Reading the autobiography of one of my ancestors, Sanford Porter, he talked about how his son went out to Washington to do "electioneering" for Joseph Smith's presidential campaign.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Joseph Smith ran for president? I never knew that.
And I'd totally vote in a Mormon. I love you guys.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
He did. The Mormons were getting pushed around so much and the government wouldn't help, so Joseph Smith decided to run for president to try to fix that.
It didn't work, and Joseph Smith was murdered and the Mormons were driven out of Illinois.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
When was that, and what platform did he run on? It seems like a religious platform would hardly work, considering Mormons weren't the most popular kids around.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Part of it was an abolitionist platform. Joseph Smith saw the Civil War coming, and wanted the government to buy up all the slaves, free them, and then send them to Canada.
I read an article talking about how if Mitt Romney ran for president, he would have the whole polygamy thing dogging him, and the conclusion was that his campaign was unfeasible. I rather disagree, and as a Mormon I think it would be a great way to get the word out that we really really don't engage in polygamy any more.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
But it would be a lot more gradual, and his campaign probably wouldn't succeed. The polygamy idea might wear off a bit, but most of the Southern voters--especially the Baptists--would be lost off the bat, and they make up a substantial portion of the Republican vote.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As a Mormon who grew up in the South, I say that a Mormon candidate is unfeasable. The fact that he belongs to a "cult" religion would remove a large part of his conservative support.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's more likely that Mitt Romney would have his questionable political record dogging him than any baseless concerns about polygamy.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
I think it's the simple matter of religion that'll kill him.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Tom, every politician has a questionable record. It's part of the definition. Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
I don't think the country is ready for a mormon president. It could happen eventually but only after people like hatch and romney break the ground and get it through peoples heads that we are basically normal people with fairly conservative values. Those people in the south that disagree with us on the basis that we are a "cult" would likely be suprised that our values line up with theirs quite well.
Tern I wanna be a politician so I can be on everyside of everything Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well, the whole polygamy thing wasn't an issue when he ran for governor up here.
-Bok
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's probably because there's no propaganda machine against the Mormons up there like there is down in the South.
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
I don't know about the south, being in california, but I'm leaning towards Romney right now. And I really don't think too many southern republicans would say, "Well, the R's a mormon, so I'll vote for Sen Clinton!"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And I really don't think too many southern republicans would say, "Well, the R's a mormon, so I'll vote for Sen Clinton!"
It would never get to that point. There are many more republicans out there besides R.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think a Mormon running as a Democrat would do much better than a Mormon running as a Republican
I think I agree.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: That's probably because there's no propaganda machine against the Mormons up there like there is down in the South.
*looks for propaganda machine* *does not see one*
I'm not saying that the South doesn't have its biases. I just think they go against any religion that's not mainstream Christian, and even that limitation is questionable depending on the group. I don't think Mormons are singled out.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Oh, I don't know about that - name any other religions that were attacked and driven out of the South, physically. Having said that, this is my second time in Texas, and it is much more tolerant here than it was 12 years ago. I'm guessing that the Southern Baptists figure that they have more in common with Mormons than other groups.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>name any other religions that were attacked and driven out of the South, physically.<<
First of all, Missouri/Illinois aren't part of the South.
At least *I* don't consider them part of the South-- it'd be like saying that Utah is part of the West Coast.
Secondly, there are idiots everywhere. Southerners are no more likely to despise the idea of a Mormon president than anyone else.
Mitt Romney, if he runs for president, won't die on the issue of religion; he'll die on the fact that his party has bungled the goodwill of the world and the country by flailing about in Iraq. Looking ahead to 2008, I don't see how the GOP is going to recover from their wartime floundering.
About the only way to do it would be to press the religious button even harder-- it won in Ohio, after all. (This is why Hilary won't succeed-- she's not seen, currently, as even remotely spiritual)
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
Yeah, Utah isn't considered west coast, or mid west. We're just somewhere in them dar mountains.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chreese Sroup: Yeah, Utah isn't considered west coast, or mid west. We're just somewhere in them dar mountains.
I thought the common term was "fly-over country". Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
I prefer ski-land usa. Or grand canyon USA.
And I have a sudden feeling of deja vu; I think I had this conversation in a thread about 2 years ago here on hatrack...
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Is Utah still a state?
j/k, would actually like to visit it someday
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:I think a Mormon running as a Democrat would do much better than a Mormon running as a Republican
He would never take it. But, if he would: HARRY REID FOR PRESIDENT! That would be awsome. We would not only have an honest man as president,( remember Jimmy Carter ) we would also have a skilled politician. ( don't remember Jimmy Carter )
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT! That would be awsome. We would not only have an honest man as president,( remember Jimmy Carter ) we would also have a skilled politician. ( don't remember Jimmy Carter )
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
I'd like to think grown-up southerners are mature enough to realise that having a leader that supports your values (or has any to begin with) is more important than someone who shares your theology.
This is what I've grown to realize over the last few years, namely that there are Christians who may agree about who Jesus is, but have no more values in common than any other two Americans. And Mormons, who I thought of (well frankly still do) as having a lot of "weird" ideas, are usually people who's ideas of good and bad match up with mine more often than not.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Brian, the fact is that any Republican is going to have to run as a Republician. Next exection that is going to be a big problem unless the Democrats shoot themselves in both feet.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Artemisia, perhaps. But you are assuming that things in the world (especially in Iraq) will continue as they are over the course of the next two years. IMHO, this is unlikely. From my perspective, I have seen steady progress being made in Iraq over the past 2 years. The pace of the progress has been slow and rather frustrating, but has been in the right direction. I anticipate that if the elections run relatively smoothly, and the resulting parliament doesn't get too bogged down with political and tribal infighting to accomplish anything (I admit those are big "ifs") then the pace of progress will speed up.
If contions in Iraq are such that the troop levels will be able to decrease significantly, and I anticipate they will, then President Bush will get credit for "bringing home the troops." Whether that credit should go to Bush or someone else is irrelevant. Nonetheless, if Iraq improves, and barring a tremendous economic downturn, it won't be as hard as some are suggesting to get elected as a Republican.
That being said, I'm skeptical about Mitt getting through the primaries. If he does throw his hat into the ring, I'll do everything in my power to help him get elected. He definitely fits my model of what I look for in a president, much more so than Bush does.
The problem with being a Democrat now is that in order to have good chances of being elected, the situation in Iraq has to deteriorate over the next 2 years or our economy has to fail. I'd hate to be in a position where national failure=political success.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote: That's probably because there's no propaganda machine against the Mormons up there like there is down in the South.
*looks for propaganda machine* *does not see one*
I'm not saying that the South doesn't have its biases. I just think they go against any religion that's not mainstream Christian, and even that limitation is questionable depending on the group. I don't think Mormons are singled out.
I don't know if Mormons were the only ones singled out in Texas, but we certainly were. They would have big sermons and conferences specifically about how Mormons were evil, weren't Christians, were Satanists, how you shouldn't let your children be friends with them, how you shouldn't let the missionaries through your door, and how to beat them at your own game if you ever do talk with them.
Perhaps they did this with Catholics as well. I don't know. But I know they did this with Mormons.
Granted, this was twenty years ago, and maybe things are much better now. But back then they would have a push about once a year.
There was some of that where I was in Oklahoma, but it not nearly as focused towards the Mormons in particular -- the Mormons were lumped into the big "THEM" that they needed to fight against.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Holy Cow! Getting more and more ashamed for not standing up for my Mormon bud in HS when he was razzed, and that was stupid crap - how do people actually preach that garbage?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm not saying that everybody does it, but in the town where I was a kid, yes, there were people who really did preach that from the pulpit.
There were some kids who were honestly surprised to discover that I didn't have horns on my head. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>There were some kids who were honestly surprised to discover that I didn't have horns on my head.<<
And oddly, the first time I ever heard that particular bit of nonsense preached was in Wisconsin, from a friend who'd heard a speaker talk about it at the Lutheran school in town.
Like I said, there are idiots everywhere.
I spent 10 years in Texas public schools, in a small Texas town, and was never ever ostracized because of my religion.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
My boss who attended a Christian "Bible" church, fairly fundamentalist and literalist, told me that they had speakers come to their church to teach about the evils of being Mormon. They taught a twisted version of our doctrine to make it sound as bad as possible. I think the reason they do that is that they're worried about losing their congregations to a church that does so much missionary work and who are appealing in other ways, like strong families, committment to values, etc.
When the temple opened here in Birmingham, some of the local Protestant fundie churches staged protests and handed out flyers across the street from the temple site.
That same boss told me "the devil got hold of you" when I joined the church. Another time a lady whose pet-sitting service I was using while I was out of town, happened to be there when the missionaries dropped by to say hi. Thereafter she brought me anti-Mormon literature to try to save me from their influence. I told her I was already a member of the church. I didn't have occasion to use her services after that so I don't know if she would have refused or what.
My mother and father (who are reasonably well-educated people and definitely not fundamentalist Protestants) told me that they decided I had "turned off my brain" when I joined the church. My mom's sister who lived most of her life in California did help some by being delighted that I was LDS and telling mom that she knew some really great people in CA who were LDS. It also helped, I think, that the fundies were protesting us. Mom isn't usually in agreement with that segment of the political spectrum.
I think the fact that Mormons are so rare around here really helps add to the problem. Most people don't have any actual real life LDS friends to counteract the negative propaganda. But yes, I've seen far more anti-Mormon reactions around here in the few years I've been a member of the church, than I ever did anti-Catholic reactions the whole time I was growing up Catholic.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I really can't understand how ANYONE would vote for mitt after looking at his record in MA. The man is basically controlled by his campaign donors (you can tell because he flip flops based on who is currently giving him money). And he's not only incompetent, he appears to be maliciously incompetent. Everything he does seems designed to wreck whatever he says he's trying to fix... seriously.
Before you decide you might want to vote for this man, please look at his record carefully. He's not worthy of being president. He's all the incompetence of Bush rolled up with the political trustworthiness of Nixon.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Brian: No arguement on the Iraq thing. It needed to be done, and would have been hard for any administration. It's Bush's untentable record on domestic issues; the economy, the environment, and the massive, unprecidented, influence peddling that will sink them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Instead of just lambasting Mitt, why not provide some substance for those interested?
"Instead of just lambasting Mitt, why not provide some substance for those interested?"
Because for something like this I tend to let people find their own sources? I think its more likely that they'll change their minds that way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'd like to think grown-up southerners are mature enough to realise that having a leader that supports your values (or has any to begin with) is more important than someone who shares your theology.
A truly surprising number of people think that values are inseparable from theology.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Scott, I remember hearing on the radio this past summer that he's recently taken a much more hardline stance on abortion, right around the same time as he started speaking at all sorts of conservative think-tank conferences. Then there was the gas tax hike proposal that he was categorical against, and then for, and then just dropped it completely.
-Bok
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hey, I don't have an opinion on the guy.
Personally, I don't really WANT a Mormon president. What if he's corrupt? What if he's just. . . terrible? Ugh-- we've got enough bad apples under the covers, we don't really need one in the international limelight.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Is there any reason for a non-mormon to vote for him? I've heard him speak a few times, and he strikes me a just another bland politician with the regular assortment of skeletons in his closet. Until he displays a piercing insight into the American soul, he is just another dude. At least with Clinton and Rice, they put something on the table for me to reject. I do reject them.
And Obama, well, the only thing Obama has done wrong is not gotten back to me about getting a job in his Chicago Office. Obama almost has Messiah status in my esteem. Instead of saying my prayers to various Sts., I almost find myself praying to him.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
As an atheist from a Catholic family, I've attended pretty much only Catholic Mass. I went literally once to a (Congregationalist) service. My old Girl Scout troop was getting their Silver Awards, and since we had met in their basement for years, why not put it into the service. What a culture shock! I had vaguely heard complaints that the Catholic church had too much regid ceremony, and seeing this service, I saw where it came from. The congregation was about 30 people, intimate enough to embarrass the crap out of its teenage member by singing Happy Birthday to her as part of the service. It was fascinating from a cultural standpoint, especially when the Pastor came to what was more or less the Homily. It was the Martin Luther story, complete with the "good works because you're saved not to be saved" spiel given far more clearly and believeably than in my Public School history class. It made sense, but what struck me was the necessity to constantly compare Congregational thought to Catholic thought, to say we're not Catholic and here's why. Yes, one was derived from the other, but why talk about what somebody else believes? Just keeping the Protest in Protestant I guess. In all the years I went to Mass and CCD, the subject of other sects of Christianity NEVER came up. The only other religion we ever mentioned was Judiasm, which came up quite naturally in some instances, but there was one time when we watched a movie on a Catholic family who harbored Jews in Nazi Germany, got caught, went to the Concentration camps, and survived because they were eventually released as policticals. We also watched a video about the KKK harasing Jews on the West Coast (I think in Washington). It was pretty disturbing stuff: a whisper in the back of my mind wanted to ask if things like this ever happened to Catholics, but the question seemed weirdly out of place, because the horrible things on that video don't happen here (as far as I've ever known). I had heard that maybe Catholic weren't quite accepted, but wasn't really sure: where I'm from, most people are Catholic, so to me, being Catholic does not give you a relgious "identity"- you're just like everyone else, and don't pay much attention to the idea. It wasn't until High School that I had, a close, relgious not-Catholic (Anglican) friend that I understood there were other strong religous identies who really needed to remind people that they weren't Catholic: there were all sorts of churches in town, and some people went to them too. But people always went to the same church when they decided to go(we never went to any other Catholic churches even though some people in town did (father George was rather unpopular in the early 90s), because ours was within walking distance), so it was all the same to me. I think I was fifteen or sixteen when I realized that only Catholics do the sign of the Cross when they pray.
I'm not trying to be offensive here, and forgive me if any of my experiences sound that way. As you grow up, you see the world from one point of view and it slowly gets peeled away. What I'm trying to say is that my religious upbringing taught me that there were two religions in this world: Catholicism and Judiasm, and while Catholics weren't Jews, Jews, on the whole, were okay people who just didn't believe in Jesus. Catholics, on the other hand, believed in what the Jews did, plus the Jesus stuff, which is very important, so we don't celebrate Hannukah or Passover, even though we share in Moses and the ten commandments. But there was nothing about the other Christian religons. Really, nothing, and I'm curious as to why.
My own personal guess could be summed up with a quote from Ender's Game, the one where Val tells Peters that "Demosthenes isn't going to notice that Locke exists, ever". Are we deliberatly pretending the Protestant Reformation didn't happen in CCD, or are we taking a moral high ground, refusing to play the "we're not you" game. Or do the CCD people find that they can't and don't want to have a serious relgions discussion about what it means to be Catholic because some kids may leave with theological differences that will make them not want to be Catholic (counteracting the purpose of CCD). Trying to tell the Confirmation students that God doesn't like abortions was bad enough.
So, hatracks of all relgions, I have some questions. Not trying to offend, just curious about how the world works outside mine.
What relgion are you? Do representives (sunday school, ccd teachers, ministers, priests etc.) of your relgion ever compare your relgion to other people's? What sort of things do they say? If you are a member of a non-Catholic but Christian religon, how important is the idea of "not Catholic" to your religion? Is it mentioned a lot, or do you think was I lucky to sit in on the biannual "this is why we are Protestant" speech? Americans, was the fact that John Kerry is Catholic ever mentioned at Mass/the service (I only attend when my family drags me to Mass when I'm home, so I never saw if this came up)? What opinions were given? If you voted in the 2004 election, did Kerry's religion (or Bush's) sway your choice?
Wow. That was long and slightly irrelevant, but I wanted to say it. Thanks for reading.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What relgion are you?
LDS/Mormon
quote:Do representives (sunday school, ccd teachers, ministers, priests etc.) of your relgion ever compare your relgion to other people's?
That's not quite a fair question. In our church, most peopleare as much a "representitive" as anybody else. If you're a sunday school teacher this month you might not be next month.
But to answer your questions, sometimes the beliefs of other religious come up, usually in the context of "This is why we believe X, even though others don't." Sometimes individuals go beyond that and talk about why Y group is wrong, but usually not.
quote:If you are a member of a non-Catholic but Christian religon, how important is the idea of "not Catholic" to your religion? Is it mentioned a lot, or do you think was I lucky to sit in on the biannual "this is why we are Protestant" speech?
Not important at all. We view catholicism as pretty much just another Christian church.
quote:If you voted in the 2004 election, did Kerry's religion (or Bush's) sway your choice?
No.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I don't know if Mormons were the only ones singled out in Texas, but we certainly were. They would have big sermons and conferences specifically about how Mormons were evil, weren't Christians, were Satanists, how you shouldn't let your children be friends with them, how you shouldn't let the missionaries through your door, and how to beat them at your own game if you ever do talk with them.
It's always sad to hear things like this and I'm sorry that happened in the town where you lived. However, I don't that that one town is representative of the entire South. I think it likely that anywhere Mormons have a strong influence, the local pastors will explain why they believe Mormons are incorrect and encourage their congregation to stay away from the missionaries. I also think that since Mormons do not believe in Christ as God in the same way that most Christians do, it's a fair interpretation of their own doctrine that they may not consider Mormons Christian. I don't think any of those actions constitute propoganda. When they cross the line to saying Mormons are evil, satanists who you should stay away from, I think that gets into propoganda territory.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:the local pastors will explain why they believe Mormons are incorrect and encourage their congregation to stay away from the missionaries. I also think that since Mormons do not believe in Christ as God in the same way that most Christians do, it's a fair interpretation of their own doctrine that they may not consider Mormons Christian. I don't think any of those actions constitute propoganda.
Given the blatant unfairness of the "Mormons are not Christian" doctrine, and the extreme distortions of Mormon beliefs by the local pastors, I'd say it definitely crosses over into propaganda territory. Oh well, you haven't lived until someone tells you you're going to Hell because you're a Mormon.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:I think it likely that anywhere Mormons have a strong influence
Which would not be the South. Utah, certainly, California, arguably, but Mormons do not have a strong influence in the South.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I guess I had thought OSC was being a little dramatic in "Folk of the Fringe" - couldn't imagine people today acting like that.
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
Assuming Romney were one of the two leading candidates for the Republican nomination (a big if), his chances in primaries in the South depend very much on who his opponent is. If it's a Southern conservative Republican (e.g. George Allen), Romney won't do well. If it's a Northeastern liberal Republican (e.g. Rudy Guliani), then Romney could do quite well.
Assuming he got the nomination, his chances in the general election depend a lot on the same things the general fortunes of the Republican Party depend on: how the economy and Iraq progress. But they also depend on who his opponent is. Anti-Mormon sentiment among Southern Baptists won't hurt him much if the Democrats nominate someone very liberal on social issues.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Given the blatant unfairness of the "Mormons are not Christian" doctrine
I would imagine that many people find it unfair that Mormons think that only Mormons get to recieve the highest degree of glory and meet God. However, that is Mormon doctrine and Mormons have every right to believe it. I think the same goes for the Christians who do not see Mormons as Christian.
quote: the extreme distortions of Mormon beliefs by the local pastors
While this is quite likely true in many cases, I also think many times local pastors emphasize aspects of Mormon doctrine that Mormons feel can only be understood with more background information. I can see why this might feel like a disortion to Mormons, but I definately do not think the intent is to distort.
quote: you haven't lived until someone tells you you're going to Hell because you're a Mormon.
Do you really think Mormons have a monopoly on being told they're going to hell?
Posted by Ser Bronn Stone (Member # 8759) on :
I do believe that a Mormon candidate for President would be an unwise political decision for the Republican party. To win, they need the Christian right to march in lockstep AND to get some of the moderate middle. That seems a poor recipe on both accounts.
And thus I hope they do it.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Do you really think Mormons have a monopoly on being told they're going to hell?
I probably should have phrased that as "You haven't lived until you've been told you're going to Hell", as that was the thought in my mind.
I don't really see a Mormon candidate making it past the primaries for quite a while, just like I don't see an openly homosexual candidate making it past the primaries for quite a while, and for the same reason: The country's just not ready yet.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: "You haven't lived until you've been told you're going to Hell"
Alright then, I think just about everybody has lived. It seems there's always somebody around the corner ready to pass judgement.
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
dobie broke. I didn't do it.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote: I think the reason they do that is that they're worried about losing their congregations to a church that does so much missionary work and who are appealing in other ways, like strong families, committment to values, etc.
You're welcome to your opinion, but I think this is patently wrong. No congregation I've ever been a part of that has invited speakers on Mormonism, Islam, or any other faith has ever been worried about losing their congregations. I personally attend those speakings so I can be educated, because I firmly believe in learning about my own faith and that of others. Your faith does not have a monopoly on commitment to family, mission work and values. Your comments are insulting, and rude and be glad I consider other jatraqueros to be more accurate representatives of their faith or I would have a poor view of Mormons indeed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
A church in Michigan once invited the missionaries to speak on Mormonism to them when they got to that part of the class. I really liked that - if you want an authority, go to the source. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
One of my classes has asked if we could have a presentation on the various “non-mainline” Christian denominations. I’m trying to decide if I can get away with bringing in a scholar of American religious movements or if I have to arrange a panel of representatives from each of the churches. I'll probably go with the panel, and supplement with the scholar for the groups that I can't get a representative for.
It’s interesting – until I moved here I had never once heard the word “Mormon” in any church group. Of course, in the last communities I served Catholics were about as exotic as the religious diversity got. Everybody else was Lutheran, United Methodist, or went to the independent evangelical church. Here, I’ve had several people ask about Mormon beliefs. Of course, the church is right across from an LDS historical site and right on the Mormon trail, so y’all are a little more visible here.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What relgion are you?
Roman Catholic
Do representives (sunday school, ccd teachers, ministers, priests etc.) of your relgion ever compare your relgion to other people's?
Yes. Especially in the RCIA class (adults converting to Catholicism) we talk a lot about what is different about Catholocism. Not in a "we're right and they are going to hell" way.
What sort of things do they say?
Well, we (now) have specific teaching that the Catholic church is not the only way to heaven.
If you are a member of a non-Catholic but Christian religon, how important is the idea of "not Catholic" to your religion?
In my case, not very!
Americans, was the fact that John Kerry is Catholic ever mentioned at Mass/the service (I only attend when my family drags me to Mass when I'm home, so I never saw if this came up)? What opinions were given?
Not at Mass. In our parish we were very careful not to be directive about how to vote. Certainly, no candidate was endorsed because of his denomination.
If you voted in the 2004 election, did Kerry's religion (or Bush's) sway your choice?
I was not more likely to vote for Kerry because he shares my faith. I was more likely to vote against President Bush because of church/state issues.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Belle:
I'm glad to hear your perspective. I have to ask though -- what are the motivations for bringing in speakers to speak about Mormons?
From the tone of the materials (publicity and educational) that I have seen/heard for some of these types of 'educational sessions,' it doesn't seem like just some (ecumenical) exercise in learning what others believe. A lot of it looks like scare tatctics to me.
Of course, you specifically mention your churches so your anecdotal experience may be vastly different from mine.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"A truly surprising number of people think that values are inseparable from theology."
Why is that surprising? I think many people who are religious have learned values from their religion. I am honestly confused about your surprise, Tom.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
That's true, you can learn your values from theology. I think he may have been thinking more along the lines of: If you were to suddenly give up theology, would you also give up the good values you gained from it? I know I didn't, and I expect that most people wouldn't either.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>A lot of it looks like scare tatctics to me.
Bah. Eat a baby once in a while, suddenly the whole world is out preaching against you.
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAD IT COMING!!!
I mean, have you any idea how much NOISE those kids make?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I think many people who are religious have learned values from their religion. I am honestly confused about your surprise, Tom.
Because it would imply that people who abandon their theology abandon their values, and people raised without theology are raised without values. It also suggests that theologically-neutral values cannot exist.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You find it surprising that people think this, Tom?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In my less cynical moments, yeah, I'm surprised by it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Of course, the church is right across from an LDS historical site and right on the Mormon trail, so y’all are a little more visible here.
dkw, you're near Winter Quarters? That's kind of cool. Winter Quarters just got a temple recently, I think.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm right across the street from the Kanesville Tabernacle. I think the temple is across the river in Omaha.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've been to most of the Mormon historical places, but not that one.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Well, come vist then!
(You can be on the panel )
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Panel?
I'd love to visit some day.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
With all respect to Belle and her Pastor, if you want accurate info on a Ford, would you go to a Toyota representative to ask, and believe you were receiving accurate information about Ford's products?
While it's good and healthy to hear various thoughts and to have a wellrounded perspective, anything that sounds 'terrible' or 'hard to believe' or 'ridiculous' is usually best brought up to someone who actually belongs to the faith that is reported to believe in such things.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
If you wanted objective info on a Ford, do you think a Ford salesman would give you an unbiased opinion on their products?
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Back to the original topic, I saw this article today on USA Today, and it specifically mention's Romney's Mormonism as a potential political downfall.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
One of our speakers was a former Mormon. If I want a perspective on a Ford, I can get it from a Ford owner or from a Chevy owner who used to own a Ford and now shares with me the reasons he no longer does so.
Why should you be offended that my church wishes to minister to Mormons and try to proselytize to them and get them to join our faith - your Mormon missionaries do the exact same thing to people of my belief system.
All of us believe in the teachings of our faith, we think we have the Truth and we want those that don't to know of it. The LDS do that just as Protestant missionaries do.
You need to stop assuming several things - 1) that all the information is inaccurate and presented only as a scare tactic and 2) that you have a monopoly on having your faith spoken against.
I've had my beliefs challenged by many another Protestant. Let's face it - we believe different things. I'm sure all the LDS on this board think they are correct - that their view of God and salvation is right. Guess what? I believe mine is right too. And I support missionaries reaching out to LDS to try and convert them to our beliefs just as I'm sure you support LDS missionaries doing the same.
The LDS information sessions I've attended have been set up to teach people specifically how to minister to those of the LDS faith. Aren't your missionaries trained on how to talk to Protestants and Catholics and such? It's the same thing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You need to stop assuming several things - 1) that all the information is inaccurate and presented only as a scare tactic
I think that many people assume this because this is what they've seen in the past.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
I'd be interested to know the specifics of what they taught you in your 'information sessions.'
And no, LDS missionaries are not trained on how to specifically react to different religions. We believe the spirit of contention is of the devil, and that once that spirit is there, then any attempt at teaching is relatively futile.
If I wanted to learn about a Toyota, I'd go to the source. I'd test it out, drive it around, kick the tires and then decide for myself if I wanted to buy it. Getting advice from a disgruntled former Toyota salesman seems illogical and a tad conterproductive.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Any time somebody gives you advice, keep in mind two things:
1) How likely is this person to have knowledge/experience that can help me? 2) What personal reasons might this person have for giving me this advice?
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote: think that many people assume this because this is what they've seen in the past.
I think therein lies some of the cause of the so-called "great divide" between Latter-day Saints and our Protestant and Catholic brethren. Many Mormons, including myself, have encountered some kind of anti-Mormonism. I'm not talking about things said in the spirit of honest disagreement, but hate-filled Fred Phelps-like vitriol spewed out by people who truly hate the Mormon church and protest at the Hill Cumorah Pageant and such. This has led many to believe that EVERY church who tries to educate their people about the LDS people are the same kind of hate-mongers.
Then there's what I like to call the "perception of misperception." Mormons tend to think they're the only ones who know how to present their beliefs; anyone else who tries is bound to be wrong. This is true, to an extent. I know a lot about the Catholic faith, but I wouldn't do as good of a job presenting the Catholic faith as a lifelong Catholic. But that doesn't mean that I can't in good faith tell other people what I know about Catholicism.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:This has led many to believe that EVERY church who tries to educate their people about the LDS people are the same kind of hate-mongers.
I think this is part of the problem. As Pat and mph have pointed out, we in the LDS church don't have anything equivalent to "educating a congregation" about another church. We focus on teaching what we believe rather than trying to get "educated" on how other specific churches or religions are wrong or even dangerous--which is, as I understand it, the main purpose behind such meetings in non-LDS congregations.
Now, that said, we do of course talk about doctrines that we don't share with other churches and why we think we're right, but I have never heard of a Sunday School class on "Why Lutherans Are a Dangerous Cult!" or Elders' Quorum meeting on "Catholics: Are They Really Christians?"
[edited to amplify thought]
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: we in the LDS church don't have anything equivalent to "educating a congregation" about another church
I think part of this has to do with the different nature of the religions. The LDS church can say "They're all wrong because they're missing the revelation of Joseph Smith." With other Christian faiths, you have to get into more of the details since there isn't such a ready answer.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
On the other hand, it’s possible to have a Catholic or Protestant church that never mentions or implies anything about the LDS church at all. However, because the LDS church believes that it’s a restoration, is it possible to learn about LDS theology and history without being taught that the Nicene Christian churches (which would include Catholics and most Protestants) were/are apostate?
Posted by pwiscombe (Member # 181) on :
I was reading a post on another message board where the question of "could you vote for a Mormon for president" was asked.
One reply that stood out to me from a very conservative Republican was that he couldn't vote for a Mormon due to the following:
America is a Christian country
America has God's blessing because we are a Christian country
If America elected a "non-christian" as President, it would mark then end of this being a Christian country
America would then lose God's favor.
QED = Christians can't vote for a Mormon
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
dkw
quote:However, because the LDS church believes that it’s a restoration, is it possible to learn about LDS theology and history without being taught that the Nicene Christian churches (which would include Catholics and most Protestants) were/are apostate?
The thing is that most LDS meetings don't deal with history and theology. They deal with doctrine and personal experience. Incidentally, I'd hazard a guess that many LDS may have heard of the Nicene Creed but most don't know exactly what it is.
So yes, as I noted, we certainly talk about the apostasy, but that's quite different from inviting people in to describe why a particular church or religion is wrong and how you can prove that to them with the Bible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Mormons tend to think they're the only ones who know how to present their beliefs; anyone else who tries is bound to be wrong.
I get that a lot from some of the Mormons on this board. Astonishingly, when pressed, very few of them are ever able to tell me what exactly I got wrong, rather than just things they thought I expressed in a less flattering but still accurate way. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
pwiscombe -
I find it hard to wrap my head around the idea of not voting for a president based on their religion. I would vote for a Mormon just as easily as I'd vote for a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu or a Zoroastrian.
My decisions are based on their issue positions. If their religion demands a specific position on an issue, one that I happen to disagree with, then I won't vote for them, but not because of their religion, rather, because of the issues they support or are against.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Astonishingly, when pressed, very few of them are ever able to tell me what exactly I got wrong, rather than just things they thought I expressed in a less flattering but still accurate way.<<
Must be a problem with the *tone* of your posts, hmm?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tom, there have been several times that I've corrected you on things you've said about Mormons and our doctrine. You have responded at least once by saying that the difference between what you said and what I said doesn't really matter.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dante: So yes, as I noted, we certainly talk about the apostasy, but that's quite different from inviting people in to describe why a particular church or religion is wrong and how you can prove that to them with the Bible.
Right, but like dkw said, a lot of churches don't do that. I've never heard Mormons mentioned at all in church or any chuch-related activity I've ever attended. But whether a Mormon knows what the Nicene Creed is or not, they've been taught that my church is apostate.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
ElJay, I'm not sure what point you're making.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>But whether a Mormon knows what the Nicene Creed is or not, they've been taught that my church is apostate.<<
We talk about the apostasy as something that happened "back then." And then the restoration came. The term 'apostate churches' hasn't been used in decades in our teaching literature, as far as I'm aware.
I've never heard other churches mentioned at all in Mormon services, except for members saying things like, "I was a Southern Baptist for 97 years, and never knew the goodness of lime jello. I thank God every day for the Sister Missionaries who brought me my bowl of Lime-flavored Salvation."
I'm glad to hear that there are some churches out there not gunning down Mormons. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to eliminate the martyrdom complex so many Mormons suffer from when every week, some itinerant howler from Northern Arizona makes his rounds at all the local churches, preaching against Joe Smith and his Golden Bible of Adultery? Right hard, let me tell you.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dante: We focus on teaching what we believe rather than trying to get "educated" on how other specific churches or religions are wrong or even dangerous
My point was that teaching what you believe is teaching how specific other churches (all of them) are wrong. No, you're not inviting someone special in to do it, and you're not saying the other churches are evil. But I still don't think you can say it's "quite different" from what members of other churches have been describing. And I think it's somewhat disingenuous to be indignant about some other Christian congregations talking about why they think Mormons are wrong when all Mormon congregations teach that everyone else is wrong.
And I know, obviously, that everyone thinks that they are right. I certainly do. But I think the vast majority of Christian denominations are rather inclusive about what "types" of Christians they believe have full benefits in the afterlife. It's a small but vocal minority that do not. Including Mormons. Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:But I still don't think you can say it's "quite different" from what members of other churches have been describing.
But it is quite different. Or do you not think there's quite a difference between a mostly passive, non-sect-specific doctrine and an active "education" session of the type that was being discussed?
quote:I think it's somewhat disingenuous to be indignant about some other Christian congregations talking about why they think Mormons are wrong when all Mormon congregations teach that everyone else is wrong.
<looks around for Elder Strawman> I believe the indignance, if it exists, is that some churches bring in "experts" whose job is to "expose" the LDS church as a cult, as a non-Christian religion, as a bunch of Scott R-esque baby-eaters, etc.
Look, I know most churches don't do that. But some do. I've seen the flyers. I've talked to many of those who have attended such meetings/services. There is nothing remotely similar to that in the LDS church. If you don't see a distinction, well, fair enough. But I see a huge one.
quote:But I think the vast majority of Christian denominations are rather inclusive about what "types" of Christians they believe have full benefits in the afterlife.
I disagree, but I'm not sure how this fits into the discussion so I'll leave it be(or as TomD would say, I'm just admitting you're absolutely right but your wit has confounded me <jk> ).
By the way, Scott, I believe if you're doing the impression the right way it should be written "ol' Jo' Smith an' his Golden Bible!"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:as TomD would say, I'm just admitting you're absolutely right but your wit has confounded me
Well, no. As Porter has already observed, I would admit that she's absolutely right but then explain why it doesn't matter, because it has nothing to do with the point I'm making. Assuming of course that it didn't.
It would be highly, highly out of character for me to announce that I've been confounded by someone else's wit. Even if I were. As unlikely a possibility as that is. Confronted by new facts that force me to revisit my conclusions? Sure. Confounded by wit? Not gonna happen. Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
Okay, fair enough. I probably shouldn't be taking liberties with my TomD invocations, anyway. I'll try to be more circumspect and only invoke you when I really need to.
Oh, no, Tom you misunderstood--I wasn't saying that's what you would say, I was saying that's what you would call what I was saying.
No, I think that you honestly saying you thought you were dazzled by someone else's wit probably happens about as much as...well...me saying something like that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*grin* Actually, there are a few people on this site alone who've managed to dazzle me with wit. (Monte and his poetry springs to mind, here.) But I'm more often confounded by wit's bastard cousin, stubborn insistence.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
On the other hand, I can leave wit aside entirely and just try to make Tom look sort of silly by adding to my post while he's responding.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Because the LDS church believes that it’s a restoration, is it possible to learn about LDS theology and history without being taught that the Nicene Christian churches (which would include Catholics and most Protestants) were/are apostate?
It is definitely taught from childhood up that the original Christian church that Christ established went through an apostasy, and that was why a restoration was needed. What isn't done in the LDS church is a specific comparison of our doctrine to the doctrines of other religions. We simply teach what we believe. Occasionally if someone asks a question such as "At my Catholic school they taught me this, is that correct?" we will specifically address the differences, but great efforts are made to NOT teach what is wrong with any other churches - only what is right with ours. The hope is that if they learn what is right then when they hear opposing doctrine they will recognize the differences themselves.
I guess it's a fine line to draw; I never actually thought about the fact that teaching of a general apostasy was teaching against all the other Christian churches. But I do see a difference: we don't do it by name, because the intent is not to steer people away from other churches. We just teach what we believe with the intent to steer people to our church. I have always been uncomfortable and confused about my friends going to their church and being taught specifically what was wrong with my religion, instead of what was right about theirs.
Does that help make the difference clear?
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:But I'm more often confounded by wit's bastard cousin, stubborn insistence.
No you're not. Prove it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I have always been uncomfortable and confused about my friends going to their church and being taught specifically what was wrong with my religion, instead of what was right about theirs.
I've noticed this tendency in Mormon culture in general, actually: a genuine dislike of open criticism, replaced instead with the positive presentation of alternatives. When sincere, it's one of the things I like best about you lot.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:When sincere, it's one of the things I like best about you lot.
Dammit, Tom, you're getting me all mushy. Commere, you big lug!
Okay, in the interest of trying to re-rail, here's an interesting quote from an AP article I found at Foxnews announcing Romney's decision today not to run for a second term:
quote:There has also been an undercurrent of concern among Christian conservatives, particularly in the vital South, rooted in his Mormon faith. One political operative in South Carolina branded the religion a "cult."
That is a good example of why, as several here have pointed out, a Latter-day Saint will never be president.
[ December 14, 2005, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: Dante ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm still waiting for an atheist candidate for President. I want to see if that'll be received better or worse than a candidate from a rival Christian denomination. I honestly can't tell. I think the lots-of-haters will actually hate a bit less, but the not-so-muches will hate a bit more.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dante:
quote:But I still don't think you can say it's "quite different" from what members of other churches have been describing.
But it is quite different. Or do you not think there's quite a difference between a mostly passive, non-sect-specific doctrine and an active "education" session of the type that was being discussed?
I agreed that you're not taking it to the degree that some other churches do. I disagree that it's quite different. Our definitions may differ, and that's fine. I am of a very inclusive branch of Christianity. To me, there's not much difference between occasionally (once a year? Once every couple of years? How often do you think it happens, in the churches that do it?) bringing someone in to agressively address the issue and quietly, passively, taking it as a given all the time as part of your doctrine that everyone else is wrong.
quote: I believe the indignance, if it exists, is that some churches bring in "experts" whose job is to "expose" the LDS church as a cult, as a non-Christian religion, as a bunch of Scott R-esque baby-eaters, etc.
Look, I know most churches don't do that. But some do. I've seen the flyers. I've talked to many of those who have attended such meetings/services. There is nothing remotely similar to that in the LDS church. If you don't see a distinction, well, fair enough. But I see a huge one.
I completely agree that people spreading baby-eater type lies about Mormons are out of line. I have no doubt that there is nothing similar in the LDS church.
You agree that most churches don't do it. I would say that even among churches that do have meetings about Mormons, most of them are in response to some of their members being visited by missionaries and asking questions, and the church responding by having a session outlining the differences and why they believe what they do. Because I would venture to guess that most Mormons know the main points of difference. I had no idea before I started hanging out here, even though I had dated a former Mormon. And since I've started hanging out here, it's come up in conversation with a couple of other people, and none of them have had any idea, either. Anyway, back on topic. . . so, a small percentage of churches have meetings about what the differences are and how to witness to Mormons. Of those, it's probably a small percentage that are the inflammatory type you are objecting to. I will give you that those are quite different. The type Belle is talking about? Sorry, but no.
quote:
quote:But I think the vast majority of Christian denominations are rather inclusive about what "types" of Christians they believe have full benefits in the afterlife.
I disagree, but I'm not sure how this fits into the discussion so I'll leave it be.
Fair enough. I think I could explain why I think it fits, but I've honestly spent enough time on this topic for tonight. I'm really not all that invested in it, it's just kinda interesting. Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
The only reason I'd be happy with an LDS president is that I could use the phrase, "The first openly Mormon president."
You know, Tom, I'd have no problem with an atheist...at least not just because of his atheism. I can't promise I'd like his politics. And then we could say, "The first openly atheist president." Sweet.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: And I think it's somewhat disingenuous to be indignant about some other Christian congregations talking about why they think Mormons are wrong when all Mormon congregations teach that everyone else is wrong.
I think it's like the difference between saying "You are the best son in all the world." and saying "Jimmy is a worse son than you are because he does X, and Billy is a bad son because of Y."
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
You guys (being Mormons) should just all move to Massachusetts... Yeah, yeah, the gay marriage thing would make things a little awkward at first, but did I mention we have an openly Mormon governor?!?
-Bok
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote:did I mention we have an openly Mormon governor?!?
Only for another year. Then we all get to have another one of them openly Mormon Presidential candidates.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
And nominate someone for MA governor too!
-Bok
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'm going to have to go back to the response to missionaries thing, m_p_h. Y'all have missionaries in pretty much any community you're active in, don't you? If missionaries are knocking on the the doors of a church's members and telling them about stuff they have never heard of before -- a modern day prophet, an entire different book of scripture -- and the member goes to their pastor and says "Here's what these people have been telling me. Are we missing something here? What does our church believe about this stuff?" How is the pastor supposed to react to that by just saying positive stuff about their own religion?
And if it happens just once, I definitely think it should just be addressed between that parishoner and the pastor. But if it happens a couple of times in the space of a couple of months, and it seems likely that there is a decent number of people in the congregation with these questions, then it would make sense to have a meeting to address the issues to larger numbers of people at once, as well as to offer the information to other people who may be curious but haven't asked.
Please remember that I'm just speculating here, and explaining why I think this sort of thing can be reasonable. I have never actually encountered such a seminar, like I said, I've never heard the LDS church or theology mentioned in church or any church related activity.
I was involved for the better part of a decade in a church that was very active in outreach. But we stressed that we were trying to reach the unchurched in the area, people who were not active members of another church, or were not Christians at all. Our pastor and council (of which I was a member) said many times that if the net result of our ministry was just to shuffle existing church members around between churches, even if we ended up growing our outreach would have failed. I understand why Mormons don't think that way. But in light of that, I also understand why other churches could feel threatened by Mormons where they wouldn't by a different denomination in roughly the same situation.
I'm sure it looks like I'm downplaying the actual, historical prejudices against Mormons that have happened and that some of you have experienced. I'm not trying to do that. When those things happen, I think it's wrong, and very un-Christian.
Posted by pwiscombe (Member # 181) on :
quote:My point was that teaching what you believe is teaching how specific other churches (all of them) are wrong. No, you're not inviting someone special in to do it, and you're not saying the other churches are evil. But I still don't think you can say it's "quite different" from what members of other churches have been describing. And I think it's somewhat disingenuous to be indignant about some other Christian congregations talking about why they think Mormons are wrong when all Mormon congregations teach that everyone else is wrong.
And I know, obviously, that everyone thinks that they are right. I certainly do. But I think the vast majority of Christian denominations are rather inclusive about what "types" of Christians they believe have full benefits in the afterlife. It's a small but vocal minority that do not. Including Mormons.
From my (mormon) perspective: There are a number of issues that "Mormonism" has with the doctrines of other Christian denominations. I don't mind having an honest discussion of beliefs:
quote: Me:"We believe A, B and C while other churches believe X, Y and Z"
Friend: "We believe X, Y and Z. I don't understand how you can believe A, B, and C."
Friendly discussion ensues.
Unfortunately, those actively opposed to Mormonism, tend to distort the actual viewpoints of Mormonism to make it appear salacious or rediculous.
quote: Friend (opposed to Mormonism): "Mormons are wrong because they believe D, E and F "
Me: "Actually, we don't believe D, E. We believe A, B & C. And although we do believe F, when you say it like F it sounds really goofy. "
Friend: "No you don't. You believe D, E and F. Back in 1856, a Mormon apostle said G and H, so we know that he meant D and E"
(Hopefully this makes a little sense, I didn't really want to get off track with an argument about the actual points of doctrine)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: posted December 14, 2005 07:57 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was reading a post on another message board where the question of "could you vote for a Mormon for president" was asked.
One reply that stood out to me from a very conservative Republican was that he couldn't vote for a Mormon due to the following:
America is a Christian country America has God's blessing because we are a Christian country If America elected a "non-christian" as President, it would mark then end of this being a Christian country America would then lose God's favor. QED = Christians can't vote for a Mormon
I would vote for Russ Feingold in a minute. And probably vote for Harry Reid.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My aunts (Texan, Baptist) are convinced that I belong to a cult because of sessions at their church. They love me and I love them, so we just don't talk about religion in any specifics beyond a general thankfulness to God for each other.
But I'm not impressed with my aunt's church. I do NOT belong to a cult.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote: "Here's what these people have been telling me. Are we missing something here? What does our church believe about this stuff?" How is the pastor supposed to react to that by just saying positive stuff about their own religion?
I understand why those questions need to be answered. I do believe it can be done. I still think there is a difference between answering questions as they are asked (which we do frequently in Sunday School as well as in less-formal settings like discussions), and setting up a meeting to specifically discuss what's wrong with another religion.
In my experience with a similar situation in the LDS church, the situation would go: "This is what I was taught by my {insert denomination} friend; what do we believe?" "We believe {insert doctrine}." If there was a specific doctrine that large numbers of people had heard conflicting things about from friends of another religion, and the leadership felt the need to address that doctrine in a public setting for everyone, my experience has been that they would do it by clearly explaining what we believe, as opposed to emphasizing what the false doctrine is and which specific religion it came from. For example, I've heard many sermons on how faith requires works, but I've never seen a meeting where people are taught, "This is what {insert denomination} believe about faith vs. works, and this is why they're wrong."
(I should say rarely. Since our sermons are given by lay members of the Church instead of paid ministers, the rules are not always strictly followed, unfortunately. Some people do mention other churches in their talks. Most do not. The general leadership never does. And no meeting would be set up with the express purpose of explaining what's wrong with another religion.)
I really believe you can teach people their religion without having to teach negatives about other religions. (I believe that because I have to do it on a weekly basis, as I teach the children at Church, and I am very careful to teach what WE believe without belittling or denigrating what other churches teach, especially by name.)
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
Yes, the LDS Church explicitly teaches that ALL other churches (and other religions) are incorrect.
But really, that's why different churches/denominations exist. Each one exists because its founders believed that ALL other churches were wrong on at least one important (in their mind) doctrine. If they didn't think everyone else was wrong, they would be a part of the church that they agreed with.
In other words, the very existence of a church/denomination implies a claim of its own correctness AND everyone else's incorrectness. Thus, the LDS Church is far from unique in this respect.
These days (and, to a lesser extent, throughout history), a lot of churchgoing people don't seem to care much about specifics of doctrine. As a result, it doesn't matter much to them which church/denomination they attend, within certain limits. They choose a church according to its proximity to home, the "atmosphere" of its worship services, the personality of its clergy, etc. For such a person, doctrine only matters if it is dramatically different. But this trait of some church members does not change the fact that doctrinal differences, however small, do exist, and are important for the reasons discussed above.
I guess my ultimate point is that every church (though perhaps not some of its members) believes, by definition, that it is right and everyone else is at least a little wrong. The LDS church is no exception, but neither can it be singled out as unique in its position. This is why there is a BIG difference between teaching that everyone else is wrong, and teaching that a particular church is wrong, and giving the specific reasons. (Not to mention the fact that, if the latter is done, it is almost certain to misrepresent the target church and its doctrine.)
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
Haven't much time to post here, but having spent two years as an LDS missionary in the Deep South I can say that the "propaganda machine" talked about earlier in the thread is quite real. I personally worked in a town where two missionaries had been murdered in the 1930s, and older members in the rural areas would talk about how missionaries being killed or beaten was not at all uncommon in the pre-WWII era. For that matter, missionaries sent to the South around the turn of the century were treated more or less as going to war, and were well aware they may well come back to a six-foot-deep hole rather than a joyful homecoming. I had my own life threatened on religious grounds on more than one occassion, and was called either bound for Hell or one of its servants at least once a day.
Don't get me wrong. Many if not most of the people I met were kind, hospitable, and willing to talk about religion in a civil fashion if they were willing to talk at all. But there was more than enough hate to make Card's nightmare scenario in "Folk of the Fringe" frighteningly plausible. Of course, the Ku Klux Klan also tended to be very strong in these areas, and if the rule of law were to break down enough to make a "Folk of the Fringe" situation possible, there would be a great many lynchings at the same time.
I personally collected enough anti-Mormon literature to fill four filing folders, and I threw the vast majority of it away. We're not talking "Mormons are misguided" or "We disagree with Mormons" stuff. We're talking "Mormons are a Satanic cancer that must be stamped out" and "Mormons are servants of the Devil himself who want to steal your soul" and "Mormons are an evil cult with plans for world domination." While some if not most of the pamphlets and books were so ridiculous as to be self-parodying, they were in deadly earnest.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I challenge each and every person who doesn't believe there is a general bias against Mormons to say they are Mormon or plan to become Mormon for a week to friends, family members, and especially Religious leaders. I promise you it won't be pleasant.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
My cousin converted when she got engaged to a nice Mormon boy. Other than her mom and grandma being upset that they couldn't be at her wedding, I don't recall any unpleasantness.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Just for the record, there is a difference between a blanket statement of doctrine that covers no specific religions with no exact reasons, and very specific statements about a very specific religion that casts it in the most half-truth bad light as possible.
As an example, Someone might say that the only real football team is team B and all the rest don't have the same abilities. Discussion about other team ends there. Then they go off and explain all the reasons team B is so great. Another person says that team A, C, and D is horrible and then give very specific reasons why such teams are not good without any reasons they might be good or even using all the facts. In fact, anyone who is part of team A,C, and D is out to destroy football and any other team sports that exists.
The above isn't extreme examples. They represent the norm.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think you all have a greatly inflated opinion of your own importance. In many areas of the country, the East Coast, for example, most people really don't know or care much about Mormons. You are much smaller potatoes than many people here seem to realize. The worst you get is some vauge ideas about polygamy and that you're scientology for Christians. Yeah, I get that the Southern Baptists hate you, but, they hate just about everybody.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
For every story like that dkw, I know of ten others where that isn't the case.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I issue the challenge to you MrSquicky, even on the East Coast. I'd actually like to hear the results. Maybe it will be better than I hope, but from personal experience and from experience of people I know its not as simple as you seem to imply.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
So your challenge to each and every person only applies to the ones that will get the result you expect?
I've been told by an LDS member on Hatrack that all (and I asked for clarification, the poster did intentionally say all) protestant and catholic clergy are malicious liars and/or deluded, and most are both. Fortunately, most LDS Hatrackers are a little more polite than that, but believe me "personal experience" goes both ways.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oh, are you double dog daring me, Occ? Almost no one I know has a general bias against mormons, any more than against any of the other small "wierd" Christian sects, because almost no one I know has ever thought about mormons. We honestly don't care. It's not in our consciousness.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Everyone but dkw gets a time-out.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
dkw, how come they couldn't go to the wedding?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Non-mormons are not allowed in LDS temples.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Non-LDS aren't allowed to see LDS ceremonies, including weddings.
edit: Also, am I coming across as angry or otherwise upset? I didn't think I was.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
NO, my challenge is to everyone. I did say "maybe it will be better than I hope."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think you may have missed that dkw already related a story of LDS conversion that would fulfill your challenge, which you then dismissed as being an exception. I think that may be what she is referencing.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Non-LDS aren't allowed to see LDS ceremonies, including weddings
That is. . . erm, what dkw said.
Many Mormons get married in special ceremonies in Mormon temples. These ceremonies are sacred-- only members in good standing are allowed to attend.
Other Mormon ceremonies, such as baby blessings (namings, if you will), baptisms, sacrament (ie, communion), are open to the general public.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Really, are those held outside of temples?
Also, I think you may want to look at the timestamps involved there Scott.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Occasional: I live on the East Coast. Both my brothers' wives are converts. They did not receive any death threats. No one, to my knowledge, disowned them. Their friends remain their friends. They are both (all?) still on good terms with their families.
You're hysterical, and I don't mean 'hysterical' like Carrot-top being grilled slowly over a low fire. Well. . . maybe I do. . .
Anyway, calm down.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Really, are those held outside of temples?
Really, they are. Temples are fairly rare, by the way-- there are something like 3000 chapels (day-to-day service buildings) in all the world, and only ~200 temples. That's ~200 temples to serve 11+ million members.
quote: I think you may want to look at the timestamps involved there Scott.
Uh. . .why?
EDIT: Oh, I get it. My bad-- let me say what I intended. . .
quote: Non-LDS aren't allowed to see LDS ceremonies, including weddings
dkw's post is the more correct one.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Generally, if you're going to point out that someone is repeating what someone else said, it makes sense to check if the posts weren't made within seconds of each other.
And huh, that's something I didn't know. I figured they were all "you no come in here" places. You live and learn.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I figured they were all "you no come in here" places. You live and learn.
You realize this plays RIGHT into the pariah complex. . .
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Nice. So now you're saying that I'm welcome in your buildings, as long as I stay in these so-called "pariah complexes." Yeah, you lot are real welcoming. . . . . . . . . . . Hey, the only reason I even knew my kind were verboten in your holiest of holies was through my participation on Hatrack. I realize that Occ is going to take that as evidence that I don't go to bed at night without my 10 minutes hate while staring at a picture of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, but there's not much I can do about that.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I feel like we've got people here arguing "everybody hates Mormons" vs. "nobody cares about Mormons, quit whining."
My impression is that most people "honestly don't care" about Mormons because they know little about us, with perhaps the slight bemused smile: "You're a Mormon? Really? Hmm," when they meet one.
Let's admit that many churches teach that Mormons are not Christians, with no feeling of animosity, just with the intent to inform their parishioners that we don't believe the same things about Christ as they do (so we need to be saved). Fair enough. That is not an attack.
There ARE, though, individuals and churches out there that actively teach that Mormons are evil, a cult, out to take over the world. They won't let their kids play at our houses, they show anti-Mormon propaganda movies at their Youth Church nights, cut off long-time friendships as a result of those friends joining the Church, get the Donny and Marie show pulled off the air because "those Osmonds are Mormons", visit Mormon churches to speak in our Sunday services about how we're wrong and need to leave the Church to find Jesus and be saved. We're not imagining it. I've seen all those things in my own neighborhood.
Some of us are blowing it way out of proportion to imply that everyone feels that way, or even cares. People aren't tarred and feathered anymore. But you never know whether the person you've met is a "don't care" person or a "Mormons! AAAHHH!! " person, so it does make life a little suspenseful. No wonder some of us have a complex.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Nice. So now you're saying that I'm welcome in your buildings, as long as I stay in these so-called "pariah complexes." Yeah, you lot are real welcoming.
Bring a baby. We'll make you feel right at home.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jenna, To clarify, I'm not saying "Nobody cares about Mormons. Quit whining." What I was saying is that there are many places in the country where people don't give a thought at all to Mormons. It's common in a separatist culture that has undergone oppression to see your culture as the center of the world, but it's almost never true. The LDS Church is a relatively minor one and most people can get by perfectly well without giving it a thought, unless they live in Utah or belong to one of the more beligerent protestant sects.
The people who are really not happy with you are generally either ex-members or the scary Christians who have a problem with most everybody. This isn't something to be brushed off, but neither it cause to view your religion as a subject of near universal opposition.
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
This topic has drifted a bit, but the New York Times reported today that Mitt has announced for certain that he won't seek another term as MA governor. The Times interprets this to mean that he has designs on the presidency. I'd link to the story, but I have a paper copy of the times, and their website requires a password to access stories.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Yep. That's what I meant, MrSquicky. We need to get over the "everybody hates me" complex, hint, hint (to anyone who might need a hint). Everybody doesn't hate us.
But I didn't want to give the false impression that the horror stories are not true or no big deal. I guess growing up in the Bible Belt put me in the middle of the "scary protestants" zone. I think I'm in the same location where Yank served his mission.
Paraphrasing will get me every time. Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
www.bugmenot.com is one of my favorite websites for circumventing those stupid compulsory registration news sites.
edit: this is in response to audeo's post
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
Mormons tend to have a pretty big cultural persecution complex. This is partially justified, for reasons already explained. However, in a lot of cases of it is overly paranoid and not based in facts. Normally, when faced with someone who whines about the great persecution our people have to bear I just and think "well aren't you just a perfect Christian martyr."
The only time I speak out is when some LDS try to indicate that this must be the Lord's church because there are so many people opposed to it and thus it's a sign that the Devil's working so hard to hinder its growth. That argument makes me want to scream. Hello, remember that whole Holocaust thing? Antisemitism in the world is waaay more rampant than Anti-Mormonism ever was or probably will be. Surely you can surmise if the amount of persecution were directly proportional with how true the faith is, then Judaism would have Mormonism beat in the arena of Truth.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
To me, the whole Bible Belt, 'you're not Christian, you're going to hell', 'You're all a bunch of brain-washed sinners' thing is much more of a burr in my saddle than anything else. Whenever I attend conference and see the vitriol and hate of those people who would really wish to do me and my family harm it just gets to me.
Then I see people like dkw and Bob and host of other people who have true Christlike love for their neighbors and I settle down quickly.
Let's face it. Not everyone is going to like us. It's cool. If anything, it means to me there's more work I can be doing to understand the frustrations of others who might not like my religion. That's a good thing to work on.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In my mother's family's defense, while they want nothing to do with the church, they did not object at all when my mother joined, and was very happy for her that she found something that made her happy.
We belong to a cult, but apparently not a dangerous one.
Posted by tmservo (Member # 8552) on :
quote:Mitt Romney, if he runs for president, won't die on the issue of religion; he'll die on the fact that his party has bungled the goodwill of the world and the country by flailing about in Iraq. Looking ahead to 2008, I don't see how the GOP is going to recover from their wartime floundering.
3 years is a long time. Tons of things can happen in 3 years. The "goodwill of the world" has never meant a great deal in the US; if it had, we would have never went with a revolution And if it had, Reagan most assuredly would not have been elected twice in landslides.
In the end, I think the race in 2008 will come down to lots of issues, not just Iraq, as always. And I think (R)s have a better chance then people give them credit for. I think if Hillary ends up the (D) nominee - which maybe in the coming, as she's got more money in her warchest and broader support amongst the base then others, then it's open season. I think the far left doesn't care for her because of her new, moderate stance, but she'll be a tough sell in the south.
Mark Warner (D-VA, outgoing governor) is going to run, but I don't know if he can put together the funds to put up a full primary race. We'll have to see.
But lots of things between now and 2008 can happen. Iraqi government, based on two elections by then, could begin to solidify, which would be a vindication. Or, you could get a capture of Osama. Or, you could get a continually militaristic Iran led by a crazy PM doing idiotic things to Israel. Or Iraq could fall apart, hurting candidates, etc.
No one knows. It's too far away to make any sort of slam dunk type predictions Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Someone asked what I was taught at informative sessions held at my church.
Mainly, it was an overview of where Mormon doctrine differed from ours in regard to things that you would readily admit, I'm sure, that we disagree on - your view that view of the nature of God, Christ, and the trinity is not the same as ours.
Then we discussed how to respond to Mormon missionaries that called upon our home. And the instruction given wasn't "Tell them they're going to hell and slam the door in their face." Nor was it "Give them a Jack Chick tract." Rather it was invite them in, treat them with the kindness and love you would show to any of your friends and neighbors and ask them if they will come back so that you can discuss your faith with them and share with them why you believe your faith is correct and theirs is not. If they are not willing to discuss such with you, then wish them well and let them know they can always contact you or a member of your church at any time to discuss matters of doctrine and belief.
Again, I am repeatedly frustrated when running up against the Mormon persecution complex. You send our missionaries to tell everyone that they are wrong and should convert to your church but you have a problem with us doing the exact same thing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Governor Romney was just mentioned on the TV show The Practice.
That is all.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"You send our missionaries to tell everyone that they are wrong and should convert to your church but you have a problem with us doing the exact same thing."
Problem it its NOT the exact same thing. Take out the "tell everyone they are wrong" and it would be much more accurate. We say why we are RIGHT and leave the "wrong" out of it. Its the difference between implication and direct information. We don't talk about any other religion in any way; period. We don't even talk about how to deal with other religious people's trying to convert us. Officially, the LDS Church rarely even talks about the differences between what we and others believe. We certainly don't hold conferences, firesides, or informational discussions about other religions.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
He has announced he is not running for office again. He feels he has done everything he set out to do.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Once you are mentioned on TV shows like that, what else is there left to do?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>You send our missionaries to tell everyone that they are wrong and should convert to your church but you have a problem with us doing the exact same thing.<<
When I was a missionary, the goal wasn't to go out there and tell people that they were involved in a cult with an Anti-Christ message. The goal was to bring people to Christ through the Spirit that our message brings.
I've been overblowing the Mormon persecution complex on purpose to dissuade my fellow Mormons from trying to use it in this discussion-- it really is a ridiculously ineffective tool when talking about religion.
It really isn't as bad as I've made out.
Belle, Mormon missionaries don't discuss other churches' doctrine, USUALLY. They're not experts in it-- heck, most of them aren't experts in their OWN religion. The Apostasy, as I've said, is presented as something like a history lesson-- "After the death of Christ and the apostles came a period of apostasy-- a general falling away from the truth that Christ had given the world." We don't point fingers.
So, we're NOT doing the exact same thing that your speaker is. That is to say, Mormon missionaries have no structured lesson on why doctrine X of the Catholic church is wrong, or how the Baptists have misintrepreted St. Matthew 5, or the horrors of being a Mennonite elder. I won't say Mormon missionaries perfectly hold to the standards I set above, but I know I did, and all of my companions as well, and every single missionary I've served with, in the mission field and as a normal Mormon member have never done what you described.
In fact, the idea of standing up and presenting, even to regular members, a dissertation on the whys and hows of other faiths' doctrinal incorrectness is COMPLETELY foreign to modern Mormonism. We rely, in fact, much more on charismatic and social conversions rather than on doctrinal conversions.
Mormon missionaries, and I think this has been pointed out, are much more likely to go into detail as to why our doctrine is correct rather than explain why your doctrine is wrong. A slight difference, but one that makes for a world of difference in proselyting methods.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes, but you are coming to our houses to do it. At least the (from what I can tell from this) rare informational meetings are held for people who are already part of the congregation.
Isn't it possible that the these are at least partly in response to the presence of missionaries?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The idea of having a class where the topic is specifically another church and our ideas of what they teach is completely foreign to me. I must admit that I hate it. It feels wrong to me.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yes, but you are coming to our houses to do it. At least the (from what I can tell from this) rare informational meetings are held for people who are already part of the congregation.
Isn't it possible that the these are at least partly in response to the presence of missionaries?
Rather than just the presence of I missionaries, I suspect it is more in response to perceived success of the missionaries.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
So Belle, does this mean you will not vote for Mr. Romney?
[ December 16, 2005, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Pat ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>I suspect it is more in response to perceived success of the missionaries.<<
I wouldn't say that at all. I think the people who make such presentations are doing so largely out of the same desire that fuels Mormons to proselytize to members of other churches.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Pat, That's an unworthy question for Hatrack. Nothing that Belle said suggests that at all and you implying that she is prejudiced is uncalled for.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
Dude. Relax. It was an icebreaker. It was meant as a funny.
I'll go insert a TomDavidson caveat to make it all better, ok?
And to be clear, I never said Belle was prejudiced. Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>I suspect it is more in response to perceived success of the missionaries.<<
I wouldn't say that at all. I think the people who make such presentations are doing so largely out of the same desire that fuels Mormons to proselytize to members of other churches.
Oh really? I was under the impression that LDS missionaries pay around $10000 to support themselves while they do missionary work. My understanding is also that the bishop (leader of the local congregation) is 100% a volunteer and receives no compensation of any form for his service.
On the other hand many local leaders of other congregations get make their living off the collection plate. If the Mormon's are stealing away their congregations, then they suffer economically. That has been one of my wife's uncle's complaints.
So Scott, in summary I would have to disagree: I think the motivations are completely different.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:On the other hand many local leaders of other congregations get make their living off the collection plate. If the Mormon's are stealing away their congregations, then they suffer economically. That has been one of my wife's uncle's complaints.
So Scott, in summary I would have to disagree: I think the motivations are completely different.
That suggestion is contemptuous.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Perhaps you personally may feel contempt for a paid clergy, but that doesn't make the suggestion contemptuous. Three different pastors I've interacted with aren't ashamed of it, why are you?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I believe Scott is saying that he does not believe that the pastors operate from profit motivations.
I can't imagine anyone becomes a pastor for the money.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
I think it is obvious that a small percentage of ministers/clergy do choose particularly kinds of ministry from profit motive.
I think it is equally obvious that the vast majority of clergy do not.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Perhaps you personally may feel contempt for a paid clergy, but that doesn't make the suggestion contemptuous. Three different pastors I've interacted with aren't ashamed of it, why are you?
I'm not contemptuous of them, but the idea that you put forward. Namely, that clergy of other faiths serve for the money.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Only people who start their own church (or television ministry) are paid directly from "the collection plate." Clergy in organized denominations are paid a salary that is set by the church administrative board/council/committee. In the more centrally organized denominations that salary is based on guidelines set by the denomination.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm not contemptuous of them, but the idea that you put forward. Namely, that clergy of other faiths serve for the money.
I apologize, in retrospect I see how what I said could be taken this way. I meant no lack of respect for paid clergy. Please allow me to explain.
In some places, the LDS church pays its full time Church Educational System teachers a salary. These teachers are normal working men supporting a family. If the economic incentive were removed (i.e. they weren't paid) then I doubt many of them would be teaching 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Not because they are serving money, but because the money they receive is allowing them to teach their faith. I think it is similar with pastors of other faiths. I'm sure the vast majority of them do it for the cause, not the money. However, if the money were removed they would probably not be able to financially afford to continue.
Thus part of the motivation to hold onto his congregation for a pastor is to make is living, a Mormon missionary has no such motivations. That is why I stand by what I said about them having different motivations.
(Just in case it's not abundantly clear, I'm not saying at all that having economic motivations as well as others are something to be held in contempt)
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Most missionaries of other Christian denominations are volunteers, as I understand it, so your comparison [EDIT: doesn't] hold.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Take out the "tell everyone they are wrong" and it would be much more accurate. We say why we are RIGHT and leave the "wrong" out of it. Its the difference between implication and direct information. We don't talk about any other religion in any way; period.
OSC has, on this very board. It was a fairly long post about the Hellenistic twisting of original Christian doctrine.
I found nothing inappropriate about what OSC said in that post, I'm merely noting it as a counter example to the quotation at the start of my post.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
To the people pointing out that Mormons don't mention other religions in meetings or talk about why they're wrong, just about why y'all are right. . .
I really do believe you are overlooking the effect of your missionaries in all this. The missionaries spend months in the training center learning how to witness to other people. Then they show up at the doors of people from other denominations, and you think it's somehow different that some of those other denominations hold meetings to help their congregations know how to respond. Of course you don't need to teach specifically about other churches in your meetings. . . other churches aren't as a rule showing up on your doorstep wanting to come in and convert you. I don't see how teaching people to respond to missionaries is different from teaching missionaries how to teach.
Again, I am talking about churches who do things like Belle has described. Not people who come and protest your conventions and the like.
I find the feeling that it's different somehow to focus on what's right in your church as opposed to respectfully explaining the differences between two churches and why "we believe the way we believe" baffling, honestly. I think it's like the Northern V. Southern manners discussion we had a few weeks ago. . . Where some people think it's more polite to continually be "busy" and never decline an invitation, and trust that the message will get through eventually, I consider that passive-aggressive and irritating. I would much rather receive a "Sorry, I'm not interested." Then I know where I stand. What you're saying about how it's hurtful to address and discuss differences openly instead of just talking up the good points of your own religion seems just as foreign to me.
Obviously, it's the way y'all do things and it feels right to you. I submit that it's another cultural difference. I don't expect you to change the way you do things, certainly, but I hope you can be aware that it's not being done to be intentionally hurtful or agressive, but that in a lot of other cultures that is how you have a productive discussion, and doing it your way would leave many of us confused and unsatisfied with the discussion.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Clergy in organized denominations are paid a salary that is set by the church administrative board/council/committee. In the more centrally organized denominations that salary is based on guidelines set by the denomination.
That's interesting... I never knew that. So does congregation size/socioeconomic status etc figure into it at all? Or is it strictly based on the relative cost of living in your area?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here's a news article that deals specifically with Romney's potential candidacy and religion. One interesting quote that bears on some earlier discussion:
quote:Mr Miranda said that in 2000 he worked for Orrin Hatch, the Utah senator and a Mormon, during his unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination. “Hatch had a poll done. He found that over 60 per cent of Americans would not vote for a Mormon.”
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The two main things that I remember I heard discussing the LDS while growing up in a fundamentalist Christian community.
1) The definition of "cult" to these people = aberrant Christian Group = disagreement on the nature of Christe and the godhead = not embracing the concept of the Trinity = cult. Catholics are on the fringe, because of the whole "Mary" thing, even though they hold to the Trinity.
The occult=casting spells, witchcraft etc. Many fundamentalists *aren't* educated enough to understand the difference between the two.
2) The second main objection (which I can now see in some respects as a positive) was (and I quote, because it's still with me vividly) "Out Goes the Old Truth and In Comes the New Truth." was what the presenter said. Even though if you look at history everyone's "truth" changes, the fundamentalist christians believe that this is an inherent flaw. I guess dogmatism is often easier to swallow.
Anyway, those were the non-hysterical pretty rational presentations. The guy talking on #2 was a little more emphatic, and used a few more catch phrases, but those divisions of doctrine are where the disagreement spreads from. IMO. It can be twisted into a much more hysterical form. But really I didn't experience a lot of hysteria in my experience. In fact it was held up as a shame to some of the churches I attended how much more ethical and caring of their own the LDS were, and that if we had the Truth we should be doing a better job of the same.
AJ (I heard a lot more hysteria in general about Satanism and the evils of Dungeons and Dragons, than I did about the LDS)
[ December 16, 2005, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Most missionaries of other Christian denominations are volunteers, as I understand it, so your comparison [EDIT: doesn't] hold.
-Bok
I was refering to the dynamics of Mormon missionaries gaining converts from other pastor's congregation. I was not attempting to compare the reverse situation.
Edit: Removed not. We're doing well with our negation this afternoon aren't we Bok.
[ December 16, 2005, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: BaoQingTian ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The only way a change in the number of members would affect my salary is if the congregation lost so many members that it had to close. And then I’d be reappointed to another church at approximately the same salary. (Unless, of course, the reason the congregation lost members was my ineffectiveness. If that was the case, I’d probably be moved sooner, and if it became a pattern I could lose my credentials and be ineligible for appointment.)
The idea that clergy would discourage apostasy for financial reasons rather than spiritual reasons is just plain silly. If I was in this for the money I’d have stayed in engineering. The hours would have been better too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Officially, the LDS Church rarely even talks about the differences between what we and others believe.
Out of interest, why not? Do you not feel that this would be useful to understand?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Tom, it's not entirely true; the Church talks often about how we are different from "others", just not specifically which others. We do talk about the doctrines that are different - not saying, "This doctrine is different from the Catholics, who believe such-and-such", but just saying, "One doctrine we believe that is unique to us is {insert doctrine}."
It's done out of respect for other religions and out of an understanding of how frustrating it is to have our religion misrepresented by others; we don't want to misrepresent theirs. We feel it's better to just state our belief than to possibly set up a straw man of others' beliefs and then argue against it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The missionaries spend months in the training center learning how to witness to other people. Then they show up at the doors of people from other denominations, and you think it's somehow different that some of those other denominations hold meetings to help their congregations know how to respond. Of course you don't need to teach specifically about other churches in your meetings. . . other churches aren't as a rule showing up on your doorstep wanting to come in and convert you. I don't see how teaching people to respond to missionaries is different from teaching missionaries how to teach.
This is a good point, ElJay. But I don't understand why the churches don't simply teach their own doctrine and the justifications for it, rather than seeking to weaken the Mormon position.
Both dkw and Belle know a heckuva lot about their brands of Christianity and the justifications for their views on doctrine-- and they associate on a virtual level with Mormons all the time without any sort of . . . er, adverse reactions. Do they really need a class on Mormonism to help them defend their beleifs?
I doubt it.
:shrug:
Maybe six of one, half-dozen of the other? That said, I'd be really, REALLY uncomfortable in church if the teacher started talking about how to respond to Jehovah's Witnesses. The attitude in Mormonism is, "Hey, we've got the capital-T Truth-- let's talk about that." Or, at least, that's what I hope we're doing.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
As I said earlier, I’ll probably be organizing a program on several of the non-mainline Christian groups this spring. I don’t look at it as pointing out where others are wrong, though, or defending our beliefs. I don’t think I need to defend anything when the audience is "in-house" – I start from the assumption that professing members of our church believe our doctrine. If it turns out that that assumption is wrong – if someone hears the beliefs of, say, Christian Science, and realizes that that's actually closer to what they believe, then me pointing out where I think those beliefs are wrong isn’t going to do a whole lot of good anyway.
As for why have the class at all, people are interested in learning about their neighbors. It certainly shouldn’t take the place of studying the Bible and learning our own doctrine, but as a supplemental bit of study, I think it’s a positive thing.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I think both dkw and Belle know a whole lot more about their brands of Christianity than the "average" congregant. dkw better, anyway, she went to school for four years to get an MDiv. When confronted with a missionary talking about X Doctrine, I'm sure they would know exactly what their church's position is and how to respond. Would the average congregant? When approached with a doctrine they'd never heard of before?
I consider myself relatively knowledgeable. I pay attention during sermons, I went through confirmation class and Sunday School, and I have an excellent memory. I knew next to nothing about the LDS church before I started hanging out here. Some of your doctrines are very different from mine, and I would have no problem saying "Well, that's interesting, but here's what I believe." Some of them, however, are on points that I'm not entirely clear on, or have never come up, so I don't know if we believe them or not, or are close enough to mine that I'm not sure if there's a difference or not. If my church is simply teaching it's own doctrine, how does that prepare me to discuss something I've never heard of before?
Do I think this sort of class is necessary? It depends on what your goal is. I'm not much of an evanglist. If a missionary came to my door I would speak with them politely, perhaps offer them a drink, and tell them that I'm happy in my faith and not interested. I would not try to convert them. I would have no need for such a class.
Other people and other churches believe strongly in converting people to their faith, because they believe it is the capital-T Truth. Now, while they may not all go out looking for you to try to convert you, if you come knocking on their door I figure you're fair game. So for people interested in saving your immortal soul, I can see why they'd be interested in having a specific response to your doctoral points. (Not that I'm not concerned about your immortal soul. Just that I don't happen to think it's in danger. )
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:"Hey, we've got the capital-T Truth-- let's talk about that."
To a lot of people -- myself included -- this is in every substantive way identical to saying "Your position is capital-W Wrong."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If my church is simply teaching it's own doctrine, how does that prepare me to discuss something I've never heard of before?
I think the key thing is this, from my POV:
Mormon missionaries aren't really out to discuss theology. They're out to promote their own specific religion. And Mormons, when they promote their religion, do not do so based on doctrine, and are somewhat baffled and insulted when religions which place more of an emphasis on doctrine attempt to relate -- and challenge -- them on that level.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Tom is onto something something. As Scott said earlier:
quote: We rely, in fact, much more on charismatic and social conversions rather than on doctrinal conversions.
I think that in general Mormons would tend to say, “I believe this church is the true church, therefore its doctrine must be true” and people of many other denominations would tend to say, “this is what I believe about God, and therefore this church (whose doctrine matches what I believe) is the church I will join.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yep-- that's the way I see things, dkw.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:(Originally posted by Tom): Mormons, when they promote their religion, do not do so based on doctrine, and are somewhat baffled and insulted when religions which place more of an emphasis on doctrine attempt to relate -- and challenge -- them on that level.
quote:(Originally posted by dkw): I think that in general Mormons would tend to say, “I believe this church is the true church, therefore its doctrine must be true” and people of many other denominations would tend to say, “this is what I believe about God, and therefore this church (whose doctrine matches what I believe) is the church I will join."
Hmm. Interesting. At first I really disagreed with Tom's idea because I was raised LDS and have really studied the doctrine a LOT. I'm baffled at the idea that somehow the doctrine isn't important in a conversion.
But it is true that we don't just present the doctrine and see if this is what someone already believes. We're aware that we present new doctrine and we encourage people to find out for themselves whether the doctrine is true or not. And it is true that once they've decided that certain core doctrines are true, they're more likely to believe the rest of the doctrines taught by the Church. But I really think that part of it is true for most churches - you find a pastor you trust and then you're likely to accept his interpretation of scripture or doctrine because you've already decided you trust him.
I feel like I'm not saying this well. Hope it makes sense - the doctrine IS very important, but we don't decide whether or not to believe it based on debates, that's for sure.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We're aware that we present new doctrine and we encourage people to find out for themselves whether the doctrine is true or not.
Actually, in my experiences with Mormon missionaries and former missionaries, the more unique elements of Mormon doctrine are almost never presented until the conversion is pretty much a done deal. There's a great emphasis put on "feeling the spirit," and not so much on "do you think God has a physical body?"
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: - the doctrine IS very important, but we don't decide whether or not to believe it based on debates, that's for sure.
Which could explain why you don't like it when other churches frame things in a what we believe/what they believe way. Because that's not what's important to you, so you don't get why people want to talk about it. Now naturally there's also an element of "but they're getting what we believe wrong, and I can understand why you wouldn't like that. But many of you do seem to feel that just discussing it is rude regardless of accuracy. And that sort of discussion is the way a lot of other people approach religion.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:There's a great emphasis put on "feeling the spirit," and not so much on "do you think God has a physical body?"
Tom, but that's how we find out if the doctrine is true or not: by asking God, and receiving an answer. And they do introduce unique doctrine almost from the get-go: the doctrine of God having a body comes from Joseph Smith's first vision, for example. The very fact that God can reveal new things to man today as in times past is definitely new doctrine, to most people.
Maybe I just have a different understanding of "doctrine" than you. I thought it meant, you know, everything we believe. But I will grant you that we introduce new doctrine and ask the person to pray about whether it's true, rather than discussing doctrine and just seeing if the person already agrees with it. Perhaps that's the difference you mean.
Oh, and I agree that most people don't know ALL the doctrines of the Church before they join it. I don't think I know all of them myself.
[ December 16, 2005, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: JennaDean ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The Atlantic has an interesting article on Romney.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:The very fact that God can reveal new things to man today as in times past is definitely new doctrine, to most people.
I doubt that you can find a single Christian denomination that teaches that God can not reveal new things. There are some that believe God chooses not to, but they are no where near a majority. Most Christians believe in continuing revelation. We just don’t believe that God has designated one man as the primary recipient of it.
This particular misperception comes up with depressing regularity. Perhaps LDS folk should have a class or two on what other denominations believe. Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Apparently so.
But whoever we got to teach it would undoubtedly get it wrong. Like me. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't know dkw, I have heard too many refrains of "do not add to or take away from the Bible," and "The work is done and there is nothing more to be said," and "If any (interpreting it as every) angel delivers a gospel . . . "
Usually, the "disgust" is more about direct communiction of God through either a vision or angels. To be honest, the LDS Church really hasn't had much of that kind of officially recognized revelation since Brigham Young. I must admit to an interest of what you consider new revelation.
I think that TomD is actually on to something, although I usually think he isn't. However, experience has shown " but, they are getting what we believe wrong," is 90 percent of the time in the discussions. Therefore, Mormons have come to think of such things as bigotted at worst and irrelavant at best. We don't want others talking about us and so we don't talk about them. And when we do learn about other religions its not in the spirit of "us vs them," but more about general information.
[ December 17, 2005, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Nikisknight (Member # 8918) on :
This is not to excuse any persecution or such, (which couldn't be) but this is how I think Christians see their relationship to mormonism in general--
The core of Christian doctrine is salvation through grace, based on confession of Jesus and repentance of sins. Christians see some mormon beliefs as aberrant enough as to perhaps (or to some people, definately) imperil their salvation, since their understanding of who God is is at odds with reality (... as we understand it.) Not only that, most or all mormons are missionaries, and usually effective ones, due to generally being good people and having great dedication. So they are leading people into falsehoods that could have eternal consequences. It's like how pepsi might view coca-cola sellers, if they belived coca-cola might be deadly, I suppose. Any (reasonable) christian should see that the differences in most denominations' theology are slight, and certainly even Catholicism and protestism as well. Mormonism falls in a fuzzy area between eccectric and heretical.
We should give God more credit than that, though, and let the LDS example inspire us to present our beliefs with dedication and humility, and leave heaven in God's hands.
and back to values/beliefs, in terms of a national leader, the values are way more important; I'd rather a president or legislater share my definitions of justice and freedom than of God. Of course, I used to think that all Christians *did* share my values, and differed only on seemingly unimportant rituals. Since becoming a bit more politiacally aware, I realize that there's often as much difference among major religions than between them, even if each holds the same sincere beliefs. (Reform vs orthodox judaism, national council of churches vs focus on the family, Bush vs Kerry).
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Good article, Storm Saxon, although it took me forever to read it. Very thorough on his background and style of leadership.
I agree about your last paragraph, Nikisknight; I've been amazed, as I've learned more, at how many differences there are among Americans, among Christians and even among Mormons. I liked to think deep down we all want the same things. I guess if that's true it's really deep down.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:this is how I think Christians see their relationship to mormonism in general
<sigh>
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
What?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:OSC has, on this very board. It was a fairly long post about the Hellenistic twisting of original Christian doctrine.
When I read his statements I was actually shocked. Although I do agree with much of what he said, I wasn't even sure of what his point was. It made me nervous, if for no other reason than I knew it would be used against Mormons to show how insensitive we were toward other Christians' beliefs.
However, it did show the general rather than specific approach that Mormons take toward religious differences. It is a general swath rather than a razerblade. Of course, that is the approach that dkw doesn't like. We always talk in generalities and almost never in specifics as we find that rude and biggoted. OSC's post was an example of an exception more than a rule. It is evidence that OSC can be pretty fearless.
I just think that Dante is sighing because the post represented the very thing everyone is trying to prove isn't happening. I mean, its always nice to hear;
"imperil their salvation"
"odds with reality"
"leading people into falsehoods"
"if they belived coca-cola might be deadly"
"eccectric and heretical."
In the same breath as "good people." Kind of makes the whole "by their fruits ye shall know them" pretty meaningless.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I don't get it. We know that other Christians don't think we are Christians. They aren't going to change their definition of Christian and we aren't going to give up the name. We know they think we teach some false doctrine. We also think they teach some false doctrine. I thought Nikisknight was respectful in stating why they think we're wrong. I didn't see it as an attack, just an explanation.
Do we really think they're going to start saying everything we believe is just fine? And if not, can NO ONE state the differences without us feeling attacked?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the only thing that made Dante sigh was the absence of the word "other" in the quoted sentence.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: ... And that sort of discussion is the way a lot of other people approach religion.
I would go so far as to say that's how a lot of other people approach the pursuit of knowledge.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Well, yeah. But so far no one's told me that they feel hurt when they hear about people discussing the differences between theories on heat transfer research and wish each person would just focus on what's good about their theory instead of comparing and contrasting it to the opposing theory, ya know? Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
No, that's true. Perhaps "...the way a lot of other people approach religion and philosophy" would have been a better rephrase on my part. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, it did show the general rather than specific approach that Mormons take toward religious differences. It is a general swath rather than a razerblade.
But we've seen examples in this thread that the general swath is used by missionaries. I think it was Scott R who said that missionaries will mention the falling away of the church sometime in the first or second centuries. I can't recall if he said they use the apostacy word directly.
That's a broad swath, but it's also a direct counter to something taught by the Catholic Church (and most mainline Protestant churches, I believe, although obviously mjor differences between Protestants and Catholics start to appear later).
Now, there are two ways to teach beliefs. One is to define what it is the Church teaches with regard to a particular belief. For example, I might sum up the Catholic Church's teaching on apostolic succession this way: "Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles. This succession is the underlying basis for the claim of the authority of the Church's teachings." Were I doing a scholarly paper, I would cite various forms of evidence that support the succession.
Protestants disbeleive this teaching, as do Mormons, though for very different reasons. Either group could marshall their own set of reasons and evidence as to why this teaching is incorrect.
The positive statement of why Catholics believe in apostolic succession would be incomplete without a counter to those reasons. A complete teaching of this belief cannot be done without a refutation of either the evidence or the conclusions drawn from the evidence.
Mormon belief contains, very close to its base, the idea that every other Christian denomination has gotten something very important wrong. Examining reasons why ones beliefs might be wrong is an important part of spiritual growth.
I don't really see the difference between what you claim Mormons do with respect to other religions and what other religions do with respect to Mormons (speaking of the idea of classes, not offensive behavior). Frankly, I consider OSC's post to be far more open and demonstrating more mutual respect than not addressing specific points of doctrinal difference, assuming it's done in a context of fostering open discussion.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I guess thats where Mormons and many other Christians differ. To talk about anyone directly other than yourself is considered rude and offensive. Its the whole "mote and beam" problem. Probably the biggest problem, however, is that when it comes to religion there is usually almost no such thing as open discussion. Its more along the lines of open war.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To talk about anyone directly other than yourself is considered rude and offensive.
Your church sponsors people to dedicate two years of their life to go around to strangers and tell them that my church is apostate. Nothing about that is of a different quality because they refrain from saying the word "Catholic" or "other Christians."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Your church sponsors people to dedicate two years of their life to go around to strangers and tell them that my church is apostate. <<
You can choose to look at it this way if you want, Dagonee. I can even understand it.
For obvious reasons, I look at it differently. I think if you were to talk with the missionaries, you'd discover that the core message isn't one of exclusion and division from other churches but on the power of the redemption and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
In other words, your church isn't nearly so important in our message as you seem to think.
Ahem, an example, is readily at hand:
"Hatrack became different when it moved from AOL. It became less n00b friendly, and more prone to flame wars. This lasted until TomDavidson signed on in early 1998."
"Scott R is the reason that Hatrack sucks as a forum. He's belligerent, ignorant, and cynical."
There IS a difference, IMO. But we've reached the point of insistence, I'm afraid-- discussion has ceased, we're just waving the same flags around.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think if you were to talk with the missionaries, you'd discover that the core message isn't one of exclusion and division from other churches but on the power of the redemption and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Why do you consider the message exlusionary and divisive? (I assume you realize I didn't mean that's all they say.) I believe it was you who said the apostacy is mentioned by missionaries.
quote:"Hatrack became different when it moved from AOL. It became less n00b friendly, and more prone to flame wars. This lasted until TomDavidson signed on in early 1998."
"Scott R is the reason that Hatrack sucks as a forum. He's belligerent, ignorant, and cynical."
I don't find these examples to be parallel to the discussion; they don't even contradict each other. The truth of the former does not rely on the untruth of the latter. And if you mean the first to represent how the missionaries present it, you haven't taken into account that there are still people actively participating in the behavior you call non-n00b-friendly and flame-war prone.
Assuming a missionary is speaking to a believing Catholic, the missonary will be trying not only to show that Mormon doctrine is correct, but that Catholic doctrine is incorrect. Because he can't do the former without doing the latter - the doctrines are in absolute conflict on key points.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Why do you consider the message exlusionary and divisive? (I assume you realize I didn't mean that's all they say.)
I don't consider our message exclusionary or divisive. And you did imply that missionaries went out to preach the apostate nature of other churches. Say what you mean, etc. . .
The example I cited parallels this discussion on the following points-- the first speaks in general terms, and is not insulting. The second is insulting, and personal. Do you really not see the difference? They're not meant to contradict eachother-- they are meant to show two different methods of discussing the same topic.
quote:the missonary will be trying not only to show that Mormon doctrine is correct, but that Catholic doctrine is incorrect. Because he can't do the former without doing the latter - the doctrines are in absolute conflict on key points.
Grr. NO! Or, I hope not. That's what I've been saying-- the goal of showing that the Catholic church is wrong should not even be in the missionary's mind. Teaching the doctrines of the restored Gospel of Christ is the whole point.
If something like pedobaptism comes up, then yes-- the missionary will be called to reinforce the Mormon doctrine, explaining why we baptise the way we do. But even then it's never to be done in the spirit of our doctrine vs Catholic/Baptist/Methodist doctrine.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't consider our message exclusionary or divisive. And you did imply that missionaries went out to preach the apostate nature of other churches. Say what you mean, etc. . .
Of course I said it. I said that's not all they preach.
quote:Grr. NO! Or, I hope not. That's what I've been saying-- the goal of showing that the Catholic church is wrong should not even be in the missionary's mind. Teaching the doctrines of the restored Gospel of Christ is the whole point.
To succeed, at least with a Catholic who believes, they must convince the person that the Catholic Church is wrong on several important doctrinal points. That doesn't mean they have to say it. But it's useless to pretend that's not what they want to do.
quote:But even then it's never to be done in the spirit of our doctrine vs Catholic/Baptist/Methodist doctrine.
It's not a question of spirit. It's a question of logic. If someone believes 2+2=3, and you want to convince them 2+2=4, you will convince them that 2+2 <> 3.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The statements in question:
quote:Your church sponsors people to dedicate two years of their life to go around to strangers and tell them that my church is apostate.
Then, after I objected:
quote:(I assume you realize I didn't mean that's all they say.)
Then:
quote:Of course I said it. I said that's not all they preach.
Yes, you did say that they preach more than the apostasy. Eventually.
quote:To succeed, at least with a Catholic who believes, they must convince the person that the Catholic Church is wrong on several important doctrinal points. That doesn't mean they have to say it. But it's useless to pretend that's not what they want to do.
It's useless to pretend that missionaries don't want people to convert to Mormonism-- that much is true.
But there's a difference in that and wanting to prove the Catholic church wrong.
But let's not get involved in a discussion on the motivations of Mormon missionaries, please.
quote:It's not a question of spirit. It's a question of logic.
Ah. We disagree. I knew there was something odd about this discussion. . .
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I missed this before.
quote:The example I cited parallels this discussion on the following points-- the first speaks in general terms, and is not insulting. The second is insulting, and personal. Do you really not see the difference? They're not meant to contradict eachother-- they are meant to show two different methods of discussing the same topic.
And, yet, as you said, the Mormon missionaries do "talk about the apostasy as something that happened 'back then.'" When you say that, you are saying that the Catholic Church, as it stands right now, is the product of apostacy. We still preach the Nicene Creed. I say it several times a year (sometimes we say the Apostle's creed).
Maybe you just don't appreciate what that means to Catholics (or Protestants) who have made conscious choices about which doctrine to believe. It is very important, and one very close to the core of how they choose to worship and what they choose to believe.
There was an interfaith Christian group at my school, one that specifically held as it's common denominator the Apostle's Creed. A Mormon friend and I had a discussion about whether it was exclusionary. His premise was that it kept him from joining, and he was a Christian, and thus it was exclusionary.
It took a very long discussion before he realized how important "one in being with the Father" and "one holy catholic and apostolic church" was to us. It should be noted that, even though Catholics mean something different with the word "catholic" in the creed, even Catholics use the lower-case form in the creed. And both Protestants and Catholics mean an entity that has existed on earth, under divine guidance and protection and without temporal gaps, since the time of Christ.
It is a major, major improvement that I can say that in the same room with a Methodist or Anglican and realize that, at core, there is a deep commonality that we can share.
Mormon doctrine rejects both those phrases from the most basic shared statement of belief between most Protestants and Catholics. One can't fully believe Mormon doctrine and meaningfully say those terms. And when Mormon doctrine is presented as truth it carries the inseperable message that this most basic statement of belief is wrong.
I see nothing wrong with someone who believes, as Mormons do, in the truth of their doctrine and the benefits to be had by those who choose to live according to it. It's an act of love to be a mission. It doesn't make it any less of an act of love to say
A Mormon who merely stated that there was an apostacy back then and did not specifically refute the evidence and conclusions concerning apostolic succession has no chance of converting me or a lot of other Catholics. One that did not acknowledge the reasoning and evidence underlying my beliefs would not be a successful messenger and would also not be treating my beliefs with intellectual respect.
I would bet a lot of money that Catholics are the subject of more classes about their doctrine amongst Protestant circles than Mormons are. Some of them are simply, "this is what Catholics believe." Some of them are "this is what Catholics believe, here's our contrasting doctrine, and here's the evidence and reasoning that supports our doctrine." Both of these are subject to many errors - some innocent, some not so innocent - but many, many such classes are conducted in good faith. Then there are the Jack Chick-like classes. Whore of Babylon. Sun-God worship. The Pope is the anti-Christ and is in it with the Jews.
Of all these classes, the most open, honest, and useful - to Protestants and to Catholics - are those that say "this is what Catholics believe, here's our contrasting doctrine, and here's the evidence and reasoning that supports our doctrine." It does the honor of not merely contradicting but examining others' beliefs.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes, you did say that they preach more than the apostasy.
But I never said they ONLY preach the apostacy. I did say what I mean. You read more into it than I said.
quote:It's useless to pretend that missionaries don't want people to convert to Mormonism-- that much is true.
But there's a difference in that and wanting to prove the Catholic church wrong.
They want people to believe a body of beliefs. That body of beliefs contains a very clear statement that the Nicene Creed churches are wrong. In other words, they want X, Y, and Z; therefore, it is a valid and true statement to say they want Y.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But I never said they ONLY preach the apostacy. I did say what I mean.
quote:Your church sponsors people to dedicate two years of their life to go around to strangers and tell them that my church is apostate.
Do you see why I objected, Dagonee? As a missionary, I found myself strangely lacking in the desire to tramp around Italy, declaiming the Catholic church as apostate.
quote:That body of beliefs contains a very clear statement that the Nicene Creed churches are wrong. In other words, they want X, Y, and Z; therefore, it is a valid and true statement to say they want Y.
If that were so, don't you think that it would make sense for missionaries to learn something about other churches' doctrine? So that we could successfully dissect the Nicene creed, for example, using the scriptures? Even a list of scriptures to memorize to whittle away the teachings of apostate churches. . . Japanese is taught at the missionary training center, so it should be fairly simple to teach a course on how to deconstruct Protestant/Catholic doctrine.
But you're wrong, and that isn't how we do things. The evidence points to the idea that we don't care what religion you are-- we believe that the Spirit of God will witness that what we teach is the truth, and THEN arguing points of doctrine is less than useless. Because God has already spoken to the heart of the person to confirm the correctness of our teachings, and if you're going to argue with God, well go ahead and try to win THAT one.
This would be the charismatic conversion I was talking about earlier
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you see why I objected, Dagonee? As a missionary, I found myself strangely lacking in the desire to tramp around Italy, declaiming the Catholic church as apostate.
Look, you're the one who said they mention the apostacy.
I didn't say you desired to tramp around Italy, declaiming the Catholic church as apostate. I said you went from door to door telling people that the Catholic Church was apostate. What I am trying to get you to understand its that merely saying the apostacy happened long ago or saying a lot of other things at the same time does not change the fact that they are making a statement about the Catholic Church as it is now.
quote:If that were so, don't you think that it would make sense for missionaries to learn something about other churches' doctrine? So that we could successfully dissect the Nicene creed, for example, using the scriptures?
The methods you choose to use don't change the cold, bear fact of the desired result.
quote:But you're wrong, and that isn't how we do things.
I've made no statement about how you do things. Indeed, I've said that how you do things doesn't change the content of your message.
quote:The evidence points to the idea that we don't care what religion you are
Nor have I said you care what religion they are.
Are you denying that, at the end of the day, the preferred outcome is someone who accepts Mormon doctrine as true and chooses to live their life according to it?
There is no qualitative difference in respect or courtesy shown because you refuse to directly address the differences.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But you're wrong, and that isn't how we do things.
That is, "You're wrong. We don't do things as I've described in the paragraph above because. . ."
quote:There is no qualitative difference in respect or courtesy shown because you refuse to directly address the differences.
I'm not sure what you mean-- are you saying that the method of teaching that I've described is less courteous than comparing and refuting religious doctrine?
quote:Are you denying that, at the end of the day, the preferred outcome is someone who accepts Mormon doctrine as true and chooses to live their life according to it?
Not at all. Conversion is the goal.
But destruction of other religions is not. It may result from our efforts (logically), but it's not something that we're shooting for. As I've said, we don't care.
This point, of course, is covered in my charismatic conversion post above.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not sure what you mean-- are you saying that the method of teaching that I've described is less courteous than comparing and refuting religious doctrine?
No. I'm saying comparing and refuting religious doctrine is no less courteous than the method you've described, and demonstrates greater intellectual respect for competing ideas.
quote:Conversion is the goal.
Does conversion not require "accepting Mormon doctrine as true and choosing to live their life according to it"?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:
--Are you denying that, at the end of the day, the preferred outcome is someone who accepts Mormon doctrine as true and chooses to live their life according to it?--
*Not at all. Conversion is the goal.*
--Does conversion not require "accepting Mormon doctrine as true and choosing to live their life according to it?--
"Not at all"= I do not deny that the preferred outcome is someone who accepts Mormon doctrine as true and chooses to live their life according to it.
quote: I'm saying comparing and refuting religious doctrine is no less courteous than the method you've described, and demonstrates greater intellectual respect for competing ideas.
Okay. We disagree. I've seen very few missionaries that could pull this off without someone being offended.
I've seen very few critics of Mormon doctrine able to pull this off without offending me.
Maybe I'm too sensitive?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not at all"= I do not deny that the preferred outcome is someone who accepts Mormon doctrine as true and chooses to live their life according to it.
Ah, sorry, I thought not at all meant something else. It's early yet.
quote:I've seen very few critics of Mormon doctrine able to pull this off without offending me.
Out of curiosity, how many of those critics actually got Mormon doctrine right? In my experience, I see a lot of egregious errors made about Catholic doctrine, some of which are known distortions created by very bigoted people. That is offensive to me. It took a very long time for me to believe that some of the people propogating the errors did so in good faith, and I still have a gut reaction to being told I worship Mary.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Out of curiosity, how many of those critics actually got Mormon doctrine right?
Many get the literal doctrine right, but miss the intent behind it.
For example, a recent critiscism to pop up is that we believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. It's true, but it misses the point that Mormons believe every soul ever created is the child of our Heavenly Father.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:"Hatrack became different when it moved from AOL. It became less n00b friendly, and more prone to flame wars. This lasted until TomDavidson signed on in early 1998."
"Scott R is the reason that Hatrack sucks as a forum. He's belligerent, ignorant, and cynical."
If I were one of the frequent posters during the pre-1998 time and thought that we were very n00b friendly then and didn't agree with Tom's 1998-and-later posting style, then I would read the first statement as being no less a direct criticism as the second. No, you didn't name me, but it's obvious you're talking about me and my friends.
A more accurate analogy, from my perspective, would be if I started an annual week-long intensive writing workshop and my students came to Hatrack to tell everyone that finally there was a real Literary Bootcamp -- something that hasn't existed since William Shakespeare died! They wouldn't be interested in comparisons between my bootcamp and others -- but it is important that you realize that this new intensive writing workshop is filling a need that wasn't being met until it was started.
Is that less offensive than if I acknowledged that yes, OSC already offers a very similar workshop, but there are some significant differences, and explained them?
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
Explaining the differences between one church and another isn't offensive. Educating church members about other belief systems can be a very good thing. It sounds like the hatrackers who have participated in such classes have experienced this kind of class.
There are some churches that take a very different approach to talking about other churches/religions. They do it in a very offensive way, and in fact they tend not to talk about real doctrinal differences at all, but merely demonize the other groups. Mormons are often the target of such diatribes, and Dagonee has pointed out that Catholics are also targeted. It sounds to me like nobody here is supporting that kind of church event, so I think a lot of the dispute here is misguided.
I support the kind of class/discussion that Belle and dkw have mentioned. They don't happen often at LDS churches, but they do happen occasionally. Some LDS institutes of religion have instructors that teach entire courses on other religions, but they do it in a more exploratory, informative way, like a college religious studies class. I have attended LDS church meetings where qualified people have been asked to talk to us about, e.g., Islam or Buddhism. If, at the end of the discussion, you think "cool" rather than "boy, are they off base", then you have just listened to a respectful and useful examination of somebody else's beliefs.
On a slightly separate note, I still think there is an important difference between believing that all other churches/religions are wrong and teaching specific "flaws" of a specific church. For one thing, if you're going to talk about how a specific church is wrong, you'd better make darn sure you really do know what that church really teaches. Too often, in making these distinctions, the criticism can be easily refuted by pointing out that "that's not what we believe, anyway." Plus, singling out a specific religion for this treatment sends the message that, while you may not agree with a whole bunch of other churches, you REALLY hate the one you've singled out.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Is that less offensive than if I acknowledged that yes, OSC already offers a very similar workshop, but there are some significant differences, and explained them?
If your goal is to educate others on your religion and refute the ideals of other religions then your analogy works.
But that isn't the goal that missionaries go out with. Instead, the goal is to help others feel and recognize the Spirit of God, and invite them to convert to Mormonism. It's not wholly an intellectual discussion. It's not a debate.
Experience has taught me that the Spirit I seek to help people feel is not USUALLY brought on by comparative analysis and refutation. Other missionaries may have other talents that I don't, and can do this sort of thing successfully. (I'm skeptical.)
dkw-- Can you imagine the Mormon who told you that Protestant/Catholic pastors were all liars teaching a room full of Mormons about the punching points in Protestantanism? And doing so fairly? I mean, for heaven's sake, we can't even look on politics with any degree of intellectual even-handedness. . .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Many get the literal doctrine right, but miss the intent behind it.
It's not that they miss the INTENT. It's that they don't accept the first premises.
In other words, Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers. That's doctrine. In order for that not to MATTER -- in the way that it might matter to other Christians -- the entire nature of "divinity" has to be reconsidered.
Now, it's possible to do this. It's completely possible to discuss a religion while saying "now, keep in mind that the ramifications of belief Z are NOT X, because this religion does not believe Y, and X only proceeds from Z if Y is also held to be true." But most people lack the sophistication to do this consciously; instead, they INTERNALIZE this.
For example, there's nothing inherently ridiculous about the belief that God has a physical body and lives on Kolob. But many people who haven't already accepted previous tenets of the faith find it unthinkable, even laughable. By the same token, many non-Christians have serious issues with the Trinity; other people find the Scientologist claim of past lives marred by alien attack questionable.
In all these cases, the doctrine is not being misstated, or even having its intent misunderstood; it's just that it's emphasized in a different way, from a different perspective.
One thing I hear from a lot of religions -- and Mormons do this as much as, if not more than, most -- is something like "but if you look at it THIS way...." The idea is that just coming out and saying "Yeah, we think this IS the actual body of Christ supernaturally changed from bread in essence without actually changing in any physical, observable, testable way" or "he looked at it through his hat" is something that should be saved for people who already believe it, and therefore won't look askance.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Mmm . . . I think the teaching method that Dagonee talks about is seen very differently by Mormons. For him, if I understand correctly, you teach your religion by compare, contrast, and logical argumentation so one can look at all sides to determine what to believe. For Mormons you teach the teachings and revelations of God and let the Spirit help a person decide truth and error.
To be more specific, to many Mormons logically arguing for your version of religious truth is actually a sign of Apostacy. Truth, for Mormons, must stand or fall on its own merits by the Power of the Holy Ghost. Any other method is simply human sophistry.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Can you imagine the Mormon who told you that Protestant/Catholic pastors were all liars
I don't know about dkw, but I don't equate Mormon assertion of their doctrine, including the apostacy, as an accusation of lying. I assume there's room in the belief for people to be in error without being dishonest.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Scott, I'm not saying that Mormon missionaries should change how they do things. You do what works for you. I am saying that it's not true to claim that what LDS missionaries do is less aimed at members of other churches than what Belle's church is doing because you never mention other denominations by name.
Dag, I don't either. Apparently the poster I referenced earlier disagreed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For him, if I understand correctly, you teach your religion by compare, contrast, and logical argumentation so one can look at all sides to determine what to believe.
Not quite. Most teaching within a particular faith should be about what that faith professes. For example, in CCD, I learned what the seven sacraments are, not that some people believe there are only two or one.
It's in apologetics that contrast and compare becomes necessary.
Edit: Your first sentence in the preceeding post is a perfect summary of what I've been trying to convey, dkw.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Dagonee, here's what I was speaking about:
quote:dkw said:
I've been told by an LDS member on Hatrack that all (and I asked for clarification, the poster did intentionally say all) protestant and catholic clergy are malicious liars and/or deluded, and most are both.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:
[quote]I assume there's room in the belief for people to be in error without being dishonest.
Yes.
quote:I am saying that it's not true to claim that what LDS missionaries do is less aimed at members of other churches than what Belle's church is doing because you never mention other denominations by name.
EDIT:
Sure it's aimed at members of other churches. We're looking for converts.
I'm not sure exactly how to express my point of view further without devolving into the stubborn insistence that my team does it better.
So let me think these things over and I shall return with something different to say.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
(At this point theologically I don't particularly care) However, what dagonee far more eloquently than what I said previously, is saying is extremely true. LDS don't agree with the Nicene creed, which is the one thing that all of the other Christian sects do. In fact, it may be at the point of acceptance of the Nicene Creet where the LDS feel everyone else got off track.
There are the illiterate nutso fearomongers, which is one thing, but this is the area where many of the educated mainline christians have a issue with calling the LDS "christian" even if they call themselves "christian". The liberal varieties of Christian are much more ok with the LDS self-identifying as Christian in the broader "follower of Christ" way, but the conservatives aren't. The fundamental understanding of the nature of God and Christ are very different, between LDS and the Rest of Christendom and if you don't have the same definitions on the nature and being of the Deity, everything else is even more confusing.
For a specific example of this, I point to my great aunt Ruth who converted to LDS though she isn't practicing anymore. One of the very *specific* reasons why she converted is because she *didn't* believe in the Trinity. She thought this out before she converted. She doesn't believe Christ and God the Father are the same being, the whole one being three persons, mystery of the Trinity. This is a cherished belief of the rest of Christianity since the very Early Church. Again this is probably where the LDS believe everybody else went apostate.
It's that deeply, deeply rooted difference,in the Triune Nature of God that the thinking, non-hysterical part of conservative Christendom has a hard time getting past with the LDS, when it comes down to the specifics.
In my own experience, the LDS have even taken some of the same words used by both liberal and conservative varieties of mainline Christian, and applied different twists to the definitions so as to make the concepts basically unrecognizable to more mainline christians. Singing the LDS versions of some hymns that have been around for hundreds of years was quite an eyeopener, cause the words have been decidedly changed from the original historical versions.
But, those who have been raised LDS don't even realize that the definitions of the words and the hymngs are truly different than the rest of Christendom. It's like you are talking thinking you are speaking the same language, when in reality the words are being processed through two entirely different algorithms.
I think Hatrack is one of those places where we can try to productively try to understand each other's algorithms, but it's hard when the processing structure diverges at such a deep level, even if the top level code looks like it has a lot in common.
AJ
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
I was at the debate between Mitt and Ted Kennedy when they were running against each other, and all I can say is Mitt Romney can talk rings around an issue! He was asked question after question and he gave very long-winded, technical sounding responses, but he never once answered even one of the questions that he was asked. I would have a problem with having a President that doesn't answer questions, or he gives you a non-answer to a question. Oh wait! GW's already done that. Sorry, I don't want another of those, no matter what religion they may be. When someone asked Mitt for a straight answer to a question at that debate (towards the end of the debate) he said he didn't have an answer to that and that he would have to look into it and do some research. In other words he needed to know just how not to say what he didn't want to say. (That sentence makes perfect sense... if he didn't want to say " no" to something, he had to find a way to make it sound like he was saying no when what he was really saying was absolutely nothing at all!) Are ya confused yet? Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: But, those who have been raised LDS don't even realize that the definitions of the words and the hymngs are truly different than the rest of Christendom.
In my experience, we realize our differences more that you think we do.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
And in my experience, we realize our differences less than we think we do.
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill: MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT! That would be awsome. We would not only have an honest man as president,( remember Jimmy Carter ) we would also have a skilled politician. ( don't remember Jimmy Carter )
He is an idiot, and I dislike MOST of what he has tried to do to (not for) MA.
And not because he is a Mormon.
(This is Kwea...my wife forgot to log off again. )
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Mitt Romney can talk rings around an issue! He was asked question after question and he gave very long-winded, technical sounding responses, but he never once answered even one of the questions that he was asked. I would have a problem with having a President that doesn't answer questions, or he gives you a non-answer to a question.
I've never heard a politician of any party or ideology who ever directly answered a direct question. And ALL "successful" politicians talk rings around every issue. It's been one of my big frustrations in watching debates over the years, but it seems we've set up our system to discourage candidates from EVER committing themselves or giving a straight answer to anything.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I have, on some issues at least...but I watched those debates as well and never heard ANY straight answers at all from Mitt....
And what he did to the cities of MA (cuts of aid and illegal denying benifits of collective bargining agreements from years past) , particularily Western MA, is just short of criminal.
And then he tried to deny his own resonsibility/culpibility, and got mad when people didn't believe him.
I hope he DOES run, because he will lose in a landslide.
And then he tried to deny
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Sounds more like a Republican vs. Democrat thing to me. After all, many Republicans would put your list in the positive side of things.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And in my experience, we realize our differences less than we think we do.
I suppose you could be right if you are talking about Mormons who grew up in Utahville, relatively sheltered from other religions.
But for those that didn't, I disagree with you.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:Mormons who grew up in Utahville, relatively sheltered from other religions.
I grew up in Provo, in the heart of "Utahville," and I'd wager I know at least as much about the history and theology of most major Christian sects as the average layperson in those churches.
Just some anecdotal evidence to balance some equally anecdotal stereotype.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
This is JenniK being lazy again and not changing user names....
As for Mitt Romney being like most politicians, yes it's true, but the way he "answered " questions could be described as something like this: Q: Mr. Romney was the shirt you were wearing blue? A: Well, not per se, however the range that it fell in was somewhere between the spectrum that was analyzed, and it definitely has a color name.At this time I do not have the exact details and would need to further research this subject before I could give you more information. I believe that the voters should have all the details pertaining to the answer to this question and I will assure you that this matter will have my utmost attention until such time as that information becomes available, at which time I will inform the voters.Thank you.
This is what I meant when I said that he never actually answered a single question that was asked, even when asked for a direct answer. The debate that I am speaking of took place at the Community College that I attended, and ever since I heard him answer questions in the manner I described above, I have profoundly disliked him. This was far before he was elected Governor of MA, and before he slashed funding to Western Massachusetts Police and Fire Departments, schools,cities and towns. In Springfield alone, there was at least 1 fire house that had to close. But, hey at least he ended up with a surplus instead of a deficit, so what if it put the very lives of his constituents at risk! There is no way that I would ever vote for this man for any political office. Hey ...the teachers in Massachusetts finally got the pay raise that they were guaranteed in their contract 3 years ago.....retroactive of course (based on the way he tried to break the legally binding contract..then tried to prevent collective bargaining with the union). I have a friend that is a member of that union and was happy to finally have the money that she should have been getting, but hey, Boston got all the funding it needed and then some.
I guess you could say that I am a little anti-Romney. Ok, make that a lot. I don't care if someone is a republican or a democrat, I am an independent and I vote based on things I have read about the past actions of the candidates; voting history, what the candidate is for or against (and what their past actions say to agree or contradict with), not based on political party affiliation. So, I guess you can't say that it's because I'm a democrat, I just plain don't like the guy.
Thanks for listening to me vent! - JenniK
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
JenniK, thanks for pointing out that there'll be LOTS of people who won't vote for him even if they don't care he's Mormon. He'll definitely have an uphill climb.
MPH:
quote:In my experience, we realize our differences more that you think we do.
Silent E:
quote: And in my experience, we realize our differences less than we think we do.
I think you're both right. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Funny thing is that if you know how I will vote next election please tell me...I haven't made up my mind yet.
I am talking about funds for the CURRENT YEAR he cut, not a future budget....money that the towns HAD to have for things like trash disposal and bridge repair, that had been earmarked SPECIFICALLY for those projects.
About contracts, signed and sealed, that were illegally not honored by the state.
Put it this way..about 10 towns SUED Romney, believeing his actions to be ILLEGAL, and they recieved most of the money that was suppose to be cut originaly.
Those are NOT partisan issues at all, and anyone who thinks they are is wrong.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Just curious to the LDS, have you ever looked at a non-LDS hymnbook and compared? Not just the titles which are often the same but the actual words to the songs.
As far as realizing or not realizing differences, I'd say the average jatraquero is not necessarily the average participant in either variety of religion, and again that's why I like hatrack. You totally missed my point if that's what you seized on, since my point was that HATRACK makes for better communication either way, even though the interface can be difficult at times.
AJ
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:have you ever looked at a non-LDS hymnbook and compared? Not just the titles which are often the same but the actual words to the songs.
Not the hymnbook, but I've heard the hymns on Christian radio.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
rotfl... Christian radio most definitely doesn't count. They are generally more "praise songs" and fewer "hymns"
AJ
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
Banna, sometimes the differences are actually noted in footnotes at the end of the hymns. For example, at the end of How Great Thou Art, the notes mention a couple of words that were replaced ("works" = "worlds", etc.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Christian radio most definitely doesn't count. They are generally more "praise songs" and fewer "hymns"
I'm curious-- what's the difference? This is the Olde Tyme Christian Radio-- sounds like they play records rather than cd's. . .
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hmm... then possibly you are hearing actual hymns. I sat down once with an LDS hymnbook once and a protestant one, and actually got pretty upset.
Not so much from a theological perspective as from an artistic perspective. The composers of the hymns that have been around for hundreds of years, set the music to those words deliberately. To change them to make them line up better theologically with LDS beliefs seems to be a betrayal of original intent, in at least several cases. (It's been a long time though, I'd have to have the hymnbooks side by side again to show specifics.) You see the old masters, would specifically pick melodies and chords and consonance and dissonance based on the words they were composing to. Yeah they are dead, but it bugs me. And the changed words, in several cases completely changed the theological meaning of the song too. IMO.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have. I have a Methodist hymnal a preacher on my mission gave to me. It's great - lots more Christmas hymns. My comp and I once spent an entertaining session right before bed comparing all the hymns.
As an example, in the LDS hymnal, it's "Let Saints and Angels sing."
The reason for the change is because the LDS don't want to sing doctrine that they don't believe is true, but there are some really beautiful hymns out there that it would be a shame to not include. The hymnbook is supposed to be, among its many uses, another teaching tool, so it wouldn't be good to teach something that we don't believe.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Interesting. What's the doctrinal problem with "Heaven and Nature sing?"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Considering "All Creatures of Our God and King" is still in there in all its pagan glory, I'm not sure.
I wish I could remember some of the other changes - there were definitely more signifigant theological changes made. For instance, all references to the Trinity.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Anyone compiling a hymnal for church use will do the same thing. Look at "Come, Come ye Saints" or "All is Well" in the red Southern Baptist hymnal. That quintessential Mormon hymn is there with delitions and changes where they wouldn't fit a Baptist service. No big deal. And, yes there are hymns that have erronous theology still in the LDS Hymns book including some of the most popular numbers. There is no theological basis for including "Love at Home". Have you ever actually read those words?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:There is beauty all around When there's love at home There is joy in every sound When there's love at home Peace and plenty here abide Smiling sweet on every side Time doth softly, sweetly glide When there's love at home.
Love at home Love at home Time doth softly sweetly glide When there's love at home.
I find this completely doctrinal. What's wrong with it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I had to look up the lyrics to that. Eh, maybe it's an optimistic hymn.
quote:There is beauty all around, when there's love at home. There is joy in ev'ry sound, when there's love at home. Peace and plenty here abide, smiling sweet on ev'ry side. Time doth softly, sweetly glide, when there's love at home.
Love at home, Love at home. Time doth softly, sweetly glide, when there's love at home.
In the cottage there is joy, when there's love at home. Hate and envy ne'er annoy, when there's love at home. Roses bloom beneath our feet, all the earth's a garden sweet, Making life a bliss complete, when there's love at home.
Love at home, Love at home. Making life a bliss complete, when there's love at home.
Kindly heaven smiles above, when there's love at home. All the world is filled with love, when there's love at home. Sweeter sings the brooklet by, brighter beams the azure sky. Oh, there's one who smiles on high, when there's love at home.
Love at home, Love at home. Oh, there's One who smiles on high, when there's love at home.
My mother used to play this hymn on the piano when my brothers and I were fighting. it even worked sometimes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Just curious to the LDS, have you ever looked at a non-LDS hymnbook and compared? Not just the titles which are often the same but the actual words to the songs.
Yes.
quote:And the changed words, in several cases completely changed the theological meaning of the song too.
As Kat said, that's pretty much the point.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yeah... well the Protestants and Catholics don't generally change the words to each others hymns. If they "borrow" them they are generally borrowed intact or not used.
In the Garden is a pretty shlocky protestant hymn too.
Again, it's just an area with differences that are deeper than they seem. You think you are singing a hymn with the proper worshipful reverence and embracing the meaning of the song as praise to God, and all of a sudden *wham* the words are different, and you aren't singing what you thought you were. It's kind of a jolt. (It happened to me when I was a considerably more devout Christian, and attended a couple of LDS services, because I was visiting some LDS friends.)
AJ
More: Again, it's the seeming common denominator that isn't, "Oh we have the worship songs in common." But even if you are singing one that is unchanged, the message that the LDS person understands when they sing it is entirely different than the message the protestant gets when they sing it.
I also may be an anomaly in that I had almost every hymn memorized with almost all the verses in generic protestant hymn books. Before they were using overhead transpariencies for the congregation to sing from, I almost never used a hymnbook, since I knew the words.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: Protestants and Catholics don't generally change the words to each others hymns. If they "borrow" them they are generally borrowed intact or not used.
We aren't Protestant or Catholic. *twinkle*
The other option is "not used." Which, considering how beautiful the hymns are and how little tweaking needs to be done so we don't teach what we consider to be false doctrine, would be tragic.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I understand why you tweak them, but again, your average listener of any faith probably won't realize they've been tweaked to change the meaning in the LDS version. It seems disingenuous to me somehow. I know it is a little thing, but it bothers me more than a lot of the major doctrinal issues that are being tweaked, cause it's kind of sneaky in a way.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can tell it's bothering you. I'm sorry you're bothered, but I'm wondering why this issue is so much. No one is trying to trick anyone.
I mean, from our perspective, it's the exact opposite. Now people can sing beautiful hymns where the words are in line with what we actually believe. It would be a great disservice to teach something that we don't believe is true.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I can see objection if one believes in the moral model of copyright - that is, that artist intent is something worthy of respect in the use of the art. These hymns were composed to deliver one message, and now they are being used to deliver another - one that contradicts.
Doesn't bother me too much, because I'm more of an economic model copyright kind of guy.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I don't think it's deliberately "trying" to trick anyone, but the execution is such that it *can* trick people. I've heard, (from the sometimes discussions between my LDS aunt and cousins, and my protestant parents) "but we sing the same hymns, it's not that different" as a place to find commonality. And then I find out the hymns were actually changed and it was a shock.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ah. Well, they are mostly the same hymns. I mean, it hasn't gone to "Yay, Evil!" I'm sure if the oringal hymnwriters had been aware of everything, the original would match the lyrics in the LDS hymnbook now. *twinkle* *dances out of reach*
Maybe that's why I have a Methodist hymnal in the first place. I have the vague feeling that I've had this conversation before, and so came home with a book with El Shadai in it, which made me happy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Yeah... well the Protestants and Catholics don't generally change the words to each others hymns. If they "borrow" them they are generally borrowed intact or not used.
Oh yes, we do! We change words all the time. Sometimes we put completely new words to old tunes; sometimes we update old texts to make them more in line with theology, more gender inclusive, or more inclusive in general.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Catholics and protestants took hymns from a COMPLETELY different religion. At least mormons take hymns just from a different sect Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
again, I was raised in a conservative variety of Christianity. Maybe it's the conservatism rubbing off on me that I don't like changing the words to hymms. They'd certianly never change a hymn to make it more gender inclusive! AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
On the other hand I realize that Amazing Grace's tune was originally a bar tune.
AJ
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As was the Star-Spangled Banner.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"Scatter Sunshine" sounds like one.
Try it - the next time you sing the hymn, imagine yourself holding a stein. The tune and lyrics fit perfectly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
We also use a lot of Irish tunes for hymns.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've totally done that before. Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
The Battle Hymn of the Republic is another one we've changed, though I think we've only changed one word. And that one word has since been copied by other, non-LDS versions. (Actually, I was told the LDS church came up with the one-word change, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else did it first.)
Another point about differences in hymns goes back to the very earliest hymnals in the LDS church. At that time, the hymnals were not published with the musical notation, but only with the lyrics. The congregations used any tune they knew that fit the meter. Often, they used the tunes from the hymns they knew in their former churches.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Amazing Grace can be sung to the tune of the theme to Gilligan's Island.
Try to get THAT out of your head once you've tried it. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Oh, How Lovely Was The Morning and Brightly Beams our Father's Mercy can both be sung to the Muppet theme song.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Evangalical Protestant military chaplains usually will not allow the Mormon hymn "I am a child of God" to be used in general services because of the chorus. "Lead me, Guide me, Walk beside me. Help me find the way. Teach me all that I must do to live with him some day." It is still a nice song, and when it comes out of copywrite protection, someone will probably adapt it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Why don't they like that chorus in the military?
Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
Probably because "Teach me all that I must do to live with him some day" implies works have something to do with salvation.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
There's a hymn in the LDS hymnbook with the same tune as the German national anthem.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I guess I lost a post. Yes its not the military, its the evangalical protestants. It is "anti" saved by grace. Brinestone: it also has the Finnish national anthem tune, British national anthem tune, and several others I could mention if I had a hymn book at work. Changing words to hymn tunes is not a new thing. Some plain song tunes come from Jewish and/or Arabic chant. Early high protestant hymns were usually four part arrangements of Gegorian chant tunes. (that may have come from Jewish chant). There is a whole body of fairly racy songs that were also set to Chant tunes. (Carmina Burana) In fact any really good hymn tune has dozens of sets of words.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wonder how much we'd have to change some of these hymns to make them work for atheists.
Joy to the world! No one has come; let Earth receive nothing! Let every heart prepare some room, And all of nature sing, And all of nature sing, And all of, and all of, of nature sing.
We'll rule the world with truth and grace, And make the nations prove The glories of our righteousness, And wonders of our love, And wonders of our love, And wonders, wonders, of our love.
-----
I like the idea of "Go rest, ye merry gentlemen," though. Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
> What's the doctrinal problem with "Heaven and Nature sing?"
I don't think there is one. Not all the changes for the LDS hymnal are for doctrinal purposes. (For example, the change from "mighty thunder" to "rolling thunder" in "How Great Thou Art.")
There is a metrical problem with "Heaven and Nature sing," though. Even if you write it as "Heav'n," it's still a little awkward to sing it on one note. So my guess is that whoever put that song into the LDS hymnal decided to solve that problem and give the song a little Latter-day Saint flavor at the same time.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
:snickers at Tom:
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In thirty years of singing in both Protestant and Catholic church choirs, I have always sung "rolling thunder". Are you sure this is a change?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The authors original words were "all the works thy hands have made" and "mighty thunder." However, they've both been changed in most Protestant hymnals, so I don't think it was an LDS-specific change. More likely because they're easier to sing. The "L"s roll so nicely off the tongue.
The imagery works better, too. The "worlds" change makes the first verse clearly about the wonder of space, since it already mentions stars and the universe. The second verse is the more immanent creation, with woods and birds and such. And who really thinks of thunder as particularly mighty, anyway? It's just noise. Kind of cool noise, like rolling drums, but not "mighty."
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
"Heaven and nature sing" - this is the one change that drives me crazy. What do you sing when you're out Christmas caroling without hymnbooks? Many Saints sing what they're used to - "Saints and angels". Other saints and non-members sing "heaven and nature". Monday night I found myself in a muddle and started singing "And haddah bladdah sing ... and bleh bleh neh bleh sing...." Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:We belong to a cult, but apparently not a dangerous one.
I feel that way about quite a few denominations. And again, there are benefits in being part of particular cults, depending on the content of the tenents.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Tern![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
" person, so it does make life a little suspenseful. No wonder some of us have a complex.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
and think "well aren't you just a perfect Christian martyr."![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)