge to find qualified leaders. Other "growth" challenges are from dealing with cultures outside of the U.S. where education and literacy are not primary.
I guess you could sum up the LDS problems with "a first world Church discovering the third world problems."
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Occassional:
quote:Consider it a social test. Ask any one of your neighbors what they think of "Mormons" and the "Mormon" Church and listen to their reactions. I would, if I were a betting person, give good money if they didn't say rude, nasty, bigoted responses from more than half of the respondents. They can't be Mormon of course.
I've actually done that sort of thing, informally of course. There are actually three types of responses from non-LDS that I've received:
1) Total ignorance: Mormons who? Don't they have six wives each? I have a hard enough time with one wife (ha ha ha). That sort of stuff. These are the people who, when you ask them, do not know a single LDS member, or don't know that they know one.
Certainly the vast majority of Americans. They think about the LDS once or twice a year when there's a sensational story in the press about some guy who does something wacky in or around Utah.
2) Fairly knowledgable it seems: "Well, it's a tough call. I'm not sure if they are Christian in the same way as mainstream Protestants are. They have some beliefs I find a little troubling. But they are very nice people and I think they do good work. Anyway, I don't really give it a lot of thought."
Certainly a minority view, but probably about 10-20% of the people I've ever talked to about it. They aren't really all that worried about it. It's not a subject of discussion in their lives. If they have LDS friends, it's sort of by mutual agreement that they just don't discuss the finer points of religion.
3) The Mormon-obsessed: These are the folks that will pull out a pamphlet from their church explaining how Mormons are in league with Satan and how we should be actively working to stamp them out.
In general, you find these folks in conservative Christian evangelical churches. But not as much in the general congregation so much as just kind of "mixed in." Unless the pastor is rabidly anti-Mormon, and then you get sort of a small knot of folks who really get lathered up.
If you are talking most of the US, I'd say this type of person constitutes less than 1% of the population. By far outnumbered, at any rate, by the folks who are just plain ignorant and don't care. But also outnumbered significantly by the folks who do know something and are favorably disposed toward the LDS. Or at least tolerant and not ignorant.
UNLESS...
You happen to ask Evangelical Christians in Utah and Idaho. For some reason, there's just a major concentration of LDS-antipathy among the groups working in and around Salt Lake and other areas where the density of LDS is highest. Maybe it's a self-selection thing, that these people go there to fight the war they see brewing. Or maybe it's sour grapes because they think their lack of success is due to LDS-dominance in the area. Or maybe they've been abused by some LDS. I doubt that last, but there's a possibility that any or all of those explanations might be at play.
But I can see where if someone was an LDS member living in Utah or Idaho (and maybe a few other places), where it would look like all of the rest of Christianity was out to destroy your church. Certainly there in those places it's a problem.
But the rest of the country? Sure, there's ignorance, but not much in the way of malicious intent. Just a persistence of off-color humor about polygamy, mostly, sprinkled with a few informed folks who don't have any problems, and a small number of off-kilter zealots.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Re: The issue of persecution.
You're part of a religion that proselytizes. You're not going to be popular. Until the day you stop proselytizing, that's just the way it's going to be.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Oh, and I couldn't go much further without acknowledging the comments from Mack and Shan!
You ladies, and I use the term LOOSELY -- in it's broadest possible sense -- crack me up!
Mack Shan
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I take it your continuing to post on a serious thread is your favorable response to Icky's post?
(I hate it when friends fight)
AJ
[ June 10, 2004, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yeah, that must be it.
Porce, I see your point:
quote:the more kids that spring up or move in within a growing population, the more schools that need to be built. that could be one aspect of the land-buying/building construction.
It doesn't really explain places like Deseret Ranch or some of the large temple-building projects. But no worries. Again, I didn't mean anything negative by it. I think Salt Lake City is one of the most beautiful cities in the country. And the temple complex there is really amazing. I loved my tour!!! It was so cool. All that water moving around. And the meeting space is a-mazing. Beautiful.
I would've loved to see the inside of the temple. I bet it's spectacular.
I would've tried to sneak in, but I was afraid of bursting into flames. Or being forced to watch a videotape.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
This whole thread is a black hole. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Icarus...
Man oh man! You are one of my dearest friends and it killed me to think that I had insulted your home. Ive accepted your hospitality and then dissed your town??!!!
No, it's not you owes the apology, my friend. I've been posting without reviewing. In my rush to type it before I loose my choo-choo of thought, I forgot to make sure everything was said clearly and in just the way I wanted it said. Had I taken the time to read before hitting the "Add Reply" button the last few times, I'm sure I would've said far less and made fewer people upset.
And since my real purpose was to have a dialog, I sort of spoiled my own fun, now didn't I?
Fool of a Bob!
Oh well, I can over-react with the best of them.
Descartes had it all wrong. The proof of one's existence isn't one's own thoughts. It is the power to irritate others. I stink, therefore I am.
Or maybe, being an irritant is just a by-product of existing.
In which case, we're back to discussing good touches and bad touches and how to rub a kitty.
Don't you just love it when things come full circle?
PS: Geoff, that stuff above about not thinking before I post goes doubly for my posts in response to you!
I apologize. I should've just asked the questions I was interested in instead of coming off like I knew something about the answers already. I should not have presumed to "teach" you all about your own religion.
I got a little carried away because I actually have thought about this stuff and I wanted to try out my theories. I could've handling it far better. I was just excited to see a thread that seemed to welcome some reflection on how the LDS relates to the rest of the world...
Again, I'm sorry for handling it so poorly.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Bob,
At least that sounds hopeful to me. The fact that people are ignorant not so much, but that they don't have the kind of hate I have heard so much in my life.
Still, too much mainstream news and media I have heard about the Church still makes me feel back in the 1800's. I mean, the LA Times called Salt Lake the U.S. equivalant of the Taliban. A popular author, Krauker, wrote the nastiest and most innaccurate information about Mormons available and basically lumped us all together as dangerous zeolots (to be fair he said all religious people were dangerous, and used the Mormon faith as a prime example). Magazines such as Time and Newsweek still question the sincerity of our faith and get even the most basic beliefs wrong -- often following the anti-Mormon evangilical montras mixed in with the athiest religion hating perceptions. It seems to go on and on forever. If the Conservatives don't bash Mormons for being too religiously unorthodox, the liberals bash us for being too conservative and religious.
I want to believe that there is relative respect. However, I have witnessed too much bigotry from those in real power to be completely comforted.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:Do you think the LDS is in transition with the growth it has experienced and the new membership demographics? If so, what changes do you see?
Personally, I'm kind of amused at the creative statistics I used to see at the beginning of my mission, proclaiming that "if current trends continue" there would be about a zillion Mormons by the year 2090.
We've grown really fast over the past fifty years (with a membership increase of about 1000%), due mostly to the fact that we've steadily been opening up new mission fields in that time — first South America and East Asia, then Russia and the Eastern Bloc, then Africa. When the Church is introduced to a new area, it starts growning very slowly, then hits a sort of adolescent growth spurt, then slacks off again once a majority of the citizenry has had a chance to form an opinion of the Mormons, for good or ill.
Our problem right now is the fact that we've run out of new mission fields. All the remaining closed countries have very dominant state religions that aren't going to make room for us anytime soon. Barring some miracle, we're going to need to get used to fewer converts per year. The leadership of the Church is already gearing up for that, issuing instructions that local leaders should be more picky about the young men they send on missions. We don't need as many misisonaries anymore. We just need better ones, to help the converts that we do get to really understand the doctrine, find a place within the Church, and remain active for the rest of their lives.
That will be the first shift, in my estimation — activity, fellowship, and retention will become more important to the missionary program than initial conversion, the excitement about high baptism numbers will fade, and the community will become more stable.
I think it may take another generation for the second shift to sink in — the realization that the Church is now a worldwide entity, with more than half of its membership living outside the United States. At the moment, we are still very centered on America — Utah in particular — and many of the cultural rules and considerations are extremely America-centric. The folk-doctrine prohibiting R-rated movies, for instance. The MPAA only operates in America. What are the citizens of other nations supposed to do to judge their own national film industry? Think for themselves? What an idea ...
I think in the next generation, membership in the Church will involve Mormons in a worldwide culture that transcends national boundaries. I suspect that this will be a compromise. Foreign Mormon communities will probably become somewhat more American, since that is where their faith and culture was founded and nurtured ... but I think that American Mormons will also become far more aware of the cultures brought in by foreign converts, particularly as the leadership of the Church begins to fill with non-American authorities.
So as our attention shifts a little towards strengthening our communities from within, rather than being totally focused on bringing in new members from the outside world, and as our own internal culture is shaken up by our shifting demographics, I think you'll see that we become much more fun to deal with
Back to the creative statistics I mentioned at the top of this post ... we often forget that we were never meant to be the majority. In Utah, that seems like the natural order of things to a lot of people. But from what I've seen, the Church works far better as a minority culture, where there is a clear contrast between our practices and those of the surrounding society. I think we were meant to thrive on our differences and remain continually aware of who we are, while taking part in our communities and being a force for good. Not for the good of the Church in the sense of bringing in lots of new members. But for the good of society by learning from our own strong values, treating people well, and preserving a unique way of life that might otherwise be lost.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Occasional:
I was a little worried by your use of the phrase "real power."
Who are the people who weild this real power?
What power do they hold over you?
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
actually bob, they are building a whole lot of new temples (again, mostly because of church membership growth) and before the temples are dedicated they have public tours inside. so you can totally check out the inside, in fact i think they are building a new one in texas as we speak. i got to tour one of the several smaller temples they were building a few years ago, it was neat. i'm sure you'd find the experience educational and interesting. i also know the church buys a lot of farmland because they grow a lot of food for members that are poor and need some help from the church and also for nonmembers, especially in catastrophe situations. the lds church has a huge welfare program, a perpetual education fund for third world citizens, and an extensive humanitarian aid program. and no, we don't force book of mormons or baptisms in exchange for food or disaster relief i find it interesting to learn about since i am very interested in international humanitarian work myself.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
So did you here that Larry Bird said he felt insulted if teams put a Mormon to cover him? What is that?!?!
(Okay, it's quarter past two. Tomorrow morning--morning being a relative term--I'll check and see if that was actually funny or not.)
All anything goes to show is that most of us have some facet of our lives where we belong to a fringe group, and we see legitimate bigotry, and then we become sensitive, and start seeing it everywhere. It might be ethnicity, it might be geoography, it might be religion, it might be based on profession, it might be not belonging to the same faith background as people around us. It must be rare indeed to not be a "minority" in some way. And I'm not, in this post, discounting the existence of bigotry, but we need to convince ourselves believe that the bigots are not the majority, lest we see it everywhere.
Or maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Like I said, it's quarter past two. Closer to two-thirty now.
I still think this thread is a black hole, because it confuses the bejeebus out of me. How do you spell bejebus, anyway?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Who are the people who weild this real power?
What power do they hold over you?
Those who can control public perceptions: The media. Liberal or Conservative, and getting a bit sci-fi on ya', those who control the information can control the outcomes. Especially for the ignorant masses.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
thankfully, icarus, i dislike most human beings, so i rarely have the chance to dislike people for secondary characteristics like bigotry or oversensitivity.
! !
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Before I came to Hatrack my "knowledge" about Latter Day Saints consisted of the following:
They had like a third testament called the Book of Mormon
They believed God or Jesus or an angel had given a firther revelation in North America
They were very "strict" in their conduct, WRT sexuality and stuff like that
They ran BYU
They had once practiced polygamy
And that's about it. Not a very thorough or educated list, but hardly one filled with the sort of rabid hatred folks seem to fear the popular media is serving up. Which is not to say that it isn't there, but that, like Bob said, that's not the most common perception of LDS.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
porce . . . huh?
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
sleep, little sugar-pea, sleep.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Wow! Too many great posts all at once.
Geoff -- thanks! That was good stuff. Back when I was still Catholic, I heard a priest saying much the same but in fact that missionaries and priests were now coming TO America from the places that America used to send export its young men to as priests and missionaries. I wonder if the LDS church will experience that kind of odd reversal in coming decades.
Icarus -- it was funny, but for the fact that Larry Bird is LDS.
Porce -- you know, one of the sources of the "survivalist" impression of the LDS church stems from the amount of farm/ranch land it owns. I mean, it's amazing. The ranch in Central Florida is almost as wide as the State!!!
But one of the things I really admire about the LDS is the social welfare program. Feeding people is good.
Occasional -- I think public perception isn't "controlled" by anyone. I have yet to meet a religious person of any denomination who enjoys the press accounts of their church's actions or statements. It always comes off sounding weird, I think. It's not just an LDS thing by any stretch. You should've heard the grousing in the Baptist churches after the press reports about the Southern Baptist Convention. Especially when they have something "juicy" like that "the woman shall graciously serve the man" thing one year.
Anyway, I believe it is also true that "the ignorant" is a weird kind of label. I mean, people who are ignorant of the LDS aren't necessarily just the great unwashed masses. They're just people who haven't experienced any contact with the LDS first hand. They don't know and really don't care one way or the other. Their jokes aren't even of consequence. Changing their opinions of the church would, I think, be fairly easy if it mattered. But it's a really interesting question -- should you? Does it matter?
Would a 2% generally more positive feeling towards the LDS among the majority of people in the US be worth the effort it takes to achieve it? Would you risk further alienating the conservative evangelical Christian ultra-right wing by becoming more visible overall? And what would the result of that be? You gain 2% "good vibes" in the population as a whole, but lose ground in the people who are most vocal and most dangerous?
Anyway, this power thing is interesting too. I submit that no-one has any power. There's no-one in an official capacity who has power over the LDS church or your personal life within it. The media's power is illusory. They can be successfully challenged. Or educated. Or both.
The only real "official" danger is in the area of taxation. The state and local governments could, if they wanted to make life hard for you, remove your tax-exempt status. If they were successful, they could hurt the church financially.
But that doesn't appear to be a widespread concern for the LDS church. If it is happening at all, I'm betting it's fairly isolated.
Not like TX which recently decided that Unitarian Universalist is NOT a religion and so their congregations are no longer tax exempt here in the state.
Sent chills down the spines of a few local pastors no doubt. If the State Attorney can decide whether you are a real religion or not... Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: Icarus -- it was funny, but for the fact that Larry Bird is LDS.
I didn't know that!
Then the irony's on you, though, since I'm just paraphrasing what he's getting criticized right now for saying about WHITES (and he's one of those, too!)
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Icarus -- it was funny, but for the fact that Larry Bird is LDS.
I think you might have him confused by that other good white guy, Danny Ainge. AFAIK, he (Bird) was a big boozer, and was even in the news for a few bar fights.
[ June 10, 2004, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Larry Bird is not LDS.
At least not that I know of.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I think that if you took a poll of the entire church, asked them to tell you if given celebrities were LDS, and accepted all the "yes" answers you received, the church's membership would grow by several hundred people Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott R. - I totally wrote something extremely flattering about you, and you so for serious dinnit respond. It made Ralphie's heart sad.
Sorry, Ralphie-- I didn't read the second page. Like I told someone else some time ago, in a topic like this that runs several pages, I skim the first page, and then jump to the end.
But let me respond:
quote:And then you have the Scott R.'s who are so awesome that they make one want to run off to Mexico with them after a single post, and not just to get good prices on medical care (if you know what I mean).
Honestly? Do you think you could put up with two strong willed adults (my wife and me), one strong willed child (Junebug) and two toddlers (Super-K and Litebrite) in Mexico? IN JUNE? In our van that doesn't have air conditioning?
If you think you can put up with that-- well, you're definitely a better person than me.
Vacationing with the R's. . . I don't think you're up to it, Ralphie.
But otherwise, you're pretty awesome too.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm wondering if this thread has sufficiently served its original purpose. Discussing how the church relates to the world is always fun, but at the moment I'm more concerned with the dynamics of Hatrack. Is there anything that needs to be said that hasn't been? Has this affected any change? I still like the Nauvoo idea - anything that is basically a dscussion betwen Mormons (e.g., what is the exact purpose of HT/VT?) be moved to there. Can that work? So Hatrack can fulfill its real purpose, as expressed in the charter - making me look smarter.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I just wish that Hatrack Mormons would remember, that whatever goes on “in the world,” this is Hatrack. Y’all aren’t persecuted here, you’re not hated here, you’re not a minority here. So whether a bunch of evangelical so-called Christians in Utah or wherever else picket or protest or think you have horns and eat babies really isn’t relevant to how we relate to each other here.
I’m getting really sick of getting lumped in with the anti-Mormon idiots every time this topic comes up.
[ June 10, 2004, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I’m getting really sick of getting lumped in with the anti-Mormon idiots every time this topic comes up.
Who has lumped you in with the idiot Anti-Mo's? I'll moidelize 'em.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Thanks Scott. I needed that. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
See? What a hug could NEVER do, a threat of physical violence accomplishes quite easily.
There's something for the ol' parenting book.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
I don't know that you want to start referring to yourselves as Mo's.
(((Scott)))
[ June 10, 2004, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I've always thought it was a pretty fair fight at Hatrack. I've never felt victimized. I can't think of anyone here who comes off as "anti-Mormon." Mostly I just feel inadequate before so many generous, intelligent people, regardless of religious beliefs.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
No one comes across as anti-Mormon because if an anti-Mormon and a Mormon ever posted in the same thread they'd be instantly annihilated. Considering the number of Mormons on this sight, the anti-Mormons have to lurk for their own safety.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I prefer to believe that no Hatracker is dumb enough to be one.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
No. See, matter and anti-matter destroy each other when they come into contact. I was being ha ha funny.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I was being snarky.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
porc wrote:
quote: before the temples are dedicated they have public tours inside. so you can totally check out the inside,
I toured through the one in northwest Oklahoma City during the public tours, before it was dedicated. Went with LDS friends who explained each room to me. It was very interesting.
Farmgirl
[ June 10, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
ANTI-MORMON!
Use of the word 'interesting' totally gives you away.
Why don't you just smear tar and feathers all over me, Farmgirl?
:explodes:
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
Bob, I'm sure that most American denominations could have financial holdings as great as the church if their congregational and other leaders worked for free. (keeping in mind that we rotate ours every five years, as a rule).
This is accomplished also by having an aggressive training program of all eligible men at all time serving in various capacities (thus the need to have tons of jobs for everyone). Also, we are so centralized because the leaders don't get their know how from a doctorate, they get it from manuals and the hierarchy. (edit: Not to put the doctorate system down, just saying that's how LDS get by with this system)
The General Authorities of the Church (the 100 or so senior leaders) are overwhelmingly of "pioneer stock", our word for what you described as folks with five generations of murdered in Nauvoo or whatever. Though we have an occasional minority convert as well. But your observation did serve to help me understand that, as I would like to see more minority converts in high places. So thank you. I realize that the church sells as "American Prosperity" in some parts of the world.
The Utah/quaint argument, when I last saw it, seemed to be about both non mormon view of all mormons, and non Utah mormons about Utah. All I'm saying is that attending BYU doesn't really give one basis to blast all Utah. Of course, my out of Utah experience was in the D.C. Metro area, where former U.S. Cabinet Secretary and future church President Ezra Taft Benson raised his family (not in my congregation, but near by). We also have the Marriott's in the area, and most wards have a large contingent of CIA and other alphabet soup operatives. It's a different flavor than most other out-of-Utah mormon scenes. But like every ward (congregation) I've ever been in, the members reported "a special spirit that I don't get in any other ward (tears of joy)". Sorry. Maybe it's just me, but I've never been in a ward where they don't say that. Gives a whole new meaning to "maybe it's just me."
[ June 10, 2004, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: skrika03 ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I still like the Nauvoo idea - anything that is basically a dscussion betwen Mormons (e.g., what is the exact purpose of HT/VT?) be moved to there. Can that work?
I can't tell how serious you are about this, but I'll respond to it as though you are.
I feel uncomfortable with this idea. It would be like saying that if you want to talk about US politics, you have to take the conversation over to Ornery.
But more importantly, it would be a shame if people had to constantly watch themselves "Can I talk about this part of my life? Will the community get mad at me because this topic is taboo?"
There are tons of threads that I don't participate in because they don't interest me. But it's still a good thing that others can.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I realize Geoff has since apologized, the statement of which I'm going to include in the quotes below. But in order to, I hope, further understanding, I'm going to tear the WORDS apart that he used at the time and show how they affected someone who wasn't LDS (Please believe me that is isn't directed you personally Geoff even though I might be harsh at times.)
First off, the relevant context and quotes:
From Page 2 of this thread
KAMA:
quote:Small digression, cause there is something I don't really understand, though I don't think it needs a separate thread.
Out of curiosity, how many people are there in Utah? Over 2 million? It's like a small country in itself. There are European countries just as small.
When people speak about the Utah culture, how different is it from Poland which - though much bigger - is 90+ % catholic, and yet I don't find it boring or stale. Or take Silesia, the area where I live,which might be comprable in terms of population - very homogenous, with most people from exactly the same backround and upbringing. So where does this feeling about Utah come from?
A Rat Named Dog's Reply:
quote: Kama, I think it comes, in part, from the general disdain that America has for quaint or old-fashioned versions of its own culture. Utahns cultivate a culture of order, family unity, adherence to rules, conformity, etc, that reminds many Americans of the 1950's. Since we all know from watching movies that the 1950's were the worst time ever in history Utah must therefore be an insipid and obnoxious place.
A Rat Named Dog's later clarification:
quote:saxon, in your defense, I had been in and out of skimming this thread up to that point, and didn't fully understand the larger context of the question when I answered it. And honestly, your bad reaction made me think more closely about what I was saying. My more recent explanation is, in fact, what I think about the matter. My earlier comments were more careless and flippant. Sorry I ticked you off
And to be fair here is that "recent explanation he referred to:
quote: ...First of all, it took me a couple of posts from saxon to figure out exactly what he thought was offensive about my post. I was trying to make the point that in America, certain cultural features are considered "quaint" and therefore pathetic and undesirable, and that is why, in my opinion, most people treat Utah Mormon culture with contempt.
When I brought up the representation of the 1950's in film, I wasn't trying to allege that there is some kind of liberal bias or conspiracy going on to warp our perceptions of the past, or of Mormon culture in particular. I was trying to use it as an example of how Americans in general view "quaint" cultures. Those movies aren't designed to insidiously alter our perceptions. On the contrary, they resonate with people because that's the way they already feel. I guess I didn't make that clear enough.
Americans look at modest clothing, polite teenagers, decorous speech, business suits, and other such features of Mormon culture as dorky, out-of-fashion, and even scary things that people should know better than to get involved with. I don't think I'm really that far off the mark in my description here, am I? I mean, I have the same reactions, and I was raised with the stuff. We're all affected to one degree or another by cultural bias, and we can't help that. All we can do is be aware of it and compensate for any inappropriate reactions.
Now, as I said above, my comments were about "most people". Ie, your average American. Most people in this country have never been to Utah, deal very rarely with the Mormon church, and know very little about the true behaviors of Mormon communities. Thus they react to us and to Utah on a very superficial, unconscious level, and many of the issues we've been discussing here don't come into play. I believed that the question I was answering was about the common perception of Utah and Mormon culture by Americans that don't live there and don't know anything about it, and I thought my answer was appropriate.
And it certainly wasn't "canned" as someone alleged. It's not a question I've ever been asked before, so I made up the answer that seemed to make the most sense to me at the time. I'm sorry it came across to some as antagonistic. It certainly wasn't meant to be.
Now I'm going to try to analyze why I thought it seemed "canned", because I promised an explanation, which can hopefully be applied across a broader context.
First of all, ARND admits, he was skimming, and didn't understand the context of the question asked. It showed in his answer. Yes, we are all guilty of this occasionally, and it isn't always bad. But from the skimming, if you get the impression that people are taking the topic very seriously you owe it to both yourself and others, to take a bit of time to Think about the response.
In the more "flippant" response ARND is telling a non-citizen (Kama) how people in My country react about something. That makes it a bit more personal to Me. Then he makes a sweeping negative stereotype about the entire country's reactions to the 1950s and Mormons, that perpetuates an adversarial stereotype (non-LDS looking at LDS in disdain for their values), which I as a non-LDS believe to be mostly untrue.
To my non-LDS eyes that belief that outsiders in general, if not specific, disdain them, appears to be a normal world view of many if not most LDS on this board. This is what gives it the "canned" flavor of, oh we've heard this before, here we go again... they really think we (the non-lds) are awful don't they? It gives the Appearance of such even if it ISN'T the true Reality of the situation.
I think this goes both ways. At most I think there might be 3% of rabid-anti LDS types in the country probably less. It might be more than the LDS themselves but I doubt it. And the LDS see the vocal people, not the 95% of the people out there going about minding their own business who DON'T have negative perceptions, but ones like Icarus before he came to Hatrack. So once again the Perception of the anti-LDS sentiment in the country to someone who is LDS, is probably not actually the Reality of the situation.
(This point ties in pretty well with ARND's post at the bottom of page 6 on the growth and maturity of the LDS church and Bob's post on pg 7) But it is those Assumptions and Perceptions that get hackles raised. And it leads to feelings of isolation on both "sides" when there shouldn't be sides as Celia so eloquently stated earlier, because we are all on Hatrack together.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
MPH:
It's something that OSC used to request on most of the LDS threads, back when he posted. If its basically an LDS-only discussion, it can and should be held in the LDS-only placed created for that exact purpose. ---
There's a lot of crossover of members between forums. The mods don't want us to link to Nauvoo, but you can say there's a discussion on that topic there.
---
There's a finite amount of space on the front page. Some self-restraint on the part of the biggest bloc has been requested.
[ June 10, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Actually, MPH, I seem to recall Kristine Card remarking a while back, on the other side, that one of the hopes for Ornery was that all the political discussions at Hatrack would transfer over there.
Guess it didn't work. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Point taken. I'll think about it.
*tries to imagine hatrack if politics were not discussed*
*head explodes*
[ June 10, 2004, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If they would take the 'Culture' out of 'Books, Films, Food, and American Culture,' there wouldn't be this problem.
Blame the mods.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
"Books, Films, Food, and American"
I dunno. That just kinda leave you waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"Books, Film, Food, and American[s]"
That would mean this is an appropriate place to note that Jennifer Lopez was married over the weekend.
[ June 10, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ewww. That doesn't sound like a place I could stomach for long. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Actually, when this forum does cycle back to books, food, and film, I tend to think it gets really boring. This place is at its most interesting when it's flying in the face of its mandate. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I just want to say, thanks to Ela. I was getting a wee bit paranoid.
Thanks for getting me to think more about how others receive my words. Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
I think that if anything should be dropped it is the "American". We are, after all, a multi-contintent forum and topics are not limited to "America". Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What would you guess is the percentage of Americans on hatrack?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think it should be Books, Films, Food and Life
AJ
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Banna, at no point was I trying to say that every specific American has disdain for quaint versions of American culture. I wasn't trying to insult you. You know the question I thought I was answering, and I don't think it's entirely necessary for me to account for every possible deviation from what I saw as a general trend.
And it wasn't about "non-Mormons" versus "Mormons" either. Reread it, I never made the distinction. American Mormons raised outside of Utah (like myself) have a reaction to Utah culture which is very similar to the reaction of non-Mormons raised outside Utah. We laugh at it and say, "They're still living in the fifties" or "They're still living in the eighties", pointing out decades that are notoriously conservative, and are treated today with contempt by our current mainstream culture.
And maybe that's a common human trend, to look back on former conservative times with disdain one decade, and longing the next. I don't know. But I think it's silly. Every decade has its struggles, its history, its good features, and bad features, and treating a culture with disdain just because it looks old-fashioned is my definition of having a pretty stupid opinion
But it does persist among many Americans. To hear some people talk about America during the 1950s, you'd think we were Germans looking back on the 1940s
Ugh. Anyway. I understand the point you're getting at, and I realized you've been frustrated by a lot of "canned" sounding responses, and mine was a convenient one to use as an example.
But I think it was a bad example. I was just looking at a facet of the Utah culture problem that I thought was interesting. It's not all-encompassing, it's not a point I usually try to make, and it wasn't trying to drive a wedge between Mormons and non-Mormons.
You know, if anything, I'm usually an advocate for abandoning a lot of annoying features of Utah culture, and becoming more connected to the mainstream world. In this instance, I was trying to play for the other side a bit, for the sake of NOT always harping on the same issues. And yet that very response gets called out for being "canned". What can you do, I guess.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Geoff I understand now how and why you wrote it. I tried to make that clear in my post above. I included quoting your own explanations to be as fair to you as I possibly could even though it made the post more unwieldy. But it does have "common" traits with many other posts from LDS posters. Which was why I went ahead and dissected it. Whoever I had picked, would have likely felt the same way, for which I apologize. But in order to make it applicable to real life, I needed a real post. And you've got enough character that I didn't think you wouldn't wilt under the scrutiny.
AJ
Also I do think that bias comes through unconsciously even if you are Trying not to, which that post was an example of.
[ June 10, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:Honestly? Do you think you could put up with two strong willed adults (my wife and me), one strong willed child (Junebug) and two toddlers (Super-K and Litebrite) in Mexico? IN JUNE? In our van that doesn't have air conditioning?
If you think you can put up with that-- well, you're definitely a better person than me.
Vacationing with the R's. . . I don't think you're up to it, Ralphie.
You're so adorably, intentionally obtuse.
You're right, tho. That air-conditioning thing nails it.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
No Ralphie, he simply wanted a threesome with Two beautiful women. If he could have his cake and eat it too...
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which woman would be the cake in that scenario?
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
*edits post*
(I'm just get a start on what would probably have been something really innappropriate.)
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*nearly spewed soda at my computer screen because of Tom's remark* AJ
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Just for the record, I'd like to say that before I came to Hatrack, the things I knew about LDS were limited. There was a really hot LDS guy that lived around the corner from me when I was a teenager, but the family didn't really interact with the rest of the neighborhood and eventually left. (Of course, the kids played with us and stuff, but the adults didn't socialize.) I was sad, cause he was really cute. Donny and Marie were LDS and they were cute. Donny is still hot. Yummy. LDS seem to have an obsession with stockpiling food, which always amused me, because my mother is the same way (and, so am I, my mother-in-law always makes fun of how much toilet paper I have in the house.) On any given day, I have enough cereal to feed my son for a year. I can't help it, my mother started it. She had this huge pantry in the basement that was stockpiled. To this day, she has enough food down there to last her and my dad the rest of their lives. LDS seem to have large families. That was based on three families that I knew. The ones that lived in my neighborhood, the Osmond's and a girl that worked with me here in Kansas, who was dropped off my her mother in the biggest van I've ever seen in my life, which was always filled with kids. Oh, and my favorite bit of LDS information - when you see two young men in short-sleeved white shirts, dark pants and a tie, riding bicycles, they are probably LDS missionaries.
I would also like to comment on the "disdain," or "contempt" that "we" seem to have for the 50s. Personally, I wish more of America actually was like it showed in the old movies/TV shows. Unfortunately, even in the 50s, there were problems that were just not discussed and hidden. If everyone could live like the idealized version of the 50s, I think it would be great. There was just too much suppression, repression, and wearing of blinders that lead to exclusion, abuse, use of alcohol/drugs to numb oneself, etc.
I think the idealized version of the 50s would be a great place to live, much like Star Trek TNG. It's too bad that place never really existed. And since it didn't, there can't be any "going back" to it. And, in fact, it can be looked back on with contempt. At least the way it was shown in movies and on TV. Because it never was that way. Why wouldn't you have contempt for something that is so obviously propaganda? (And actually, Pleasantville is probably the most accurate portrait of the 50s I've seen. While it showed the white suburbs only, at least once you actually looked at it, you saw the underlying problems. Has anyone ever seen the documentary Wonderland? To me, that is more like what the 50s were really like. Segregated and repressed. But, it looks really nice on TV. It's the kind of place you long to live in, if only a non-segregated/repressed version of it existed.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
oooh, let's replace the word "bloc" with "cake!" in every post!
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:saxon, in your defense, I had been in and out of skimming this thread up to that point, and didn't fully understand the larger context of the question when I answered it. And honestly, your bad reaction made me think more closely about what I was saying. My more recent explanation is, in fact, what I think about the matter. My earlier comments were more careless and flippant. Sorry I ticked you off
And I'm sorry for being too prickly. We coo' now, Dog.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Intentional obtuseness has saved my bacon more than once, let me tell you.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
(((Bob)))
*hi-fives Mack*
*wanders off laughing*
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
You know it's good when you scandalize yourself. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
It's a very human trait, mack - never lose it! I'd hate to be alone!
Hey, Kayla - have you read The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz? I think you'd enjoy it. It pretty much shreds the myths of the 1950s on all fronts.
Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
I want to start out by saying that when I took part in the deleted thread, in defence of Skillery's comments, I didn't mean to upset or offend anyone. I realised after thinking about my post that I hadn't worded it very well and when I got back to Hatrack was going to apologise - I was shocked and upset that it had been deleted as I did understand the point of the thread and felt that it was a useful discussion to have. So I do apologise if I upset you with my comments. Punwit put it so much better than I did at the beginning of this thread.
Do non-mormon Hatrackers really have us all lumped into a scary group which overcomes our individual personalities. I can't remember most of the time who else is LDS or isn't.
I do have the same religious beliefs as other LDS but I certainly don't have the same cultural, political, ideological and personal beliefs as they do. We do not all have the same views and arguments and I know a lot of LDS who hold church backed views but couldn't argue there way out of a paper bag. I can't see how our presence can stagnate discussion.
Many others have commented on "the subtle LDS references and nudges that only the initiated "get"". I definitely felt this way when I joined Hatrack and it had nothing to do with the LDS - it was because "Jatqueros" (as an example) have them - a lot - it probably seemed more intense to me because I'd never frequented any other forum before. As said by lots of others this happens when any group of people become close whether the connection is Religion, a forum, a similar hobby, school, country, love of certain author. It's part of life to cope with it surely.
quote: And I think that Home Teachers would be more effective if dubbed "Apostacy Avengers" and fitted with spandex and capes.
There's also been a lot of response to the comments about "certain rites" being "more destructive then any good that comes out of it". You've obviously heard our explanations about Temple work being sacred and disregard our beliefs because you don't agree with them so there's no point in going over that. I know you tried to clarify your statement by saying it doesn't matter why we do it but why people think we do it. But we don't change church doctrines so other people will be happy with us - we believe we're obeying a commandment from God. Just as our doctrines on marriage or homosexuality aren't going to change even if they're not popular. We're not vying for popularity - we just want to live our beliefs - and we allow others to do the same.
I've only had time to read up to page 3 but must go to bed.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Shan, I haven't, but will add it to my list. Thanks!
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
quote: I've only had time to read up to page 3 but must go to bed.
no kidding, home-slice.
*le sigh*
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I was thinking about a couple areas where non-Mormons might feel excluded in the real world.
Weddings - Before Hatrack, I was under the belief that non-Mormons could not attend Mormon wedding ceremonies. That used to bug me. Not much, since at the time I didn't have any good friends who were Mormons whose wedding I would be getting excluded from.
I could still be mistaken, but aren't Temple marriages a very small affair and very few people, Mormon or non-Mormon are allowed to attend? Then you have a larger ceremony where everyone is invited?
Funerals - I went to a funeral years ago for the wife of a coworker, but wasn't allowed into the inner room where the casket was. I didn't really know her well and I was there primarily for my coworker, so it didn't bother me. But it would if it had been a good friend. Am I remembering this wrong? What is the policy regarding funeral services?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
zgator -- let me clarify.
We only have one "ceremony" when a couple is married in the temple, and that takes place in the temple. It is customary to have a wedding reception later that day, but there is no ceremony involved.
You are correct that many Mormons do not get invited to the sealing ceremony.
For funerals, it is customary to have a small, intimate viewing of the body for the family. There is no ceremony. If you were a very close friend, a member of the family might invite you to that private viewing. But maybe not. That's just up to the family.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Well, this thread has had an effect on me. On another thread, somebody brought up something about Utah culture. I felt like starting a new thread on a tangent of it, but then I thought "Oh. Maybe this topic is too mormony. I guess I'd better not post it." So I didn't. And I was sad. Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Thanks Porter.
As to your thread idea, as a non-Mormon, I would still be interested in seeing where it goes. I don't think it's too Mormony.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
But seriously, I think Visiting Teachers (female version of Home Teachers) would probably try to understand where someone is coming from before "giving up". I think a lot of Home Teachers would too, but girls are a little better at verbal communication.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Mack![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)