[ June 27, 2005, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
:throws Hobbes a floating ducky ring:
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm intensely confused, Hobbesy.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I got an e-mail from a Christian preacher I know from Purdue telling me about the evils of the Mormon Church and warning me to flee. Really it's kind of sweet that he cares I guess.
Anyways, this thread is a joke, does that help?
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes. Yes, that helps. Oh my stars. *thwap* Don't SCARE me like that. It didn't make sense at all because you're Hobbes, but still - other people who are NOT Hobbes have done it, and I had a horribly scary moment. I'm sorry for that, by the way. *starts breathing again*
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Awww, Katie! You're so sweet! (((hugs)))
In other news, I have decided I like life without my husband here so much, I'm going to divorce him and go find a new career as a phone worker for one of those lines men call late at night. Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
*does not know what to feel since she is not Mormon, but is happy that everyone seems relieved*
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I was told Mormons were beyond redemption, so I never bothered. Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
So*….. when the various door to door recruiters from various churches come knocking on the door how does one politely say I’m not interested. I’ve tried the whole I’m in church, like it, run the sound room, blah blah blah. Yet they still keep bugging. I thought it was really funny the one time when they gave me something to read and then asked for a donation.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Just say, politely, "No thanks. I'm not interested."
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I usually give them a pass-along card and testify of the truth of the Restored Gospel.
They usually put me on the "do not contact" list pretty quickly.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Just say, politely, "No thanks. I'm not interested."
That's what I do. Seems to work.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I love you, Hobbes, and I suppose I can recognize the humor some would see in this, but I find this thread in horribly bad taste. I personally find it almost as disrespectful as KoM's attitude toward religion in general. This is not meant to sound condescending, but I really have come to expect better of you.
--Pop
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
My wife is friends with two of the elders from our local ward, and they've never tried to convert us, but every time the missionaries come to our door we just tell them that if so-and-so couldn't convince us then they won't be able to either.
Then I offer them a drink (non-alchoholic of course, I'm not so devilish as to taunt thirsty Mormons with alcohol ).
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Moose (I can't bring myself to call you Papa, but my inherent need to shorten everything keeps me from calling you by your full name)
I fail to see how this thread (in general) is in bad taste. I may disagree with Jay's posts (which seems to be a trend here at Hatrack), but most of the posts are respectively poking fun at all religions that actively try to save you from your current situation (i.e. Mormon, Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, etc.)
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Ok this should be good. How on earth did I say anything in here that you disagree with? I was asking a question. You disagree with the question?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Jay, my issue with your post probably had more to do with the phrasing, and my subsequent interpretaion of it. On re-reading it, I'm sure that you meant it in a humorous manner, but it just struck me as contrite. Especially your last statement:
quote:I’ve tried the whole I’m in church, like it, run the sound room, blah blah blah. Yet they still keep bugging. I thought it was really funny the one time when they gave me something to read and then asked for a donation.
Whether you agree or disagree with these people's views or opinions, they believe that they're doing something good and worthy by talking to you about their beliefs. To rebuff them in a manner that is anything but polite and respectful would speak volumes about ones own character.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Behave!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Whether you agree or disagree with these people's views or opinions, they believe that they're doing something good and worthy by talking to you about their beliefs. To rebuff them in a manner that is anything but polite and respectful would speak volumes about ones own character.
I suspect, though can't know for sure, that this is the sentiment behind Pop's post.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Tante - Behave! ????
Was I misbehaving?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have no doubt that Hobbes was the soul of politeness in rebuffing the offer of enlightenment about the evil nature of his church.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Oh, people have been trying to save me from those wicked Mormons all along. My boss where I used to work said the devil had just gotten hold of me, because I still was interested in joining the church even after he explained to me what a speaker at their Baptist church had told them about the evils of Mormonism. My point that talking to Mormons personally, and getting to know them, and asking them what they believe, was probably a more reliable method of finding out about the church than listening to some guy who hated Mormons and taking what he said as the whole truth, didn't seem to strike my boss as relevant.
My mother told me that dad and she decided I just must have turned off my brain.
A kind Christian lady who took care of my cats for me a few times happened to run into missionaries at my house, and afterwards left me lots of anti-Mormon literature in my mailbox, because she was worried about me. When I told her I was already a member of the church, she was shocked and very soon thereafter quit being available to keep my cats, though possibly for unrelated reasons.
When the temple opened here in town, there were protestors across the street for months, and tracts of anti-Mormon literature being passed out all over the area.
It's the strangest thing, to me, that people are so worried about the dangers of the Latter Day Saints, who are generally straightedge, law-abiding, hard working, quiet and respectful model citizens. The worst thing that can be said about Mormons as a group, it seems to me, is that we tend to be really dorky. <laughs> Am I the only one who thinks that? I happen to love that quality, and it is just on the surface, as the people are culturally rich and diverse in truth, when you know them better. But to an outsider's eye I find it perfectly just and applicable that we appear rather bland and whitebread on the surface.
But so many things in our modern world are so much worse, there is slavery and sex slavery, torture, oppressive governments, so much brutality, war, hunger, disease, destructive addictions, urban violence, homelessness, children with no health care, there are so many evils that could be addressed and helped a huge amount How can anyone feel their time and resources are best spent by battling the LDS? That is such a puzzle to me.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: Was I misbehaving?
No, no, calm down, you're behaving very nicely. I'm scolding Hobbes for making light inappropriately and for upsetting the group.
As for me, I refuse to allow folk to proselytize to me, I do not proselytize to others, but I try to treat everyone with respect regarding their religious beliefs.
Folk can be very touchy about religion, so I avoid debate to maintain harmony.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But so many things in our modern world are so much worse, there is slavery and sex slavery, torture, oppressive governments, so much brutality, war, hunger, disease, destructive addictions, urban violence, homelessness, children with no health care, there are so many evils that could be addressed and helped a huge amount How can anyone feel their time and resources are best spent by battling the LDS? That is such a puzzle to me.
This statement puzzles me. Mormon men are encouraged to spend 2 years of their life trying to convert people. Although I certainly wouldn't call that "battling" (I have great respect for it), it is an extraordinary commitment of resources to something that isn't one of "slavery and sex slavery, torture, oppressive governments, so much brutality, war, hunger, disease, destructive addictions, urban violence, homelessness, children with no health care." Hobbes is about to do it himself.
Obviously, there are differences in how people go about conversion. But it's still dedicating resources to conversion and not your list.
quote:I have no doubt that Hobbes was the soul of politeness in rebuffing the offer of enlightenment about the evil nature of his church.
I have no doubt of that either. But THT wondered why Pop was displeased with this thread and posted his paragraph on the importance of rebuffing politely. It surprised me that s/he (sorry -don't know) didn't see how that might apply to this thread.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm actually surprised that Pops was offended by it. I think by telling someone their chosen path in life is a disaster, you must accept the possibility that they will scorn you for the attempt.
That's always a risk. Sometimes it is an acceptable risk, and sometimes (for me, anyway - maybe I shouldn't feel like this, but I do) it just isn't.
Posted by Void (Member # 8259) on :
quote:This statement puzzles me. Mormon men are encouraged to spend 2 years of their life trying to convert people. Although I certainly wouldn't call that "battling" (I have great respect for it), it is an extraordinary commitment of resources to something that isn't one of "slavery and sex slavery, torture, oppressive governments, so much brutality, war, hunger, disease, destructive addictions, urban violence, homelessness, children with no health care."
Oh but it very much is a battle against those very things! People who convert and live the gospel will not contribute to those evils, and will resist and fight against them. You might think of the missionaries as recruiting soldiers in the war against those things. (I personally believe that's true of the members of any church who sincerely strive to live their religion.)
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Dags, If you and I had a discussion where you tried to convince me that you worshipped the one true god (who just happened to be a Smurf toy from the early 80's), and that for the preservation of my eternal soul I should convert, I would be respectful of your beliefs (and extricate myself from the situation as quickly as possible).
Then I would promptly talk to a friend and explain what I found to be funny about the situation. I don't consider that to be disrespectful, and I believe that this thread was started under the same pretense of good-natured humour.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Whether you agree or disagree with these people's views or opinions, they believe that they're doing something good and worthy by talking to you about their beliefs. To rebuff them in a manner that is anything but polite and respectful would speak volumes about ones own character.
Interesting. Not sure why I’m responding here since this is just an obvious Jay is a jerk and I disagree with anything he says tirade. But anyway…..
Did I say I did something impolite or disrespectful? No. As a matter of fact, I was asking about how to be polite to them with the goal being to not hurt their feelings. If you’re referring to me thinking it is funny that someone would ask for a donation when giving out reading material, it is certainly out of the norm for someone to ask for money in this situation. And again, I didn’t make a reference to what I did, just that it was funny. Part of my problem is that I’m probably too nice to them and talk. Just the typical friendly neighborly welcome person. Questioning my character about this makes me wonder if someone doesn’t need to look in the mirror and reflect for a while.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Then I would promptly talk to a friend and explain what I found to be funny about the situation. I don't consider that to be disrespectful, and I believe that this thread was started under the same pretense of good-natured humour.
Would you discuss it in that manner with a friend who happens to believe in the Smurf toy god?
quote:Oh but it very much is a battle against those very things! People who convert and live the gospel will not contribute to those evils, and will resist and fight against them. You might think of the missionaries as recruiting soldiers in the war against those things. (I personally believe that's true of the members of any church who sincerely strive to live their religion.)
And attempting to save someone from eternal torment isn't as important as that list?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:People who convert and live the gospel will not contribute to those evils, and will resist and fight against them. You might think of the missionaries as recruiting soldiers in the war against those things. (I personally believe that's true of the members of any church who sincerely strive to live their religion.)
What is the mormon view on the depravity of man?
Because I believe in the doctrine of total depravity, and I think that no matter who you are, you are susceptible to falling into great sin. That's why I've never one to be "shocked" when someone who says they're a Christian commits a grevious sin.
After all, I expect them to sin. God doesn't promise us we'll never sin again if we live the gospel to use your terminology, he just promises that we will be forgiven.
Yes, people who are Christian should strive hard to live a sinless life, and to do what is right, but it's also just not possible. I could go out and knock on a million doors and have a million people all tell me they want to be Christian and live the perfect Christian lifestyle and I've not saved one single sinner.
First of all, because salvation is beyond me and not mine to impart, and second of all, because people don't just wake up tomorrow and not have a sinful nature.
I guess my issue with your post is the first sentence I quoted.
I think I'd rather it were "People who convert and TRY TO live the gospel will TRY not to contribute to those evils, and will resist and fight against them."
I'm just hesitant with committing to the idea that if the whole world were Christian we wouldn't have wars, we wouldn't have conflicts, there would never be any murders or pedophiles again. Of course there would. Because Christian or not, man has a depraved, fallen nature. That's what I believe anyway.
Of course, I believe sincere believers who really are committed to living a Christian life shouldn't cheat on their spouses, kill, rob, whatever. They should love their neighbors as themselves and care about their fellow man. But they're not going to be perfect because I don't believe it's possible for anyone to be.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Interesting. Not sure why I’m responding here since this is just an obvious Jay is a jerk and I disagree with anything he says tirade. But anyway…..
Did I say I did something impolite or disrespectful? No. As a matter of fact, I was asking about how to be polite to them with the goal being to not hurt their feelings. If you’re referring to me thinking it is funny that someone would ask for a donation when giving out reading material, it is certainly out of the norm for someone to ask for money in this situation. And again, I didn’t make a reference to what I did, just that it was funny. Part of my problem is that I’m probably too nice to them and talk. Just the typical friendly neighborly welcome person. Questioning my character about this makes me wonder if someone doesn’t need to look in the mirror and reflect for a while.
Jay, I don't know you, and I don't have a personal interest in villifying you. I do tend to disagree with you, but I don't hold that against you, and certainly wouldn't use it as a basis for my own opinion. If my comment about people disagreeing with you offended you, then I apologize. It was merely an observation of some pretty consistent Hatrack behaviour.
As I explained in my post, I think that it was probably a misinterpretation on my part. The written word can come across in many different ways when it's read by different people. Rather than attack me, just explain that you meant it differently than I interpreted it, and the crisis of opinions is averted.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Would you discuss it in that manner with a friend who happens to believe in the Smurf toy god?
Yes, I would be able to talk to a friend about it.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:So*….. when the various door to door recruiters from various churches come knocking on the door how does one politely say I’m not interested. I’ve tried the whole I’m in church, like it, run the sound room, blah blah blah. Yet they still keep bugging. I thought it was really funny the one time when they gave me something to read and then asked for a donation.
I tell you what I do, I tell them no thanks, and I wish them a nice day and then I shut the door without giving them a chance to respond.
That may sound a bit rude, but I've experience with people who came to my door and just wouldn't let things alone, no matter what I tried. (no, they were not Mormon missionaries, and I don't see the point in naming the particular faith/denomination)
An exception was a woman from one of the local baptist congregations who came and told me she just wanted to say hello and invite me to come by if I ever wanted to and I told her "Oh, you wouldn't want me, I'm a heathen presbyterian" (because that is a joke between me and my baptist family members) she just laughed and asked me where I went to church and we had a neat 20 minute or so conversation. She never pushed to try and get me to come to her church, and I never pushed to try and get her to come to mine, we just had fun chatting.
And I tell you, if ever I were planning on visiting a baptist church, that would be the one I'd go to. Not that a baptist church would have me, with my heretical doctrinal beliefs. Posted by Void (Member # 8259) on :
You are right. People are not going to be perfect. I will rewrite:
Inasmuch as people live the gospel, they will not contribute to those evils, and will resist and fight against them. You might think of the missionaries as recruiting soldiers in the war against those things. (I personally believe that's true of the members of any church who sincerely strive to live their religion.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Am I the only one who keeps reading the title of this thread to the tune of that song that's the theme from "Smallville"?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tatiana, did you just call Mormons rulers?
Posted by Void (Member # 8259) on :
Oh, thanks, KetchupQueen, now I'll be hearing that song in my head all day! Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Slightly off the topic, but I just wanted to mention that I'm one of those people who, when pushed to do something, tends to push right back in the opposite direction. I am also quite happy to be a complete and total heathen. I have strongly held beliefs which don't seem to match up with any organised religion at the moment.
However, of all the people who have ever discussed their religion with me, I have found LDS missionaries to have been among those who have been most polite and respectful of my own beliefs and choices, without trying to push me to do anything I didn’t want to. Their respect for others encouraged me to read the book of Mormon and I have visited the temple at Salt Lake City.
My friend recently explored Christianity, decided it was not for her and is now being militantly chased by some members of her former church (sobbing phone calls in the middle of the night begging her not to go to Hell), causing her to flee even further from considering becoming a Christian. She tries to keep positive, saying, 'Well, at least they care about me!' but she is getting extremely tired of it all. There is, in my opinion, a big difference between getting a message out there and alienating people by disrespecting their beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be, which is, by the sounds of things, what happened to Hobbes.
I hope this post will be taken as it was meant, as I hold all religions and their believers in high respect and hope that one day we will all be allowed to make our own religious choices without censure or complaint from others. In this way, more people might come to explore religions and learn valuable lessons from them, maybe even leading to a more understanding society.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don’t want to speak for Papa Moose, but perhaps he feels (as I do) that following the user agreement (as well as basic politeness) by not trying to “compete” while Hobbes was posting about his ongoing conversion does not equal not caring. And to accuse (even in jest) those of us who have a strong faith other than LDS of “not caring” and “not taking an interest in my life” for following said agreement is what I found to be in poor taste about this thread.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Am I the only one who keeps reading the title of this thread to the tune of that song that's the theme from "Smallville"?
I wasn't!
>_<
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:I'm just hesitant with committing to the idea that if the whole world were Christian we wouldn't have wars, we wouldn't have conflicts, there would never be any murders or pedophiles again. Of course there would. Because Christian or not, man has a depraved, fallen nature. That's what I believe anyway
Belle, I think I might believe the same thing. I mean...when you said you rather put the TRY to live the gospel instead of LIVING the gospel, I agreed fully because we're human. That's at once a blessing and a failing, because we can never be perfect, but we can do our best to try. It's the intent and trying and resulting actions that can help in whatever it's supposed to. As human beings, though, we're going to find something to argue about, stuff to disagree with, etc.
At the same time, I don't know if I want the world to be entirely Christian. That's probably heretical in some way, but it would be awfully boring if we were all Christian. Other religions are fascinating, and could perhaps be other paths to the truth.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think for Hobbes the idea that people on Hatrack didn't care was as riduculous to him as the the idea that he needs saving from his choices.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Am I the only one who keeps reading the title of this thread to the tune of that song that's the theme from "Smallville"?
Oh yeah, baby.
*begins singing*
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
At what point did we become a culture that is so easily offended?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So you ask for reasons why people thought this was in poor taste. Two different reasons were given. And now you're just going to lament how easily our culture is offended?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can't believe that with the crap against religion spewed on this board, Hobbes is the one getting chastised.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:And I tell you, if ever I were planning on visiting a baptist church, that would be the one I'd go to. Not that a baptist church would have me, with my heretical doctrinal beliefs.
Is Belle's statement here much different than Hobbes's?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Dags, Lamenting isn't the word that I would have used.
I'm merely wondering why it has taken an entire page of posts to elicit one slightly confusing attempt at explaining why they were offended by such an innocuous post. Given that the tone of this entire thread has been extremely courteous and ,in my mind, respectful, I just can't understand what all the hooplah is about. (Oh yeah...I said hooplah)
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I simply find it amusing that if not for us heathens, pagans and non-believers to sort out first, the various religions would be left with nothing else to do but convert each other.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"All the hooplah"?
One person said something, one person attempted to give a reason for it, and one person gave another reason for it.
What is this hooplah you speak of?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe the invocation of King of Men is responsible for the impression of a hooplah. We could make a new Law.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I just like using the word hooplah and try to work into at least one conversation.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*snort*
I'd just like you to know that actually DID make me snort with laugher.
[I was actually referring to Katie's wit]
[ June 22, 2005, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: mackillian ]
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
That's why I try to use it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"Strictly speaking, I ain't never s'posed to do this."
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Sorry Dags, I don't know that one.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Hudsucker Proxy.
Wow, when I posted this it didn't even occur to me that could've been offensive. I'm really sorry about that! I'm going to re-read the thread and then... well apologize more formally.
Hobbes Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: *snort*
I'd just like you to know that actually DID make me snort with laugher.
[I was actually referring to Katie's wit]
Oh...well...I still like saying hooplah...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're such a darling, Hobbes.
For some reason, every time I say hooplah, I want to do jazz hands.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
As an explanation, I woke up this morning to an e-mail a friend from Purdue had sent me (who is a non-denominational preacher going back to school, we had a couple CS classes together). He was aware that I was going on a mission for the LDS Church, and with it coming up, I guess he wanted to make a pitch. Anyways, he sent me a long e-mail explaining why I had allowed the Churches community and acceptance to lull me into accepting a fake, evil doctrine. And then explained quite explicitly that the Mormon Church was very much not Christian and I needed to run away from it. My first post was kind of a hodgepodge of quotes from the letter.
I'm sorry that I posted it in an inflammatory way, I certainly didn't mean offense to anyone here! DKW, I absolutely don't think in the least that you ever showed a lack of concern for me, or in anyway failed being a friend to me, which as much as you can be in a forum like this. (((DKW))) I'm the sorriest that the thought even crossed your mind!
As a follow up, I did e-mail him back, and tried to explain some of his issues with the Church and then ended with this:
quote:I appreciate that you care about me, and I understand that that's why you wrote this, but I'm afraid that there's little you can inform me of that I don't already know about my Church. I went into this Church knowing quite a bit about the doctrine, as well as the doctrine of other Churches. I walked into this with eyes open. If you want to continue to explain why you think I'm wrong I wont stop you, and I'm sure I'll read it (well... for the next week until I stop read this e-mail account) but having received revelation, for myself, from the Spirit of God as to the truthfulness of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, there is little you can do to dissuade me.
He hasn't written me back yet (not surprising, it just happened). And... umm... I'm sorry again.
Hobbes Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then they wouldn't be jazz hands. They'd be hooplah hands.
Eve and I (OK, me more than Eve) have a theory that any emotion can be enhanced by quickly waggling ones hands in front of oneself, palms out.
Scary hands.
"There's ice cream!" hands.
Deep-seeded yet unidentifiable meloncholy hands.
And now, hooplah hands!
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Well, at least now I feel like I contributed something to this thread... hooplah hands...
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Dag, "There's ice cream!" hands sound like something straight out of The Sims 2. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I can't believe that with the crap against religion spewed on this board, Hobbes is the one getting chastised.
Let me tell you about my middle brother. He's the one we call the changeling. One reason is that he doesn't look like any of the rest of us. (We have two "molds" -- fair, blond and blue-eyed (one brother and my sister) and dark, brunet and hazel-eyed (my youngest brother and me). Middle brother has very dark hair, almost black, and extremely pale blue eyes and pale skin.)
The other reason is that from a very early age (before age 10), he behaved in a way that was incredibly mature and good. And by "good" I mean practically angelic. (Now in his mid-twenties, he is a kind and wonderful man that I am proud just to be related to.)
When he did something wrong, he got in WAY more trouble that any of the rest of us would have. (This is something my parents now feel bad about.) Not fair at all -- but a very human reaction.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
*sings*
Lovely hooplah hands...
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Holy crap, this thread is weird. I'm getting out before it rubs off on me Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
S'okey Hobbes. I knew you meant it to be funny. I wouldn't have posted at all, if people didn't seem so confused as to what anyone could possibly object to.
Am I correct that you weren't raised in any church? I ask because it seems particularly pointless to me to point out the differences between LDS and mainline Christianity as a reason to "deconvert" someone who was never a mainline Christian. I mean, it might make a difference to someone who had always been some sort of Christian and joined the LDS without fully examining the differences because they assumed it was pretty much the same, but if you weren't a "traditional" Christian before you became LDS, why would you care whether or not you are one now?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, if I were going to try to deconvert Hobbes, I'd use an entirely different line of argument.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Dagonee, our missionaries devote their time and resources to inviting people to hear about the restored gospel, to share the good news, as it were. We don't spend resources fighting against any supposed evils of other churches. We respect and admire other religions and know that they have been given much that is good and true.
We only wish to invite and welcome all people into the blessings of our faith, the fulness of the restored gospel. So it's not quite the same thing as battling against the supposed evils of this or that other religion, I don't think. Do you?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Tatiana, did you just call Mormons rulers?
Straightedge?
From the Urban Dictionary:
quote: 4. straightedge 1.One who does not take part in alcohol, tobacco use, drug use, premarital sex, etc. for the duration of one's lifetime.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Anne Kate, do you actually know any real straight-edge kids? Like, actual members of the movement?
A good number of my friends were straight-edgers in the early nineties. And while the straight-edge movement and the Mormons share a position on the use of mind-altering substances, it's safe to say that this is pretty much where the similarities end.
And that's not entirely a slam on Mormons, mind you. There are disturbing neo-fascist elements of the straight-edge movement that I don't think Mormons would want to share. We're talking about a group that has not only advocated but committed firebombings of fast food restaurants.
Now, don't get me wrong: I could see a lot of Mormons signing up for SXE, especially when you consider how popular the cult of violence is among young Mormon men (remember the Fight Club thing). But SXE is at heart a fascist, militant, post-punk, and mainly vegan gang designed to literally combat other gangs.
Again, I could see SXE being really popular with some elements of Salt Lake society. But I don't think there's otherwise a lot of overlap.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Tom, I use the word in its sense defined above, and not meaning a member of the musical movement that coined the word. I thought that would be really clear.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. See, I use the word "tee-total" when that's all I mean to say. To me, at least, calling someone SXE just because they're clean and sober is like calling someone a Republican because they're anti-abortion.
Maybe it's just because I lived on the fringes of the movement for so long, but it's weird to hear the term applied as just a random slang for clean living. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I have heard the word used in this sense far more than references to the musical movement, though I was aware of the word's origins. It's really a good word for it, I think, and we need one and there's not one. To me tee-total means refraining from using alcohol only.
Any undertones of violence, which I never caught, are certainly unfortunate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure why tee-total is inadequate...?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Yeah, around here straight-edge means "don't drink or do drugs" so I think it's grown in its definition.
edit to add: Strider says it's understood among his peers (fraternity folk) and age group that straight-edge means you don't drink or do any drugs. Tee-totaler (those who'd recognize the word -- i think it's more archaic among the young folk) definitely refers to only alcohol.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How odd. It's like learning that the word "Nazi" has come to mean "someone who likes wearing armbands."
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
It's the same way here, too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wonder when this happened. I am apparently very old.
Can anyone else think of an organizational membership that's been turned into a depoliticized term in this fashion? I just find this very, very strange. What other gang memberships are now used to describe lifestyles?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I've never heard the term straight edge used for anything besides a ruler. I must be even older than Tom. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I don't know about gang memberships, but I think it's fairly common in English that a term that was once specific can come to be used in a more general sense. I'm trying to think of a good example but failing. Some of our language nazis should help me out.... Bingo!
<laughs> A nazi can now mean anyone who is zealous or strict about their given subject. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Belle, the straight-edge phenomenon -- abbreviated SXE -- was a fairly successful movement that combined liberal politics with clean living requirements. It appealed to hardcore punks and skateboarders (and was promoted by many of their favorite bands), had its own tattoos, and advocated a vegan, drug-free lifestyle coupled with a form of in-your-face, extremist sloganeering. And, in many cities around the country, it helped bring the gentle political discussions for which the mosh pit became famous to skate parks everywhere.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I would never be accepted in such a movement, as I avoid violence and drink milk. <milk-moustached peace-sign smilie>
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'm with Tom on the definition here, although I knew it's been being used in a more, um, mellow, sense recently. Was the movement maybe more predominant in the Upper MidWest, that we're the two that have that as our primary definition?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It might just be that people who aren't familiar with the punk scene have heard the term in a "no thanks, I'm straight-edge" sense and naturally assumed that this was all it meant.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'm not really all that familiar with the punk scene myself, though. I just liked to dance at goth clubs. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I've heard the term used in the full violent neo-fascist sense. But I've often heard it used in the generic clean, straight-arrow sense. Sort of like people often use the term "nazi" to refer to domineering and dictatorial people and grammar lovers.
But I've only ever heard "teetotaler" used in the sense of someone who abstains from alcohol. Nothing more.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
liked?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But I've often heard it used in the generic clean, straight-arrow sense."
That's what I find funny. Because while SXE is definitely "clean," "straight-arrow" is not a word I would apply to most of its members.
When I hear "Mormons are straight-edge," I get this image of a bunch of tall, skinny boys with freckles and extremely dull haircuts, their white shirts and thin black ties barely covering their tribal tattoos and multiple piercings while they sweatily punch each other in the face and shout along with a Black Flag cover band. And trying to find garments that flare at the ankle, ideally to at least a 50" diameter.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
quote:Let me tell you about my middle brother. He's the one we call the changeling. One reason is that he doesn't look like any of the rest of us. (We have two "molds" -- fair, blond and blue-eyed (one brother and my sister) and dark, brunet and hazel-eyed (my youngest brother and me). Middle brother has very dark hair, almost black, and extremely pale blue eyes and pale skin.)
The other reason is that from a very early age (before age 10), he behaved in a way that was incredibly mature and good. And by "good" I mean practically angelic. (Now in his mid-twenties, he is a kind and wonderful man that I am proud just to be related to.)
Dana, this absolutely freaked me out. I have written a short story about a young woman who looks nothing like her family (they're blond or brown haired and she has blue eyes and jet black hair; they're short, she's very tall) and she finds out she was born with fairy blood.
When you said he was a changeling, well, I had a twilight-zone moment.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I've never heard the term straight edge used for anything besides a ruler. I must be even older than Tom.
Aren't you a year or two older than I am? And I know that I'm a year older than Tom is.
Anyway, I'm with you on never having heard straight-edge used to refer to anything other than something used to draw lines with before.
But unlike Tom, I've never heard teetotaler used to specify anything other than not drinking. Then again, in most of the circles I float about in, lack of drug use is assumed.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I've heard straight-edge as in a ruler before. But that was in Georgia.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Brinestone, I beleive that was rivka that you are quoting.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hmm in california I remember Black Flag being big but I don't remember the term "straight edge" being in use. I'll ask a couple of my CA cultural consultants who would know far more about that kind of thing, since they didn't grow up in a cave.
AJ
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Hehehe. Yes, yes, I suppose it is. I just read brown hair hazel eyes, blond hair blue eyes and pictured you and ElJay.
But I'm not going to edit the post since then yours will look weird. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brinestone: Hehehe. Yes, yes, I suppose it is. I just read brown hair hazel eyes, blond hair blue eyes and pictured you and ElJay.
But I'm not going to edit the post since then yours will look weird.
But you missed the part of there being three brothers, hmm?
I think we're even (re: "nephy") now. Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: When I hear "Mormons are straight-edge," I get this image of a bunch of tall, skinny boys with freckles and extremely dull haircuts, their white shirts and thin black ties barely covering their tribal tattoos and multiple piercings while they sweatily punch each other in the face and shout along with a Black Flag cover band. And trying to find garments that flare at the ankle, ideally to at least a 50" diameter.
I think that mormons are a brand of rulers.
Posted by ChaosTheory (Member # 7069) on :
I have no idea what's going on.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I thought it was really funny when I moved to Utah and heard people call a ruler a straight edge. It seems like calling a protractor a round thing.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: <laughs> A nazi can now mean anyone who is zealous or strict about their given subject.
Yes, a lot of people do use the word that way now.
However, many still find the use of that word offensive when used in that way.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Ummm, I was trying to come up with an example of a word whose usage had changed in the way Tom was talking about. I hope I didn't offend anyone by so doing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I thought it was really funny when I moved to Utah and heard people call a ruler a straight edge. It seems like calling a protractor a round thing.
Technically, a straight-edge may or may not be a ruler. For instance, I used a non-ruled straight-edge yesterday to draw lines.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: <laughs> A nazi can now mean anyone who is zealous or strict about their given subject.
Yes, a lot of people do use the word that way now.
However, many still find the use of that word offensive when used in that way.
Added to make clear that my previous post was referring to this post.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Ummm, I was trying to come up with an example of a word whose usage had changed in the way Tom was talking about. I hope I didn't offend anyone by so doing.
I am not offended. Just wanted to point out that many still find the use of the word offensive, when used casually, for example in the expression "grammar nazi." I think a lot of people may not be aware of the strong feelings some still have about the use of that word in any context except when speaking about Nazi Germany or NeoNazis.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Which, incidentally, is the serious context behind my standing joke of the Grammar Communist Party.
EDIT : My God, you people have been having a religious discussion behind my back! I'm shocked and hurt! However, it's getting late. Can we just assume I made some nasty comment somewhere, people were upset, my reputation was further smeared, and life went its usual way? I'm off to bed. Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I thought it was really funny when I moved to Utah and heard people call a ruler a straight edge. It seems like calling a protractor a round thing.
Technically, a straight-edge may or may not be a ruler. For instance, I used a non-ruled straight-edge yesterday to draw lines.
Technically, you use the non-ruled straight-edge to guide your writing utensil to form straight lines.
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
Hobbes is a shamelessly self-promoting stinker, and I'm not going to quarrel with his apology, except for this bit:
IS he the stuffed-tiger he pawns himself off as?
or more to the point, can he prove IT?
*growls*
grrr...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kaioshin00:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Technically, a straight-edge may or may not be a ruler. For instance, I used a non-ruled straight-edge yesterday to draw lines.
Technically, you use the non-ruled straight-edge to guide your writing utensil to form straight lines.
Since I was drawing the lines on a TabletPC, technically I was using an unruled straight-edge to guide an implement which causes pixels on the screen to change colors in pre-determined patterns.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, our missionaries devote their time and resources to inviting people to hear about the restored gospel, to share the good news, as it were. We don't spend resources fighting against any supposed evils of other churches. We respect and admire other religions and know that they have been given much that is good and true.
We only wish to invite and welcome all people into the blessings of our faith, the fulness of the restored gospel. So it's not quite the same thing as battling against the supposed evils of this or that other religion, I don't think. Do you?
I agree there's a difference, but the difference is not related to what you pointed out in your post.
The email to Hobbes was an attempt to convert him. You seemed (to me, anyway) to be referencing that email when you wondered why people spent their energy fighting the "evils" of Mormons. You seemed to be grouping both attempts to convert Mormons in with other, much more hostile behavior (like people protesting at general conference). The fact remains - Mormons spend an enormous amount of resources attempting to convince people to conver to their beliefs.
The Mormon beliefs are founded on the premise that current Christian churches are apostate and that LDS are the only legitimate holders of the priesthood. In attempting to convert people, I assume this message is delivered in some form. No matter how polite this message is, it is accusing a vast number of people of very serious sins.
As I've said many times, I have enormous respect for Mormon missionary work. But I'm confused that a member of a faith that expends the energies of its young men to bring sheep into the fold from "apostate" churches is commenting on other churches attempting to save people from an "evil" church instead of ending world hunger.
The letter to Hobbes can easily be couched as attempting to invite him back to the authentic gospel. I tend to agree with Dana's assesment of the efficacy of such a letter. But the desired goal of the letter is parallel to the desired goal of Hobbes' upcoming efforts on his mission.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I got called a documentation nazi on my way to my desk this morning. This would be from one of the programmers, who wrote a bunch of text for a web site that had to be edited and re-written. It was supposed to be both funny and slightly offensive at the same time, I think. Moron. Oh well. He gets a red pen next time.
I've never heard of the straight-edge movement. Who are you people? *twinkle*
quote:I thought it was really funny when I moved to Utah and heard people call a ruler a straight edge. It seems like calling a protractor a round thing.
This made me literally laugh out loud.
--------
quote:The Mormon beliefs are founded on the premise that current Christian churches are apostate and that LDS are the only legitimate holders of the priesthood. In attempting to convert people, I assume this message is delivered in some form. No matter how polite this message is, it is accusing a vast number of people of very serious sins.
No. Lack of information, definitely. But not having the priesthood but not knowing it is not a sin in any way. What sin would that be?
There is definitely no way to sugarcoat the discussion where you tell someone they don't have the priesthood, but there's nothing that says it is a sin to not. You can be offended, but it's better to be offended accurately.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:No matter how polite this message is, it is accusing a vast number of people of very serious sins.
Not the way we consider sin. It is no sin to fail to follow rules that you are not aware of.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No. Lack of information, definitely. But not having the priesthood but not knowing it is not a sin in any way. What sin would that be?
Not a sin to you, but certainly a sin to us.
quote:There is definitely no way to sugarcoat the discussion where you tell someone they don't have the priesthood, but there's nothing that says it is a sin to not. You can be offended, but it's better to be offended accurately.
I agree accuracy is best, but I'm not offended anyway (although you might find one of the reasons I'm not offended to be a little offensive to you).
My point wasn't that it's offensive - I never said it was. My point is that a Mormon trying to convert a non-Mormon is spending his energy the same way a non-Mormon trying to convert a Mormon is (if for different end goals).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's fine. It's also true and fine that most people will reject what the missionaries say, and possibly laugh about it later. That's normal. So is Hobbes being amused that someone tried to pull him from the church by telling him no one else cared about him.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Since I was drawing the lines on a TabletPC, technically I was using an unruled straight-edge to guide an implement which causes pixels on the screen to change colors in pre-determined patterns.
I just snorted water through my nose. Thanks, rivka. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's fine. It's also true and fine that most people will reject what the missionaries say, and possibly laugh about it later. That's normal. So is Hobbes being amused that someone tried to pull him from the church by telling him no one else cared about him.
Look, I don't want to harp on Hobbes. He's been very gracious. First, I'm pretty sure the letter didn't say no one else cared about him - I interpreted that as his humorous comment on the lack of attempted conversion by non-Mormons here.
But the fact is that he laughed about it, and not in private with people who believe as he does. He did it in front of people who share core beliefs very similar to the ones expressed by his friend, even if most of us do not consider Mormons to be evil.
I also get the impression you haven't followed this piece of the conversation closely. Tatiania was expressing amazement at people trying to convert Mormons when there are so many ills in the world. I was expressing amazement that a Mormon wouldn't understand the underlying motivation.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I've heard the term "Straight Edge" in all three ways mentioned here .
Tom, there were a lot of high school kids about 2 years younger than me who claimed to be "SXE". They weren't violent or radical, but they did think themselves better than everyone else. They almost all stopped being straight edge around the same time. Mostly I think because of the no sex before marriage thing.
But people saying someone is "straight edge" usually just means that they don't do drugs or alcohol. The sex thing rarely is a consideration. Nor does it imply anything about their eating habits.
You shouldn't be surprised Tom, two of the things that change most are the lexicon of young people, and social movements .
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:He did it in front of people who share core beliefs very similar to the ones expressed by his friend
I don't think there is, unless it is someone's core belief that the reason Hobbes joined the church is because no one else paid attention to him. Hobbes shared a funny experience with friends who would find the idea of a lost, lonely, and deluded Hobbes with no one who cared about him as ridiculous as he did.
Hobbes said that the original post was almost a quote of the e-mail sent to him.
I am not commenting on what Tatiana has said. However, I don't think Hobbes was laughing at anyone's religious beliefs at all - ever. That's tacky, and he just wouldn't. That's not Hobbes. He was laughing at the idea that he needs saving from his own choices.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Technically, a straight-edge may or may not be a ruler. For instance, I used a non-ruled straight-edge yesterday to draw lines.
In Utah, they are one and the same. I've never heard someone talk about a straight-edge that wasn't a ruler.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Dag, it didn't sound to me like the minister (?) was trying to "convert" Hobbes, but that he was, in a sense, trying to de-convert him. That is, it didn't sound like he was trying to get him to embrace any particular belief system, but rather trying to get him to reject one.
I think there is at least a little difference between trying to get someone to embrace a religion and trying to get someone to reject one. The one may involve the other, but not necessarily.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I always got Straight Edge and SHARPS mixed up. . .
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think there is, unless it is someone's core belief that the reason Hobbes joined the church is because no one else paid attention to him.
That's not what he said. That was Hobbes's joke added on to the end.
quote:Dag, it didn't sound to me like the minister (?) was trying to "convert" Hobbes, but that he was, in a sense, trying to de-convert him.
It sounded like he wanted to get him to a Christian church. Sounds like conversion to me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:That's not what he said. That was Hobbes's joke added on to the end.
Are you sure?
Hobbes' explanation:
quote:Anyways, he sent me a long e-mail explaining why I had allowed the Churches community and acceptance to lull me into accepting a fake, evil doctrine. And then explained quite explicitly that the Mormon Church was very much not Christian and I needed to run away from it. My first post was kind of a hodgepodge of quotes from the letter.
If there are really Hatrackers who think that, then they either haven't yet read any of the Are Mormons Christian? threads, or else they don't know Hobbes.
Is it really necessary to respect someone's belief that you are evil and an idiot?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Hobbes' explanation: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyways, he sent me a long e-mail explaining why I had allowed the Churches community and acceptance to lull me into accepting a fake, evil doctrine. And then explained quite explicitly that the Mormon Church was very much not Christian and I needed to run away from it. My first post was kind of a hodgepodge of quotes from the letter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing in that quote says anything like "the reason Hobbes joined the church is because no one else paid attention to him." That doesn't even apply to what I said.
quote:Is it really necessary to respect someone's belief that you are evil and an idiot?
Is it really necessary to respect someone's belief that you are apostate and ill-informed?
Of course, the real question is "is it really necessary to make jokes about people who attempt to convert you to a particular religion in front of people who are or share many beliefs in common with that religion?"
This is all besides the point. I have no desire to harp on Hobbes. But I also have no desire to be told what I or others should find distasteful.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:My first post was kind of a hodgepodge of quotes from the letter.
You can be offended. That's fine. I do not believe that Hobbes has done anything wrong, though. If the post was offensive, Hobbes isn't the one to get upset with.
quote:"is it really necessary to make jokes about people who attempt to convert you to a particular religion in front of people who are or share many beliefs in common with that religion?"
Hobbes shares probably 90% of the same beliefs. We all share a great many of the same beliefs. How many beliefs in common do you need to switch from being "us" to "them"?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kat, read the thread. I have simply tried to explain, to people who specifically asked, why someone might be upset about it.
I wasn't upset about it. I made a guess at the reason Pop was upset. Dana posted another reason.
I was attempting to give factual information. It doesn't matter in that context if you think someone should be upset by this. I was relaying why someone might be upset about it.
quote:Hobbes shares probably 90% of the same beliefs. We all share a great many of the same beliefs.
This is not a discussion I think you want to have, and certainly not in this thread. Let's just say 90% is a very high number, especially if you weight individual facts by relative importance to the respective faiths.
quote:How many beliefs in common do you need to switch from being "us" to "them"?
What does this question mean? I specifically don't consider Mormons "non-Christian." But I do consider them much farther from my beliefs than most Protestant denominations.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote: Tatiania was expressing amazement at people trying to convert Mormons when there are so many ills in the world. I was expressing amazement that a Mormon wouldn't understand the underlying motivation.
Ahh, that's where our misunderstanding occurred, Dag! My amazement was about fighting evils, not attempts to convert.
The many tracts and warnings I've received are specifically attempts to rescue me from the evils of Mormonism by telling me negative things the people believe about the LDS faith. If I were Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Buddhist, Jewish, or Islamic, there would have been no tracts delivered, no comments made, it seems clear. Buildings for dozens of religions go up here all the time, for instance, but I never heard of protests for any except the LDS temple.
Most people don't do that, of course, and certainly nobody here at hatrack. I apologize if I gave the impression that they did. I certainly didn't mean to. But it is even the official and institutional attitude of some protestant (particularly fundamentalist) churches that Mormonism is an evil that needs to be fought against. And that surprises me, considering the plethora of evils one may choose to battle.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If I were Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Buddhist, Jewish, or Islamic, there would have been no tracts delivered, no comments made, it seems clear.
Speaking as a Catholic, I can categorically deny that. I've seen targeted tracts for Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews. I assume there are some for the others.
I've seen many people who convert to Catholicism be the targets of missionaries from other faiths. I've heard firsthand stories of parents who convert late in life try to convert their son the priest. Such were definitely accompanied by the favorite anti-Catholic digs - Mary worshipping, "papism," idolotry, anti-Christ, etc.
I've also met Catholics who have attempted to reconvert people who've left the Catholic Church, although I didn't witness the attempt.
quote:Buildings for dozens of religions go up here all the time, for instance, but I never heard of protests for any except the LDS temple.
As to protests for non-LDS religious buildings, that happens everywhere, to all faiths. As to protests at religious buildings, I've seen a few. But I've seen many more at places analogous to your general conference, which I believe is at your temple but which most others don't hold in a religious building.
quote:I apologize if I gave the impression that they did. I certainly didn't mean to.
I certainly didn't think you were accusing anyone here of that. I was interpreting the letter against the backdrop of all the converting attemtps that go on that I mentioned above.
quote:But it is even the official and institutional attitude of some protestant (particularly fundamental) churches that Mormonism is an evil that needs to be fought against.
I seem to recall that the Mormon Church gets most of its members from Protestant churches (in the U.S., I mean, not in Latin America). If one believes that Mormons are in danger of hell, then it is a very specific threat to the people in those Church's care. From an eternal view, it's pretty easy to understand why this would be considered important, even if I don't agree with it.
I don't do much missionary work, although I have spoken with friends I knew were considering leaving the Catholic Church. I consider it a duty to attempt to talk to a close friend who is considering converting to another faith and to try to answer their reasons for wanting to do so.
But I wouldn't do that here, mainly because I'm not what I consider close enough to anyone here to do so, and it's against the rules I agreed to.
Dagonee
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
You're really cool, Dag. I just wanted to say that.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:But I've seen many more at places analogous to your general conference, which I believe is at your temple but which most others don't hold in a religious building.
We don't, either. It's held in the Conference Center and broadcast worldwide.
*not getting involved, just clarifying*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks for the details. It's still a Church building, so protestors there are protesting a church building, whereas protestors protesting the Baptist conventions are protesting a hotel or convention hall, I believe. That's the distinction I was getting at.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Though to be fair, the Conference Center and the Tabernacle are RIGHT NEXT to the Salt Lake City Temple, and are part of the same larger complex referred to as "Temple Square".
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
True. But they are used for other functions, albeit mostly church-produced ones.
Also, there's a huge Baptist church in Dallas that's used for regional conventions sometimes. I'd bet there are similar buildings some other places, and they also get used for similar things, when available and able to accomodate attendees.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There were plenty of protestors in Vatican City during the recent Papal election conclave (which went on in the Sistine Chapel) and you can't take 5 steps in Vatican City without walking into a church.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Tom, thanks for the explanation on SXE. I've definitely learned something new today.
quote:Aren't you a year or two older than I am? And I know that I'm a year older than Tom is.
Anyway, I'm with you on never having heard straight-edge used to refer to anything other than something used to draw lines with before.
But unlike Tom, I've never heard teetotaler used to specify anything other than not drinking. Then again, in most of the circles I float about in, lack of drug use is assumed.
Rivka, I'm 34. And like you, I think it's a culture thing, because in all my circles lack of drug use is also assumed. Lack of alcohol is not assumed, in fact I do drink occasionally, as in probably 1-2 drinks per month, so to me teetotaler only applies to alcohol. I would not describe myself as one, for example. I would describe many of my friends and fellow church members as one, however.
And a straight edge is still anything, ruler or not, that I use to draw a straight line. Posted by Chris Kidd (Member # 2646) on :
When i first saw straight edge. my brain converted it to straight lace.
after reading the other explanations. I didn't realize that it had a diffrent definition than useing a straight edge to draw a straight line.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Dagonee, I'm sorry that Catholics are sometimes treated that way too. So you can definitely see where I'm coming from, I guess.
I spent my growing up years as a Catholic, until about age 18, and I never got that sort of treatment during that time, thank goodness! Many attempts to save me were made, but none specifically anti-Catholic, since other protestants were equally included in the calls. They were general evangelism, and I only found them objectionable if they were pushy or coercive, as they occasionally were.
I find it surprising that churches would do any sort of "targeting" of other churches, in fact. I'm sorry to hear that Catholics experience that as well. I think it's misguided and rather ugly, and is quite different from general conversion attempts. Does the distinction not strike you as important?
In the last four years, I've certainly seen and felt a huge difference in the way people respond to my membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, compared to what they ever did when I was an atheist or when I was a Catholic in my youth.
I have the highest respect for all people's faith (or choice to reject all faiths, as the case may be). And our church does teach that respect, as well. I suppose it surprises me that other churches do not. I see a clear and unmistakeable difference in this between my church and some protestant fundamentalist churches.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Does the distinction not strike you as important?
It does, but not in the "diverting resources from feeding the hungry" kind of way. If conversion is a worthy goal, then it's worth spending resources on it.
I don't see resource allocation as an objection to the means used, just the goal. At least when the comparison is between goals, as opposed to means.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
From my time at Hatrack, (although maybe this is just me) I've noticed that respect for other people's religions is not a trait I'd put high on a list of characteristics of LDS members. Even the idea that none of these other religions - even if you have now grudgingly admitted Catholics to the list - have anyone treating them bad is terribly disrespectful.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why is it disrespectful? The only anti-Catholic sentiments I've ever seen or heard of were in a historical context - War of the Roses and Ku Klux Klan kinds of things. I suppose I wouldn't see most of it, but how is it disrespectful to be surprised that it still exists?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:I just snorted water through my nose. Thanks, rivka.
Anytime!
quote:
quote: Technically, a straight-edge may or may not be a ruler. For instance, I used a non-ruled straight-edge yesterday to draw lines.
In Utah, they are one and the same. I've never heard someone talk about a straight-edge that wasn't a ruler.
Utahans are weird. Hasn't that been established numerous times?
quote: You're really cool, Dag. I just wanted to say that.
*nodnod*
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
Rivka, I'm 34. And like you, I think it's a culture thing, because in all my circles lack of drug use is also assumed. Lack of alcohol is not assumed, in fact I do drink occasionally, as in probably 1-2 drinks per month, so to me teetotaler only applies to alcohol. I would not describe myself as one, for example. I would describe many of my friends and fellow church members as one, however.
And a straight edge is still anything, ruler or not, that I use to draw a straight line.
I'm 31. Tom is 30. And I absolutely agree with your definition of teetotaler.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:From my time at Hatrack, (although maybe this is just me) I've noticed that respect for other people's religions is not a trait I'd put high on a list of characteristics of LDS members. Even the idea that none of these other religions - even if you have now grudgingly admitted Catholics to the list - have anyone treating them bad is terribly disrespectful.
Perhaps LDS knowledge of other religions is sometimes lacking, and some Mormons can be quite proud of their beliefs, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that we're generally disrespectful.
And if someone's personal experience includes taking a lot of abuse from anti-Mormons, while never personally witnessing anyone else receiving the same treatment, you can see how easy it might be to start feeling uniquely singled out.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Utahans are weird. Hasn't that been established numerous times?
Yes, it has. This was just one more point of evidence. However, it is Utahns, not YOO-tuh-hans.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Yes, it has. This was just one more point of evidence. However, it is Utahns, not YOO-tuh-hans.
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I thought it was really funny when I moved to Utah and heard people call a ruler a straight edge. It seems like calling a protractor a round thing.
Technically, a straight-edge may or may not be a ruler. For instance, I used a non-ruled straight-edge yesterday to draw lines.
Yeah, that's the way I always heard it used.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Why is it disrespectful? The only anti-Catholic sentiments I've ever seen or heard of were in a historical context - War of the Roses and Ku Klux Klan kinds of things. I suppose I wouldn't see most of it, but how is it disrespectful to be surprised that it still exists?
I dare say you haven't heard sentiments against other religions much because you are not paying attention much to what is said againts other religions, unless it offends or affects your particular faith.
There are sentiments expressed against Catholicism, Judaism, Islam and other religions currently in many places in the US, as well as complaints about buildings going up to serve those religions.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
And notice that most of the top hits for "Utahn" are from Utah news sources. I prefer to go with self-identification. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I prefer to go with self-identification.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well... whatever you guys decide I'm sorry.
(No, not about the grammar issue )
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's not grammar. It's usage.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Moose is awful sorry, too.
Hobbes, I had been having a series of bad days, and I think it exploded on you. My post came out much harsher than I intended or was necessary, and for that I also apologize.
Because I now can't remember exactly what was originally said, I won't be able to express with the clarity I'd like what precisely I found distasteful, but I think it's somewhere between (or perhaps encompassing) what Dagonee and dkw suggested. If I'd responded to you with the same graciousness you showed in your response to the professor, there needn't have been such hooplah. (I keep imagining hooplah hands to be like a cross between jazz hands, spirit fingers, and raising the roof -- are they kind of like that?)
Thanks for understanding, Hobbes. And in your honor....
Pop Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
*staggers*
Pop used a smiley!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I dare say you haven't heard sentiments against other religions much because you are not paying attention much to what is said againts other religions
I see racism, and I'm not black. I have seen anti-semitism, and I'm not jewish. I've seen how hard it is to be poor, and I'm not poor.
I've never seen anything anti-Catholic. Not in Texas, not in Utah, not in Michigan - nowhere. If it happens around me, it is happening under the radar and in secret.
It's very judgemental of you to suppose that because I haven't seen an evil, it's because I'm self-centered and unaware. Come on.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I've never seen anything anti-Catholic."
Never? *blink* Wow. When you say this, my gut reaction is "she must not know many Catholics."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Not many, although one of my best friends in college was Catholic. The co-worker I work with every day is Italian and very Catholic, and my exercising buddy is Catholic. I suppose I could ask them, although we do talk about religion sometimes. I've never told them Mormons are persecuted, so maybe the topic just hasn't come up.
I have definitely never seen it, but then, I work at the Boy Scouts. I wouldn't see it there, would I?
I believe that you have seen it, I guess, since you seem so sure, but I haven't. No where. I have seen prejudice against pentacostals and JWs, but not Catholics.
What form does it take?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I don't know how you've missed it, kat. Anti-Catholicism has roots in this country that go back practically to its founding. That's not surprising, since England was full of Anti-Catholicism before this country was ever colonized. (Surely, as an English major, you read all kinds of books that spoke derisively of "Popishness".)
In most places today it is not as rampant as it used to be. It really isn't. It has resurfaced to some degree in the wake of the child molestation scandals, but in most cases in the U.S. Catholicism is so mainstream that it isn't usually singled out for prejudice. But it still happens enough to be noticeable.
What form does it take? Sometimes people ridicule the idea of "blindly" following the Pope (sound familiar?). Sometimes people poke fun at the clergy, especially after the recent scandals. Sometimes it's nuns, which is funny because there are a lot of people who haven't ever seen one. A lot of times it comes from people with Protestant backgrounds, who are obviously sympathetic with the Reformers and think that the Catholics were wrong and evil then, and that they still are, or that they are at least ridiculous for clinging to a belief system that the Protestants were smart enough to have rejected centuries ago.
On top of all that, there are a whole bunch of conspiracy theories that include the Catholic hierarchy.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:I dare say you haven't heard sentiments against other religions much because you are not paying attention much to what is said againts other religions
I see racism, and I'm not black. I have seen anti-semitism, and I'm not jewish. I've seen how hard it is to be poor, and I'm not poor.
I've never seen anything anti-Catholic. Not in Texas, not in Utah, not in Michigan - nowhere. If it happens around me, it is happening under the radar and in secret.
It's very judgemental of you to suppose that because I haven't seen an evil, it's because I'm self-centered and unaware. Come on.
It's just my observation that you react much more strongly at anything that you perceive as a threat or insult to the LDS religion. I don't think that you are self-centered and unaware at all, and that was not what I intended in my post. Sorry it came off that way.
Perhaps you have not seen anti-Catholicism in Texas because you are in a big city. A Hatracker who grew up in a small Texas town as told me about the anti-Catholic sentiment that person experienced. It may have been an isolated incident, but I suspect it was not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The city thing makes sense. We have our share of good ole boys, but since it's a 2 million + metroplex, it has more in common with other American cities than with the small towns around it.
Are movies like Dogma considered to be anti-Catholocism?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Depends on who you ask. I know Catholics who loved it, and Catholics who were offended by it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
All of which kind of misses the point that saying "If it were any other religion, no one would have made a fuss." is terribly disrespectful and, yes, self-centered. It's like someone complaining about how "No one else but me has any relationship problems."
I mena leave aside the Catholic issue, which was historically America's 4th most prominent prejudice (3rd if you combine it with the anti-immigrant sentiment that it often accompanied), does anyone think that someone suggesting that people in America don't react with disfavor to Islam actually is in touch with the real world? It's absurd.
What Tatiana said does not reflect reality and was disrespectful in dismissing the hardships that other religions go through. It is not so easy for everyone else while LDS have it so hard.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I wonder if you're using a different definition for 'anti-' then a lot of people, kat.
To me, if one of my Baptist friends tells a joke ragging on, say, polygamous Mormons, or Mormons and their obsession with modesty or whatever, they're not being anti-Mormon. Because, in context, it's a joke.
When I was a kid in Texas, I remember a spoof on the radio about all the different college football bowl games. One of the spoof games was the Pacifist Bowl, Mormons vs. the Quakers. I don't consider that to be anti-Mormon either. It's a misunderstanding about our culture-- considering how many members we have in the military, a pretty big misunderstanding.
I don't consider preachers preaching against Mormonism to be anti-Mormon either; they're arguing doctrine.
Now, if a preacher devotes his ministry to destroying what one has called the 'Maze/Mask/Mumbo-jumbo of Mormonism' then, yeah, I consider his writings to be anti-Mormon.
If someone says, "You're Mormon, you're going to hell," that's anti-Mormon.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I'm not linking this, by the way, because I think it has any merit It's just so people can see the kinds of crap that the Catholics have to take from the same people who go after Mormons.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are movies like Dogma considered to be anti-Catholocism?
Only to the extent people considered "Angels in America" to be anti-Mormon, although obviously the Catholic Church was less peripheral to Dogma.
My take on Dogma: If you're basing the entire plot of a movie on a doctrinal position of the Church you're trying to ridicule, it would behoove you to get that doctrinal position correct.
I hated Dogma. Bunbun liked it. I didn't consider it anti-Catholicism so much as idiocy.
Anti-Catholicism has gotten much less severe in this country. One reason many people don't really know much about it is because it's no longer considered an "acceptable" attitude. OSC commented on an email (from someone purporting to be Mormon) he got after the Pope died that brought up all the old charges. He also commented that he thought that those ideas had died out.
They haven't. But they're much less commonly held, and those who hold it don't feel comfortable spewing it willy-nilly any more.
There's a reason the anti-Christ in "Left Behind" was a Bishop, even if they did have the Pope get taken up in the rapture.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm surprised there kat hasn't seen much anti-catholicism in Texas, because here in the southeastern part of the US it's pretty prominent. I would say I see and hear about the same amount of anti-catholic, anti-mormon, and anti-semitic things.
Probably just a result of me living in the Bible belt. I mean, I know protestants who question the salvation of other protestants for crying out loud. It's ridiculous.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>I know protestants who question the salvation of other protestants for crying out loud.
Oooh. Company!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe I am using a different definition of anti.
Mormons are wrong != anti Angels in America != anti The Mormon church is fake and evil and a cult = anti
By that rubric, I just haven't seen anti against Catholics. Sorry if you're offended by that. I've heard a thousand nun jokes, but have never heard the insinuation that Catholics are a cult and/or the current church is fake/evil. Lots historicaly, but none currently.
Maybe the circles I run in are more polite. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Texas has a big Catholic population, I think, Belle.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh! Or, maybe, anyone anti-Catholic is highly likely to be not fond of Mormons, so I'm never close enough to them to get the chance to hear their spiel.
If an invective is uttered in a forest and no one hears it, is it still persecution?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
kat, if you follow my link, you'll see it I heard it all the time on my mission. I think it's good to get a perspective on the fact that we're not the only ones who have to take this crap ... though I think we are ALL taking it from the same group of idiots.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'll let you lecture me on tolerance when I drape myself in self-righteous victimhood. I haven't, so I don't need to be lectured.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Maybe I am using a different definition of anti.
Mormons are wrong != anti Angels in America != anti The Mormon church is fake and evil and a cult = anti
By that rubric, I just haven't seen anti against Catholics. Sorry if you're offended by that. I've heard a thousand nun jokes, but have never heard the insinuation that Catholics are a cult and/or the current church is fake/evil. Lots historicaly, but none currently.
Maybe the circles I run in are more polite.
By your rubric, I have definitely seen "anti" against Catholics.
Some examples were cited earlier in this thread, I believe.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
A monk friend of mine has a Buddy Christ in his office. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Sorry, kat, I wasn't trying to lecture you. Just wanted you to see it. I didn't mean for my post to have a patronizing tone, but rereading it, I can see how it might come across that way. Sorry.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Many people thought the doctrinal inaccuracy in Dogma was what kept it from being offensive. The movie did, after all, acknowledge Catholic teaching on the validity of the apostolic succession.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's okay - sorry for taking it in a way it wasn't meant. I'll follow the link - it certainly sounds educational in a Sick, Sad World kind of way.
Hmm...I have a hard time taking Jack Chick seriously. He's like the homeless guy on the corner of my street, yelling about the conspiracies of the government.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Just keep in mind that millions of Chick tracts are handed out every year -- he's got quite a good-sized following.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So does Fear Factor.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep, but obtaining Chick Tracts often involves fairly decent sized expenditures of money (many are shipped out in groups over 10,000), and the people who get them don't keep them, they hand them out to people and leave them places for people to find in attempts to convert.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I get e-mails offering to increase the size of my assets. I don't take those seriously either.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's nice.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm glad you think so. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yss, but you have to admit, on this issue, everyone is saying that it exists and is conspicuous. The only person who is denying it is you...well, and Tat.
Fine, you say you don't see it. Do the testimonials from people from all over the place count for nothing?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I believe that it is very important to you to make Tatiana and I look bad. Does that count for something?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And I'm not sure everybody here has a clear grasp of the difference between being wrong and looking bad.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Where was I wrong? I haven't personally encountered anti-Catholicism, by the definition I explained. By that definition, I actually don't encounter a lot of anti-Mormonism outside of Michigan. Are you telling me that I'm wrong for not experiencing it?
I think it's hilarious that you're upset that I haven't seen a group of people persecuted. Maybe Dallasites are just more cosmopolitan than the people in your world. Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
So it's important to you to make Tatiana and katharina be wrong? [/disingenuous]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I've seen anti-Catholicism in Dallas. But I believe that either you don't or you just didn't notice because you were paying attention to something else; it does tend to be fairly subtle here in most cases I've encountered it in.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't understand why people are so upset that I haven't seen it. Shouldn't they be happy about that?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, not really. But I do think that people edit: not /edit realizing that many religions besides their own suffer persecution and that statements like this
quote:The many tracts and warnings I've received are specifically attempts to rescue me from the evils of Mormonism by telling me negative things the people believe about the LDS faith. If I were Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Buddhist, Jewish, or Islamic, there would have been no tracts delivered, no comments made, it seems clear.
are very disrespectful. Do you disagree Pop?
[ June 24, 2005, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squick, please stop harping on Tatiana. She left the discussion long ago, and this is your third post in a row trying to drum up condemnation for her. Leave her alone.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
When I was in high school in suburban Atlanta, the loudest proselytisers were southern Baptist. They were utterly convinced that a) Mormons were in a cult, b) Catholics worshipped the devil, and c) most other Protestants were on the right track, but still not going to heaven, thank you very much.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
As a relatively uninterested party, who has no interest in making kat look bad, I'm just going to throw in one thing.
kat, the question wasn't if the anti-Catholic stuff made sense or if it was likely to convince you. It was about it it existed. You've either never seen it before or never really noticed it, quite possibly because it is pretty silly and antiquated, and you dismiss it in the same way you dismiss spam email. That's fine.
But the people who are printing and distributing this stuff do take it seriously, and do mean it. Just because their methods are, frankly, laughable, doesn't mean that they don't have very nasty feelings behind them. I think that's all fugu and Squicky are trying to get you to acknowledge, that there are people out there who attack Catholics the same way that there are people out there who attack Mormons.
So it's not the same as Fear Factor, which is stupid but harmless. And I think you guys are talking past each other, and quite likely are just going to leave this with less understand of the other's position, and more entrenched in your own views afterwards. Which, in my opinion, is the opposite of what this forum can and should be.
So I hope that will provide some clarification... I'll butt out now. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I seriously think the upsetness here is a byproduct of the strain of enduring KoM.
Fine - I believe that you have seen people attack Catholics. I haven't, and it isn't because I'm self-centered or not paying attention or join in on the condemnation so I don't see a problem with it. I seriously haven't. I think it must have gotten a great deal better for me to never encounter it, because I've certainly encountered it against a dozen other groups. Even the people I know who get nervous about Mormons and JWs and Harry Potter didn't mention anything about Catholics. I could make up reasons for that, but since they didn't have a problem verbalizing against those other things, concluding that they didn't say anything about Catholics because they have nothing against Catholics is not unreasonable.
I think this particular tangent started because it looked like Ela was saying I was...something unpleasant for not seeing anti-Catholicism.
Is there some Persecutee's Club going on that people are so upset that I haven't seen their membership cards?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm particularly bemused by kat never having seen anything anti-catholic, when anti-catholic chick tracts (death cookie, anyone? The repeated references to the evil "papa"?) have been linked repeatedly on hatrack.
I'm glad she's never seen anything locally.
I think that her assuming a strongly made argument is a personal assault is something she overdoes, though.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
"If any of you are Catholic, I'm sorry. Not that you were offended, I'm actually just sorry that you're Catholic." --Bill Hicks, Comedian originally from Texas, deceased.
George Carlin also has several routines that could be considered anti-catholic to varying degrees. Though both these comedians are more anti-organized-religion in general, really.
I'm sort of coming in on the tail end of the discussion here, I'd last read this thread when it was only half a page. So I'm not trying to prove anyone right or wrong, was just reminded of a few favorite comedians who make not-so-subtle anti-catholic jokes.
--Enigmatic
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Fugu, you are the last person in the world to have permission to pass judgement on my personal qualities. Don't even start.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I think you're missing a "not" there, Squick, and my answer is yes, I do disagree. I don't think it's necessarily disrespectful. I think it's inaccurate, but not disrespectful in and of itself. Being unaware that it occurs is not disrespectful. Claiming that such persecutees (if I may assume they would call themselves that) are overreacting and that it's nowhere near as bad for them as for you could be (if not backed with some data).
I experience both anti-Mormonism and anti-Catholicism in my own church, and it saddens me. Scott said, "I don't consider preachers preaching against Mormonism to be anti-Mormon either; they're arguing doctrine." I certainly see that, too, and that I don't have a problem with. I may disagree, but I don't have a problem with it. I also may agree (clearly I disagree on some LDS doctrines, or I'd likely be LDS). My problem is with the misrepresentation of Mormonism or Catholicism and the attacks on it based therein, and against those I speak up.
<Realizes this thread has picked up pace again, so comments may already be behind the curve.>
--Pop
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
This thread's moved interestingly forward since I started typing that post.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That you feel people need permission to "pass judgment" is likely a big source of that tendency. Particularly as I was making a relatively mild observation.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe it's the hellish, horrible thread you posted six months ago detailing everything you thought was wrong with me that the janitor deleted in horror.
You never, ever have permission to pass judgement about me. I'll let you know when/if that changes.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Though I must admit to curiousity as to when you sought permission to pass judgment on Squicky and I. Also, it is it necessary to reapply for permission with each judgment passing? Because there have been more than a few instances.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Even the people I know who get nervous about Mormons and JWs and Harry Potter didn't mention anything about Catholics."
Hm. In my experience, these do tend to be pretty much the same people. Maybe Catholicism just didn't come up.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Fugu: Yes, it's necessary. You've had it before, but not in this occasion. Sorry.
Tom: Exactly. Maybe it just didn't come up, or maybe it wasn't there. There were lots of Catholics around, so maybe they were being restrained. On ther other, I was there, so the restraint didn't extend too far. I could make up a list of reasons for it, but their having no problem with Catholics has to be on that list.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Living in Utah, or any place where people interact far more with fellow Mormons than anyone else, it is easy for misinformation to get bounced about.
There have been a couple of times that our home teacher made a comment about "the way things are done" in another religion (contrasting to ours) and what he said simply was not accurate. So we corrected him politely.
I agree with Papa and others that if you are disagreeing with actual doctrine because you believe differently, fine. But I really dislike it when people mischaracterize another religion. Sorry guys, but Mormons do it too. At least, they do here. I haven't seen them be deliberately dishonest about it, though, and generally they gracefully submit to correction. They aren't *trying* to spread falsehoods, just repeating what they think are facts.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Tom - same thing in my experience. They are almost always the same group of people.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Pop, Would you disagree then that someone saying something like, "You're so lucky that you don't have any problems, like I do." is disrespectful? I think this conveys a fundamental lack of respect for people as anything but scenery in your self-centered persecution fantasy. Respect, to me, involves an attempt to understand the reality of people or groups situation, which I really think was lacking here. And going beyond that, from a personal viewpoint to asserting that this is reality, as Tat did, is, to me, very disrespctful. It was, to me, like someone telling a jewish person, "Well, of course you don't really know what it's like to be a member of an oppressed group."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I would withdraw whatever permission I apparently gave at some point for you to call much of my past posting "BS" (and that was the edited, nice version), though since I don't hold with the principle, I won't.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*passes 'round chocolates, cake, and ice cream*
Can't we just be friends? Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I hate that you phrase your questions with double-negatives, Squick. I always have to re-read.
I think there are multiples definitions, or perhaps levels, of disrespect. The statement could be unintentionally disrespectful, but that depends on motivations which as far as I'm concerned remain unknown. Then there's intentional disrespect, where (to continue the flavor of examples) someone tells a story of his own persecution and another person discounts or dismisses it.
Unintentional disrespect, to me, invites information. Intentional disrespect invites correction or perhaps rebuke (depending to some degree on the relationship between the people involved).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I do too, especially since I often forget one of the negatives. I'll try not to cease discontinuing that in the future...err never. Not.
Unintentional disrespect, to me, calls for inormation, yes, but also conveying that someone is being disrespectful. A consciousness raising if you will. In most cases, I think this is more important/productive then confronting those who show intentional disrespect. You have better prospects dealing with a generally well-meaning person who lacks perspective than with someone who is consciously being a jerk. But it still takes an often unwelcome effort on their part to admit the mistake they made.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
beverly- Mormons are infallible and I resent your implications to the contrary.
Everyone else- why is it so cool to talk about whether or not a person is insensitive? This seems to happen all too frequently at Hatrack.
Yeah, Kat and some other Mormons sometimes get into a bit of a persecution complex. Squicky is arrogant and Tom is passive-aggressive and Papa Moose is the peace maker I am overbearing. Everyone already knows this about one another and has for years. Does no one else realize this?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
It's news to me.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote: What Tatiana said does not reflect reality and was disrespectful in dismissing the hardships that other religions go through. It is not so easy for everyone else while LDS have it so hard.
What I said was not meant at ALL in that spirit. I'm so sorry that I didn't make that more clear. I have the highest respect for all people's faith, or choice not to embrace any faith.
What I said is that it surprises me that some churches officially choose to spend time and resources preaching against and combatting Mormonism, which they find to be an evil doctrine.
I also said that I spent almost two decades as a Catholic and had no specifically anti-Catholic targeted tracts or protests directed at me or my church during that time. I've now been LDS for four years and seen anti-Mormon tracts and protests on multiple occasions.
No disrespect whatsoever was intended, and I'm very sorry if my words were so taken.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Members of the LDS Church themselves have not been innocent of Anti-Catholicism. I specifically remember a handful of books/tracts, not published by the Church, but pretty popular with missionaries nonetheless, that included rather strikingly ignorant and barbed discussions of the Catholic Church. Some were just annoying, but a few were quite offensive.
I remember one document that was passed around my mission (unofficially) that purported to be written by a former Catholic priest (or possibly monk), who had supposedly converted to Mormonism. It was several typewritten pages, and completely unverifiable. It went on at great length about the evils of the Catholic Church, and made allegations about widespread conspiracies that the Catholic Church was supposed to be orchestrating. It was pretty hideous, but some missionaries believed it was authentic. It obviously was not. But twenty year old guys do tend to be pretty dumb.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Well then I took something very different out of it than you intended. So, you do believe that people actually do make fusses about people being in/converting to other religions besides LDS?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Members of the LDS Church themselves have not been innocent of Anti-Catholicism. I specifically remember a handful of books/tracts, not published by the Church, but pretty popular with missionaries nonetheless, that included rather strikingly ignorant and barbed discussions of the Catholic Church. Some were just annoying, but a few were quite offensive.
Aha! This may explain a discussion Kat and I had a little while back about Mormon missionaries receiving instruction in how to proselytize to specific churches (Catholics in particular). If my friend got such a book on his mission and identified it as such to me ("a book I got for my mission"), I may have interpreted it as something official. I would assume it was one of the "annoying" ones, not one of the hateful ones.
Mystery solved. I was sure this guy didn't lie to me. And I was sure Kat wasn't lying to me. My working theory before this was that they had changed the instruction in the 15-odd years since then.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I never saw anything on my mission like that. But I did get that book that has two missionaries "on trial" for their beliefs, being accused of different things and answering them. It was basically a way of expressing defenses to certain attacks.
I also got some funky cartoons of "barrel chested angels" protecting missionaries.
I'm sure lots of Weird Stuff gets passed around on missions.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I never saw any books that were solely about how to convert Catholics, but there were some that were about how to counter/answer arguments/doctrines of many different churches, and they each had a section on Catholicism. Such books are (were?) sold in LDS-themed bookstores, which don't exist in many places outside of Utah. They are often not published very professionally, with bad type and shabby covers, etc. They each seem to have an introduction that tells the story of how the book came to be written, which is clearly intended to be inspiring, but always fails.
One was based upon recordings of a series of debates which a pair of LDS missionaries had with ministers/members of other faiths, which recordings were transcribed and organized by the younger brother of one of the missionaries. The form which the actual book took was quite offensive. (This is the one Beverly mentioned, and it is called Day of Defense.)
Another was a collection of scriptures and quotations put together by an LDS man over his lifetime. It was a hobby of his to collect items which he thought proved other churches were wrong and Mormons were right. The book was published after his death in a crop-dusting accident.
Not every missionary has such books. I think maybe 10% of the people in my mission had something like that. They were usually gifts, and were seldom actually read, let alone used in the work. A few did read them, and got all worked up about them. They were nuts.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Squicky is arrogant and Tom is passive-aggressive
Bah. Not only am I also arrogant, I am in fact actually aggressive. It only seems passive because I'm not very good at it.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Not having actually served a mission... but it seems like there is such a limited selection of officially approved literature that it's inevitable that people will fill in with other stuff. As far as I know, Missionaries are only supposed to read the scriptures and 5 or 6 books written by apostles. Various apostles have written hundreds of books, but they are not official missionary literature. There are none that are cut and dried reference texts (such as Mormon Doctrine which in the original edition identified Catholicism as the Great and Abominable(tm) church).
Then there are thousands of inspiring works written by other folks, especially BYU religion faculty, which are also not approved missionary literature. But many, many of these are written specifically for the missionary market. I think there is one called Drawing on the Powers of Heaven that is quite popular as an all around motivational work. I don't know that there was much wrong with the book, just that a lot of people who use it seem to be converted to it, the book, in a way that I'd like to see them enthused about the scriptures.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Well then I took something very different out of it than you intended. So, you do believe that people actually do make fusses about people being in/converting to other religions besides LDS?
Mr. Squicky, I'm sure of it! I've heard my friends talk about individuals dissing on them for their beliefs (or lack of belief) many times. I doubt there is any religion or faith that hasn't had people harshing on them for their beliefs at some point.
What strikes me as so odd is, for instance, my former boss's church, who had a speaker in church meetings talk on the topic of "The Evils of Mormonism". It's the institutional, official position of their church that Mormonism is an evil that should be combatted. It's just strange, I think, seeing as how the LDS are generally so harmless and law-abiding and stuff.
Actually I've just realized what it's comparable to is the teachings against the evils of homosexuality, which I also find baffling. So there you go. Gays also are quite often model citizens and harm nobody. And they don't even send missionaries out recruiting.
Ah, that makes me happy to realize that! <smiles> I guess it makes sense to me now because I can see that it's just irrational. Is that a paradox? <laughs>
Oh, and my posts are always just what I happen to think and are not representative of LDS as a whole, or anyone at all besides just me.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Interesting Parallel, Tatiana, and I think I see a common thread.
Mormons (and JW's) are threatening to some Christians, I think, because they actively proseletyze to Christian denominations... and most of the deeply anti-gay people I know belive that there is some sort of "recruiting effort" by Gays to get teens to join their ranks... this is often what people seem to mean when they talk about the "Homosexual Agenda".
IOW, a lot of anti-gay people really *do* believe they send out missionaries (there's a pun there, but I'm not going to make it ).
Catholics are a lot sutbler about their recrruiting (usually) and so perhaps aren't as high on the threat list... we're more considered more targets than threats by most of the people that disrespect us.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, except for that whole ushering in the apocalypse thing. I'm pretty sure they find that threatening. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's something I've never gotten into the culture into enough depth to understand. Some oft he rapture protestants are trying to bring on the rapture and some of them scream bloodly murder at anything that has a vague resemblence to the events of Revelations. I've never been able to tell whether therer are two competing groups (which isn't a bad idea for a story if you ask me, Eschaton Force or something) or whether it's the same people but regarding it differently based on a set of rules I don't understand. Anyone have any insight?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I actually see both attitudes within my own church. Some feel a need to try to prevent the horrible things we know will happen in the last days, and some feel the desire to speed the arrival of the great things that will happen.
I mostly fall on the side of being scared witless of the bad things that will happen.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Nope... I don't get it either
Dag, that's why they pick on us for that. I remember being told (by one of my bandmates for crying out loud) that JPII was a good pope, then there were going to be two more, and then the last pope who was the Anti-Christ.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Hmm...
quote:What strikes me as so odd is, for instance, my former boss's church, who had a speaker in church meetings talk on the topic of "The Evils of Mormonism". It's the institutional, official position of their church that Mormonism is an evil that should be combatted. It's just strange, I think, seeing as how the LDS are generally so harmless and law-abiding and stuff.
See, I don't see that. I've had apologetics folks come in and talk about mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and Islam in my former church, but it was never "Mormons are evil. JW's are evil. Moslems are evil."
It was "We believe their doctrine is flawed, and this is why" and then it undertook to study the various doctrinal positions, where they differed from our own, and how to approach and talk about those differences. That doesn't sound any different from what some mormons here are saying they do. If you're referring to the same types of services that I've attended, then I think you're overstating it. I'm a protestant in the Bible Belt and no one has ever gotten up on a podium that I've seen and called mormons evil. Individual members may do one thing, but let's be careful before we call it an "institutional, official position of their church that Mormonism is an evil," unless you are a member of that church and have firsthand knowledge or have seen written evidence that their doctrinal statements do indeed contain such a thing.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I take all the last days stuff as meaning chiefly "it can happen at any time, be prepared". Lots of "last days" type stuff has been going on for thousands of years. And nobody knows for sure when it will be. Might be thousands of years from now, or even millions or billions. Also could be this afternoon, I guess.
Either way it seems like the smart thing is to do whatever you can to make things better in the world, but be prepared for the best, as well as the worst. Look forward with a perfect brightness of hope, in other words, but know that trials will surely come, and will be for your ultimate gain.
<laughs> All that sounds pretty trite to me, reading over it. But really I guess I did have a point, which is that the present time always has seemed to those living to be crazy and out of control compared to the past. And many people have looked for the last days throughout all of history.
I think if we're smart enough and make good choices, we may well see exploration and colonization of the solar system and galaxy, as well as many other marvels wonderful to behold, before the last trump sounds. That's my vision of the future: a new flowering of freedom, exploration, and expression all that's good in the human spirit.
[ June 24, 2005, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
As a non-Rapture believing Protestant (I am an amillennialist) I don't spend much time speculating on eschatology at all.
It's one reason we left our last church, because they were insistent on teaching eschatology, pariticularly premillennial dispensationalism, which both contradicted our stated written doctrine and contradicted our personal beliefs.
I just don't think there is much to gain about worrying over WHEN it will happen or even WHAT signs we need to be on the watch for. Our instructions in the Bible on the type of life we're to live is more than enough to guide us and keep us busy. No sense in worrying over things well beyond our control.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:quote:What strikes me as so odd is, for instance, my former boss's church, who had a speaker in church meetings talk on the topic of "The Evils of Mormonism". It's the institutional, official position of their church that Mormonism is an evil that should be combatted. It's just strange, I think, seeing as how the LDS are generally so harmless and law-abiding and stuff.
See, I don't see that. I've had apologetics folks come in and talk about mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses and Islam in my former church, but it was never "Mormons are evil. JW's are evil. Moslems are evil."
It was "We believe their doctrine is flawed, and this is why" and then it undertook to study the various doctrinal positions, where they differed from our own, and how to approach and talk about those differences. That doesn't sound any different from what some mormons here are saying they do. If you're referring to the same types of services that I've attended, then I think you're overstating it. I'm a protestant in the Bible Belt and no one has ever gotten up on a podium that I've seen and called mormons evil. Individual members may do one thing, but let's be careful before we call it an "institutional, official position of their church that Mormonism is an evil," unless you are a member of that church and have firsthand knowledge or have seen written evidence that their doctrinal statements do indeed contain such a thing.
I have seen it, both on televised religious programs and in person during a sermon. My grandparents watched the televised religious programs while I visited them, and refused to turn it off while I was there, despite knowing that I'm LDS when the people on the program were talking about why Mormonism and Mormons are evil. It wasn't a discussion about differences in doctrine - it was flat-out Mormons are evil, they're going to burn in hell, they're Satan worshippers, it's not a church but a cult, and they're against everything good kind of thing. The sermon was pretty much the same.
And I have many relatives who apparently believe that crap. But then, these same people also tend to believe that all Muslims are evil and want to kill everyone who's opposed to them.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
My mom always said Mormons are a cult, mostly full of stupid people who have too many kids.
She's since backpedaled a little. (Although she may still believe the "too many kids" part, at least until we have a bunch more...)
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Belle... it's ok to be an Amillennial protestant????
(j/k - several of my deeply protestant friends make belief in the Rapture a near litmus-test for whether someone is "saved"... it's a little scary)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Jim-Me, not only is it okay, but there's tons of us out there. I understand what you're saying - that near-litmus test is pretty scary.
quid, I'm not going to deny your personal experience which I'm sure was very hurtful, I just think it's going too far to call a doctrine of hatred such as was described part of the official doctrine of a Christian church. Like I said, if I can see where any church's written doctrine contains anything that equates mormons to evil people, then I'll retract my statement and join you in denouncing that particular church.
I'm telling you, in my experience, it's not like that. Your experience may be different, I acknowledge that, and I also submit that even a discussion about doctrine may seem hateful to you even when it's not intended that way. For example, if I were to sit in on mormons talking about the flawed doctrine of my particular set of beliefs, would I be offended? Most likely. Would that mean you hated me and thought I was evil? From your perspective, no, but maybe through my hurt I would interpret it that way.
As for calling mormonism a cult, sure it's done, but virtually any faith can be called a cult based on what textbook definition you use of it. Look at Jim-Me's post - I think he knows what I'm talking about - there are people (even in my own family) who think that I'm in some weird cult because how could we be really Christian if we don't believe in a rapture?
Again, I'm not denying you've had experiences that felt to you like mormons were being called evil. I do think it unlikely that "Mormons are evil and should be combatted" is part of an official church doctrine. That was what I took exception to in Tatiana's post - not that she heard things that were hurtful, perhaps even hateful from a church member, but that the church had an official position on hating mormons.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I know that both my grandparents (presbyterians) actually give people a great deal of respect when they find out they're LDS. They say they tend to be good people, decent, moral and all that.
I just think it's significant because my grandparents never pulled any punches and said what they meant.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quid...was that a televangelist or a televised church service from a recognized denomination? Sounds weird either way, but I'd tend more to believe that some whack-job televangelist would spew that nonsense than I would believe that a program sponsored by a particular denomination would. Although I'm not really "up" on religious broadcasting these days.
UofU
quote:The book was published after his death in a crop-dusting accident.
For some reason I formed a mental picture of some errant field-spraying somehow causing a book to be published. Like this group of super-locusts got hold of an old printing press and the rough draft of this guy's stuff and just started cranking it out.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
/nitpick
quote: George Carlin also has several routines that could be considered anti-catholic to varying degrees. Though both these comedians are more anti-organized-religion in general, really.
While I'm no Carlin authority, I believe he grew up Irish-Catholic and has incorporated that into his comedy. I never got the sense that it was anti-Catholic, really.
Then again, I consider Carlin to be virtually a comedy icon, so I'm certainly biased.
/nitpick
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Bob, me too! I was thinking of thousands of copies of his manuscript accidentally floating down over Kansas after a mid air collision with migrating geese or something.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
George Carlin did indeed grow up Catholic. His humor about those experiences is hilarious. Whether he is also anti-Catholic in real life, I have no idea.
I don't find his humor offensive, nor did I when I still considered myself Catholic.
by the way...catholic with a lower-case "c" means "universal" and is often seen in the creed recited by several denominations.
Catholic with an upper-case "C" refers to the Roman Catholic church (headquartered in Rome).
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Not sure who that was directed at, but I knew that.
I think most people who grew up and were/are in a certain group have funny stories they tell about that group. My father's side of the family all grew up Catholic and they love to swap nun stories from the Catholic schools they attended.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I think being a member of the religion you're poking fun at (as in jokes) gives you immunity of some sort.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
If that's the case, then that would actually include Kevin Smith (director of Dogma), since he's Catholic in the same way that George Carlin is (at least, I'm relatively certain he is).
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"Am I the only one who keeps reading the title of this thread to the tune of that song that's the theme from 'Smallville'? "
Not having a TV, I've never heard the song. Which I guess is a good thing.
Has this thread title changed from something about being "saved?" If not, then there's a lot I don't understand.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Yes, it has.
Hobbes Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Kevin Smith says he is religious. My impression is that Dogma is an attack at religious foibles, rather than religion itself.
Carlin is pretty atheistic, although I'm not sure he's used the word to describe himself.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Reposted for emphasis, since Kat seems to think she was accused of insensitivity by me:
quote:Originally posted by Ela: I don't think that you are self-centered and unaware at all, and that was not what I intended in my post. Sorry it came off that way.
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
quote:originally posted by Tom: I am in fact actually aggressive. It only seems passive because I'm not very good at it.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
To add on to the straight-edge versus ruler thing: a long time ago, it was common to teach kids in high school geometry class to do constructions. Contructing involves duplicating a drawing, or bisecting a segment or angle or some such task, with only the tools of a ruler and a straightedge. It's a great exercise (I think) in spatial thinking, and I used to have students do constructions when I still taught geometry. (The application Geometer's Sketchpad is a neat nmodern way of approximating this task, but there are some differences between sketchpad constructions and old-fashioned constructions.) Some geometry classes still do constructions to some degree--mostly honors level classes, in my experience--but I have noticed that a lot of them do it wrong. (It seems to be a disappearing skill.) Anyway, your compass should be a collapsing compass, meaning that if you lift it from the writing surface, the arms come together, rather than a firm one which would maintain its angle (and, unlike a collapsing compass, could be used as a measuring device), and your straightedge should specifically not have measuring marks on them. The idea is you use your knowledge of the properties of lines and circles to construct the objects, and not any measuring device.
This is where the word comes from--many of us instinctively group "compass and straightedge" together in our minds--and why it is not a synonym for "ruler."
EDIT: Was that the one, Dag?
[ June 26, 2005, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Now, as to the rest, I heard quite a bit of strongly anti-Catholic stuff growing up, and I never heard a single word against Latter Day Saints. I think it may have to do with part of the country. I didn't meet my first Mormon (that I know of) until I was at (Catholic) college. (FWIW, the most vehement anti-Catholic sentiment I encoutered personally came from "born again" Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses. I heard much more anti-Jewish sentiment from all corners than anti-Catholic sentiment, and I still do. The anti-Catholic stuff I encountered also could not begin to hold a finger to the anti-Latino sentiment in general and the anti-Cuban hate in particular I encountered in South Florida. And I'm sure the anti-Latino prejudice I encountered doesn't begin to compare to the racism encountered by most blacks. (If we want to get silly, for those of you who know what I'm talking about, I would say I definitely witness more anti-Celebration-resident prejudice than anti-Catholic [or Mormon] prejudice, but not as much as anti-Latino prejudice. I'm guessing that in Alabama or Texas, though, anti-Celebration-resident prejudice is virtually unheard of.)
I never was aware of any anti-Mormon sentiment whatsoever until I joined this board and heard LDS members from around the country relate their experience, and link to some hateful sites.
What was the point of that? Nothing. It was just a freewrite. Random mental wandering.
The people in this thread whom I have known here for some time are all capable of being insensitive, but none of them are insensitive. They are all capable of being oversensitive, but none of them are oversensitive. (Except perhaps me. I am.) They are all capable of being immature, but none of them are immature.
On the other hand, they all have a tendency to not let a topic drop, because they are hell bent on making sure people understand exactly what they said and why it was perfectly appropriate.
But none of them would intend to belittle anybody else.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ic, small typo in the second sentence: "with only the tools of a ruler and a straightedge."
But that is why I consider a straight-edge to be different from a ruler.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:On the other hand, they all have a tendency to not let a topic drop, because they are hell bent on making sure people understand exactly what they said and why it was perfectly appropriate.
Who, us?
*innocent eyes*
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I've got to know how you bisect an angle without being able to duplicate a length.
Also, how doing a construction with a fixed compass is "wrong." I've never seen a "collapsing" compass.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The rules we had that a compass could only measure lengths from a fixed point, or a fixed point that could be gotten to by swinging the compass around.
quote:In many commonly accepted constructions (e.g., congruent angles), the compass radius is set by the distance between two points, and then the compass is centered on some third point, elsewhere on the drawing. Under the strictest traditional rules (thank the Greeks again), this was not allowed. The radius was established only by the distance from the center point to some second fixed point. It was assumed that the moment the compass point was lifted, the instrument collapsed, making it impossible to retain the radius.
The constructions in this site ignore the collapsing compass rule. Given two points for the radius and a center point in the same plane, however distant, it is possible to draw the arc, even under the old rules. The construction for transferring the radius is elementary, but rather tedious. There is no clear purpose for the rule other than torturing students. Modern geometry classes can accomplish that with fifty-pound hall passes.
The bold portion is true, and it follows from it that any construction that can be done with a non-collapsing compass can be done with a collapsing one. So that answers your first question.
Were I teaching students this, I would make them do some transfer the radius constructions at the beginning of the year, but later let them lift the compass. But them, I'm a programmer and very comfortable with named subroutines.
Dagonee
[ June 26, 2005, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:I've got to know how you bisect an angle without being able to duplicate a length.
"Duplicating" a length is a bit unclear. The construction I will outline for bisecting an angle does use a compass to measure, in a way, but does not "transplant" that measurement, if I'm making sense.
Put the compass point on the vertex of the angle and open it to any given radius, shorter than the legs of the angle. Make marks on the angle that are equidistant from the vertex with the pencil end of the compass. Put the point of the compass on one of the marks just made, and the pencil end on the other. Draw an arc in the interior of the angle. Now repeat that step, reversing the point and the pencil end and draw another arc. Your arcs should intersect at two points. A ray (drawn with the straightedge) connecting the vertex to those two points will be the bisector of the angle.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Curse that Dag. Jerk.
Yeah, I'm comfortable with non-collapsing compasses, but I prefer unmarked straightedges (which can be purchased, but student IDs do the job for free).
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
BTW, WRT Mr. Carlin... he has become very anti-Catholic... he used to be witty but some of his more recent routines ("I used to be Catholic... until I reached the age of REASON [emphasis his]") have become mere vitriol and I found them highly offensive... which is sad because I continue to find him a funny and interesting performer (but I also liked "Jersey Girl" so say what you will about my taste).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
To add on to the straight-edge versus ruler thing: a long time ago, it was common to teach kids in high school geometry class to do constructions.
Constructions aren't de rigeur in HS geometry anymore? They sure are at the high school I attended and where I teach (the same textbook is used in both places)!
Do they not teach proofs either?!
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
It seems that proofs are predominantly the domain of honors classes. Another alternative that has become common is to accept Sketchpad demonstrations as "proofs."
I love Sketchpad. It's a great application. But a demonstration is not a proof.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
So I've been e-mailing back and forth with this guys, he's been toeing the line, but just barely the whole time; last time he opened up some anti-Mormon quotes, to which I said I would not respond. Well with my deadline breathing down his neck he's opened the whole can on me and I have to say, I'm not really happy about the whole thing.
Every stereotype every created about calling Mormons to repentance and getting them to amend their ways has just been e-mailed to me in a rather vitriolic letter, proclaiming hell-fire, proclaiming me to be a terrible person. Anyone remember that thread I posted about feeling bad, bad-mouthing someone in class? Long time ago, but that came up too (he was in the class).
Wow, I haven't vented on Hatrack in a while. Sigh. Hmm, I guess I'm upset, I guess I should get over that huh?
Hobbes Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
<<<hugs>>>
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Hmm, it's weird, I never thought this stuff would effect me, and it does tend to be very difficult to get me angry, but I kind of was! I kind of still am! Was it that he was hitting at something so important to me? Am I less stable, with the stress of leaving two, wonderful parents who can't understand why I'm leaving? I don't know, but I'm waiting on writing back until I can be a little more civil.
Hobbes Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Well, I got out my "Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry" book, and indeed it says that Euclid assumed that a compass should be collapsible. I guess my teacher never assigned that one.
But it doesn't show how to "transfer the radius." I'm not sure I really understand what that means. (a picture would help. Hah!)
However, I thought this was kind of interesting:
"The Danish mathematician G. Mohr and the Italian Mathematician L. Mascheroni dicovered independently that all Euclidean constructions of points can be made with a compass alone. A line, of course, cannot be drawn with a compass, but it can be determined by constructing two points lying on it. In this sense, the straightedge is unnecessary.
On the other hand, The German J. Steiner and the Frenchman J.V.Poncelet showed that all Euclidean constructions can be carried out with a straightedge alone if we are first given a single circle and its center."
So if you really want to get picky (or sadistic) you can say that constructions should be done with a straightedge or a compass, but not both, or you're doing it wrong.
I shouldn't be up at 2:13 am.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hobbes, I'm very sorry to hear that. I hope you can find it in you to respond with calm but strong words.
Since he's such a devout Christian, maybe you could ask him where in Christ's ministry does he find the example of Jesus specifically telling anyone that they are going to hell? Maybe remind him that God is our judge and you feel right with God.
Anyway, I don't really have any advice on how to "fix" this situation, but it sure does seem like a sad way to end a friendship.
It does sound like you've tried to be patient.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, that sucks.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
rivka, we did proofs in my geometry class if that makes you feel ANY better. actually...geometry was the only math subject that I was really good at.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Icky, it depresses sometimes how right you always are. Thanks.
Ela, I think my response was based on my misunderstanind of what you were saying. I'm sorry for misunderstanding.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Glad we cleared that up.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:quid...was that a televangelist or a televised church service from a recognized denomination? Sounds weird either way, but I'd tend more to believe that some whack-job televangelist would spew that nonsense than I would believe that a program sponsored by a particular denomination would. Although I'm not really "up" on religious broadcasting these days.
As I recall, it was a religious program that aired either five or seven days a week in southern Manitoba (could have been more areas than that, but that's all I know) back in the early 1980s. The programming was most likely for the Mennonite audience (thousands and thousands of Mennonites in southern Manitoba), although it possibly could have been Baptist (there are many similar beliefs, and when a Mennonite either can't find a Mennonite church or decides to change religions, it's frequently to a Baptist church they go.) The host had a guest speaker on that day, and he was not a preacher (reverend, whatever the title is) but someone higher up in the food chain of that church (like I said, I believe it was Mennonite. I mean, my grandparents were watching it, and they're firmly Mennonite.) - so possibly a representative from the Mennonite Central Committee (which oversees all churches and doctrine within the MCC congregations) or Mennonite Brethren (same thing).
As for the preacher at the local church, it happened many times that a sermon was given on the evils of Mormons. Perhaps 3-6 times from the time I was a child until I was sixteen. (I used to visit the grandparents most summers.) And that was the local preacher, not a substitute as far as I'm aware.
And as I think about it, I wouldn't put my grandparents past mentioning to the reverend that their Mormon grandchild was visiting and would be coming to church, so it's entirely possible that it was geared specifically towards us Mormons who would be in the congregation that week. (My grandparents also had a LOT of anti-Mormon literature at home - dozens of books, pamphlets, and the like.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mackillian: rivka, we did proofs in my geometry class if that makes you feel ANY better.
Not really. You've been out of high school how long?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quid...
Sad.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Well, yeah. My grandparents were not, shall we say, the least bit open-minded. My entire childhood, they'd talk about being saved, and they'd ask all the grandchildren who hadn't already told them they'd been saved if they've been saved yet. They just didn't understand that, as far as I'm concerned, being saved isn't a matter of saying "I believe in Jesus Christ and I accept him as my Savior." So as far as they were concerned, I was going to burn in hell.
It didn't matter that some of the "saved" grandchildren did drugs, were alcoholic, had children out of wedlock, broke the law, or whatever. They were automatically better than me, simply because they uttered those magical words, and my grandparents made sure I knew it, just like they made sure that I knew their opinions on my religious beliefs.
Eh. Whatever.
Now I'm married to a Muslim, and I wonder what my grandmother thinks. It must have caused her a great deal of anxiety and stress, to think a grandchild of hers could stray so far as to marry so far away from Christianity. Although my grandmother has mellowed quite a bit (my grandfather is now dead), she still holds on to some of this stuff. And yes, I mock her, a little, and I'm intolerant of her intolerance, and yet, I still love her. She's much better now than she used to be.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
).
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
Behave!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
That's why I try to use it.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'm going to re-read the thread and then... well apologize more formally.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
She's much better now than she used to be.