I know that Mormons have some beliefs that people think are "weird" or just could never believe themselves. There is nothing wrong with that.
What is getting to me is the hate and distrust people have - conservative and liberal alike. Now, I know that some of you here have said that such feelings of "persecution complex" are fanciful left overs from a real history long gone. That is something that I would like. However, that is just not what is going on.
With Romney entering into the race, his Mormonism has really brought out the worst in people. I also know we discussed what Romney should do with the issue as it comes up. What this post is about is more the general dislike focused on Mormons as a whole. Some of these (comding from people in the United States) sound more like anti-Jewish triads of early Germany before the Nazi takeover than honest disagreements. If they were honest disagreements, they would at least get the most basic of facts correct.
huffington report has some honest problems with what these two did. However, there is certainly a lack of respect shown the other way - and vindictiveness for Mormons as a whole. Sadly, what is said in the comments section is even worse!
Mitts Mormon Base has a quote that reads similar to, as Article VI Blog said is a reminder, ". . . of the way some people used to describe the influence of Jews in business and higher education: “We’re being infested with them! It’s horrible!”
Then there is the double wammy of Slate and New Republic early on that set the tone.
These are all from the Liberal side that is supposed to be the careful and understanding. Just to be sure, there are conservatives that are equally as bad. However, most are familiar with them so I can't really find any specific examples. The sad part is, other than a general dislike of religion in general from the liberals, its hard to tell the two apart.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I read the Slate article, and I think it was a fairly reasonable explication, which relied on the same principles (as the article even notes) that many religious people use to disqualify those who might be agnostic or atheistic. I think the Slate article does a good job of criticism, without bigotry. That is, the author doesn't hate Mormons, (presumably; I didn't get that sense from the article). He definitely thinks the basis of the Church of LDS is false, and as a result believes that someone believing such a "con" is not qualified to be the president. That's no different than not voting for an atheist for falling for the "con" of Satan. It is different that not voting for Jew because your hatred of them would like to see them wiped off the face of the earth. There are a lot of steps between the position of the article and a Final Solution for Mormons. I don't think you can claim a slippery slope quite yet.
To touch on your point about liberals, just because you are careful and considerate of an idea, doesn't mean you are required to support it in all contexts.
As for the other articles, I'll try and read them when I can.
-Bok
EDIT: I hardly take any of these as "mainstream". Plenty of people haven't heard of Slate or the huffington report, much less the blogs you list. Even The New Republic isn't exactly a high circulation magazine.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:That's no different than not voting for an atheist for falling for the "con" of Satan.
I've never heard someone use that justification for distrusting an atheist candidate. From what I've heard, it's been more along the lines of, "He doesn't understand a critical aspect of our lives."
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Jews have been intentionally misunderstood religiously and persecuted as a race since before the major religions of today were invented. Maybe because back in the day monotheism was weird, but more recently just because not liking Jews was cool. So I think your analogy might be a little outdated.
I believe the fact is that Romney as a Presidential candidate makes Mormonism more public and makes the heretofore unknown quirks of that particular religion more visible. I've always thought eating and drinking Jesus was a little strange, and that's a popular thing to do, so it's not really that much of a stretch to give what seems to be Mormonism's strangeness a chance. But that's just me.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
The New Jews... band name or superhero collective?
OR BOTH?!?!
*dun dun dun*
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:That's no different than not voting for an atheist for falling for the "con" of Satan.
I've never heard someone use that justification for distrusting an atheist candidate. From what I've heard, it's been more along the lines of, "He doesn't understand a critical aspect of our lives."
I do not recall ever hearing it in that context. I always hear it in the context of "They (the atheists) are trying to remove our God from our everyday lives." In a nation that is predominantly Christian by a very wide margin, that is a ridiculously overblown accusation.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I vote band.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The bloggingheads piece, aside from an erroneous quick reference of polygamy (which wasn't further addressed) seemed to be pretty even keeled. Yes, one of the bloggers put forth a theory on the social influences that affected Mormon theology/beliefs, and I can see that from a devout Mormon's stance it could be maddening to think that cause and effect(*) were mixed up. However, since these people weren't Mormons, it isn't an unreasonable stance.
The Huffington Post article was a republication of emails in an increasingly heated argument relating to business interests. I think the woman flies the "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" flag a bit too freely (she is renting space from the couple in question, after all), her and her hosting services emails seem to be inline with a general row. The poster is bitter based on this experience. Sure, she's unfairly casting aspersions, but I've seen this across the board. I don't see this as something damning of anyone beyond this one person. Also, some of the posts are atrocious, and others are downright reasonable. There's more than a few which complain about some of the article's word choice (like "Mormon Mafia"), and how not all Mormons should be painted with the same brush (something the article implies with its praising of Harry Reid).
(*)This theory was based on a widespread discussion on the "problem of native americans" that occurred for a couple hundred years. At the time, current ideas in Western thought about how man existed, couldn't explain how there were people waiting for the European settlers in the New World, which, depending on whether or not you are a Mormon could be seen as a reasonable influence on the religion, in light of some of it's beliefs, or Mormonism could be seen as being correct because it has/had an explanation that fit the fact, at the time. Now there is a fair amount of evidence agaisnt some of the things believed, though I'm not an archeologist, so I won't claim that this evidence is valid, or compelling.
-Bok
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Cran-Apple Jews...
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I kinda think Jews are the new Jews. Especially in Europe.
I would be disgusted with anti-Mormon rhetoric, but I haven't been finding it. The fact that Romney's only ever had one wife is going to puncture a lot of it, because he can immediately turn it around on them.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: Jews have been intentionally misunderstood religiously and persecuted as a race since before the major religions of today were invented. Maybe because back in the day monotheism was weird, but more recently just because not liking Jews was cool. So I think your analogy might be a little outdated.
I agree with this. The Jews have several layers of persection, and is very much a an example of persecution that covers ethnic, religious, and even cultural aspects of the subject. I do not think we have the historical hindsight to assume the same or similar for Mormons as of yet.
quote:I believe the fact is that Romney as a Presidential candidate makes Mormonism more public and makes the heretofore unknown quirks of that particular religion more visible. I've always thought eating and drinking Jesus was a little strange, and that's a popular thing to do, so it's not really that much of a stretch to give what seems to be Mormonism's strangeness a chance. But that's just me.
I believe this is the source of attitude behind those links in the first post. More people are noticing what seems to be a peculiar type of Christian faith, and people in general are resistant to redefining large concepts like what things like 'Christian' means in the nation and the world. Doesn't this still become a point of contention at times between Catholic and non-Catholic groups? This resistance and choosing sides was surely an aspect of early Catholic / Orthodox relations, and is equally part of what makes the schism between Sunni and Shiite Islam so contentious today. I would even say that, based only from what I know, the difference between Mormonism and mainstream Christians is somewhat less significant than what separates Sunni and Shiite Muslims today.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Oddly enough, I've always found that prejudice against Mormons far more prevalent among conservative Christians than the liberal non-religious crowd. Back when I used to attend church regularly, I often saw little leaflets equating Mormonism to Scientology, Jim Jones, and other cult behavior. My athiest and agnostic friends, on the other hand, seem to uniformly consider LDS just another religion among many- not their cup of tea, but nothing to be upset or get worked up about.
*shrug* It's anecdotal evidence to be sure, but it seems to me like mainstream Mormons have more to fear from their political allies than the folks on the other side of the aisle.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:That's no different than not voting for an atheist for falling for the "con" of Satan.
I've never heard someone use that justification for distrusting an atheist candidate. From what I've heard, it's been more along the lines of, "He doesn't understand a critical aspect of our lives."
I've heard both. And your statement could just as easily be used in this circumstance. Secular and/or liberal Americans could look at the fact that he's devout Mormon and say likewise.
-Bok
EDIT: I'll add, I suppose I was making an unclear implication in my first statement. By their tone and context, some people's fear/dislike/distrust of an atheist, in general, boils down to the fact they are mislead (hence have been tricked) by their own sins (which can be seen as Satan's will at work). I haven't seen anyone HERE make this claim, not in the recent past anyway, but since the OP was generalizing based on these articles, are was discussing the general case.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: The New Jews... band name or superhero collective?
OR BOTH?!?!
*dun dun dun*
Definitely both.
By night they keep the city safe . . . by day they rock the house. Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Now, I know that some of you here have said that such feelings of "persecution complex" are fanciful left overs from a real history long gone. That is something that I would like. However, that is just not what is going on.
I think you're confusing hatred/bigotry with disrespect for your faith. I can understand why people not respecting your faith would be upsetting for you, but it's a long cry from what you're claiming. I think many people find the hierarchy, secrecy, and history of the LDS faith to be troubling. I think the comparison with Scientology that one of the articles made is pretty in line with how many people view Mormonism. But people finding your faith silly, no matter how much it aggrivates you, is not persecution.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm extremely uncomfortable with claiming that Mormons are the New Jews. It's a divisive, martyr's wish, and invites nothing positive.
I think seeing these statements as persecution is a mistake as well. Persecution, to me, contains an element of generalized, widespread, action. Mormons haven't faced persecution in the US for a while. Aggressive misunderstanding, sure; but that comes with the territory.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If Mormons are the New Jews. Are Jews the new Black?
Where does that leave Pink?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
The Slate article is based on very little actual engagement with Mormon thought or history; it's thus easy to argue with. The New Republic article is thoughtful and carefully argued; it deserves sophisticated engagement.
That said, I don't think the questions being raised about Romney are anything like nineteenth and twentieth century anti-Semitism, whether they come from the right or the left. Certainly they're nothing like Hitler's version. My goodness. Nobody's arguing that Mormons are inherently an inferior and immoral form of life.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I consider LDS as triple-distilled WASPs, with all the same attending vices and virtues in a purer form. What's more American than that? Romney seems to me to be George Bush, if Bush had paid attention in school. Is there really even such a thing as a radical LDS agenda? Low taxes, pro-life, support Israel, join the Boy Scouts?
I can see the big scare with Kennedy, because Catholics have a large history of feeding the poor and organizing labor, and that gets expensive, but with Romney as President, I can't imagine anything more than business as usual, except maybe a bit more efficiently. This is good if you like where society is going, and bad if you don't. ______
quote:I kinda think Jews are the new Jews. Especially in Europe.
I'll agree with this. I'd love to read the specifics of the social dynamic between Jews and landed Europeans, and I have Arendt's book on anti-semitism on my list, but I can't imagine that this situation is at all harmonious under the surface.
[ April 07, 2007, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is there really even a such a thing as a radical LDS agenda?
There IS a radical LDS fringe that introduces survivalist elements. It's pretty minor overall, though.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
What? Can you tell us more about this radical survivalist LDS fringe, please, Tom?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I would say that the survivalist elements are pretty in line with general Christian survivalists as to methods and ideology (if not theology, although they touch bases with the End Time scenario). On the other hand, as was mentioned somewhere on another blog, the LDS Church leadership is very suspect of them.
I am glad that things don't look (to other Mormons who haved said anything) like Mormons are going to be sent to concentration and re-education camps any time soon. Personally, I am not as optimistic. That fact that almost no one here blinked (and even some agreed) scares me. To me, there is not a large step from Mormons are weird, secretive, controlling, sheep to The Protocals of the Elders of Israel and then Mien Kamf.
And, frankly, the things said about Scientology make me equally as discomforted.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Is there really even a such a thing as a radical LDS agenda?
There IS a radical LDS fringe that introduces survivalist elements. It's pretty minor overall, though.
I'd actually like to learn some stuff from them about collecting food and water storage just in case of doom...
But survivalists scare me.. at least racist ones do, but it would be cool to know how to live off the land and useful things like that.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I think, based on the level of the type of "persecution" this actually is, Mormons are more like the new Scientologists than the new Jews.
I know that doesn't elicit much sympathy, though, so it probably won't catch on as a buzz phrase. Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I would say that the survivalist elements are pretty in line with general Christian survivalists as to methods and ideology (if not theology, although they touch bases with the End Time scenario). On the other hand, as was mentioned somewhere on another blog, the LDS Church leadership is very suspect of them.
I am glad that things don't look (to other Mormons who haved said anything) like Mormons are going to be sent to concentration and re-education camps any time soon. Personally, I am not as optimistic. That fact that almost no one here blinked (and even some agreed) scares me. To me, there is not a large step from Mormons are weird, secretive, controlling, sheep to The Protocals of the Elders of Israel and then Mien Kamf.
And, frankly, the things said about Scientology make me equally as discomforted.
I don't understand. Are you saying that you think the persecution of Mormons is inevitable? And that you don't like people thinking Scientology is weird? I want to understand where you're coming from, but I'm having some trouble seeing it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dude, you have to realize that Mormons are weird, secretive and controlling, right?
The only thing is, if the Mormons are right, all of those are good things. Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:I think, based on the level of the type of "persecution" this actually is, Mormons are more like the new Scientologists than the new Jews.
I know that doesn't elicit much sympathy, though, so it probably won't catch on as a buzz phrase.
Also it doesn't rhyme.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Dude, you have to realize that Mormons are weird, secretive and controlling, right?
The only thing is, if the Mormons are right, all of those are good things.
could you.... uh, expand on this a bit?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Mormons are weird. They wear funny underwear, don't swear, don't drink, walk around in ties and knock on people's doors and stockpile months and months of canned food and bottled water, and go away for hours on Sundays into little places you can't go where...
...they engage in secret things they won't talk about. And then...
...they own a lot of property, judiciously police their own image, and send out Home Teachers to all the other Mormons in the area to make sure that everyone's on the same page.
-------
Now, I'm distorting this a bit, so don't breathe down my neck too much. But I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that, from the perspective of the man on the street, Mormons aren't secret, weird, or controlling.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Hm. See, I don't see how anyone can claim to argue anything from the perspective of "the man on the street," because that would seem to imply that there is some kind of standard "man on the street" perspective that we all know about, agree upon, and which can be applied to all kinds of arguments.
I was asking about your perspective, about something said by you, and not some imaginary "man on the street."
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Now, I'm distorting this a bit, so don't breathe down my neck too much. "
And that is what is getting me worried. That people are distorting it a bit and then calling it a fact. At least I am glad you acknowledge the distortion, but its the perspective of the man on the street that bothers me.
I don't say that persecution of Mormons is inevitable. On the other hand, theologically maybe I do. Even without that last statement, I think the level of distortion and the lack of respect can easily (if not checked) turn into something more. What bothers me the most is that Conservatives and Liberals both have serious problems with Mormons AS OUTSIDERS ready to take over the world.
I am not looking for sympathy here, as much as respect. It seems too many people are saying "yep" and not enough saying "now hold on a minute." There isn't that much of a distance from "they are too weird" to "they are dangerous to be allowed to do this or that."
I will vouch for Tom that there are a lot of "Man on the Street" who think the way he describes. And, to go the other way, I know that Tom has said similar things so its not that far from his own perspective.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: ... What bothers me the most is that Conservatives and Liberals both have serious problems with Mormons AS OUTSIDERS ready to take over the world.
Really? I have a serious problem with *anyone* who's ready to take over the world, outsider or not Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I find it interesting the Harry Reid gets so little attention for being Mormon while Mitt Romney gets so much.
I think that arises because Harry Reid is a democrat so 1. He doesn't fit the stereotype of mormon or conservative religious politics and 2. He's not trying to court the fundamentalist christian vote. That makes the fact that he is Mormon politically uninteresting.
Mitt Romney on the other hand is trying to pursuade fundamentalist christians that he shares there values. Fundamentalist Christians are the only group I've observed who have a specific bias against Mormons. Many liberals have a bias against religious people in general but that isn't stronger against Mormons than against others.
Claiming that anti-Mormonism in 21st century America is at all comparable to anti-Semitism in the past century is clearly over reacting. If anyone can claim to be the "New Jews" it would have to be Muslims. In a recent survey, 39% of Americans said they were predudiced against Muslims. We seen an alarming level of that even here at Hatrack.
We Mormons need to relax a bit. We are different from main stream America. We are different from other conservative Christians. We should not try to deny it. By and large we believe those difference are very important. Isn't that why we send missionaries to teach people about our beliefs?
President Hinkley has said on numerous occasions that we are largely responsible for the negative feelings people have against Mormons. If people percieve Mormons in a negative light, then we need to look inward for the reason not whine about how persecuted we are.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Rabbit, this isn't about Romney, and I can agree with you that his Mormonism is talked about because of his Conservative credentials. However, anything about Mormonism said in relationship to him is directly about Mormons - and not about Romney's individual faith.
"Claiming that anti-Mormonism in 21st century America is at all comparable to anti-Semitism in the past century is clearly over reacting."
I would say at this time it is overreacting. However, my argument is that it doesn't take much to go beyond that. This is especially true when such feelings go from private to public statements of predudice. And, by the way, there are plenty of people who are speaking out against the negative feelings against Muslims, but everyone so far has said basically it is alright to slander, look negatively, say inacurate things about Mormons.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't think it's alright to say inaccurate things about Mormons. You got to have facts about people and their belief systems.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I would say at this time it is overreacting. However, my argument is that it doesn't take much to go beyond that. This is especially true when such feelings go from private to public statements of predudice. And, by the way, there are plenty of people who are speaking out against the negative feelings against Muslims, but everyone so far has said basically it is alright to slander, look negatively, say inacurate things about Mormons.
No one has said that. You are distorting what those in this thread have said.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:I would say at this time it is overreacting. However, my argument is that it doesn't take much to go beyond that. This is especially true when such feelings go from private to public statements of predudice. And, by the way, there are plenty of people who are speaking out against the negative feelings against Muslims, but everyone so far has said basically it is alright to slander, look negatively, say inacurate things about Mormons.
None of the articles you linked to suggest this. (I couldn't read the whole New Republic article; I'm not registered)
Not only is it 'too early' to tell if Mormons will be prosecuted like the Jews were in the early 30's, the prediction is ungrounded. I'm frankly disgusted by your attempt to buy sympathy by drawing an analogy with a people who have faced more than a millennium of rampant anti-Semitism and suffered under history's most appalling example of genocide.
We're talking about articles which argue that seeing a presidential candidate's religious views as potential influences on his or her future policy decisions is not religious bigotry, but perfectly sound decision making. Some of the posts stray from what I would consider good etiquette - and I'm totally against spreading lies or misinformation about Mormons -, but none of them come close to warranting a comparison between Mormons today and Jews in 1930. The fact that Harry Reid is not getting dogpiled is a good indication that Americans are not as worried about a president holding Mormonism as a personal faith, but a president who lets his Mormon beliefs obviously colour his policies.
I totally agree with the Slate article. If a Scientologist ran for president, most Americans would not vote for him, seeing his belief as a "basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is." It's easy to peg Scientology because it's so recent and ludicrous. But if Joseph Smith used his story to somehow go into business instead of start a new religion, he would no doubt be regarded as a con man even in Utah.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Weren't Mormons percecuted in the past?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Yes, but people here are saying it won't happen again. That would be a good thing.
"We're talking about articles which argue that seeing a presidential candidate's religious views as potential influences on his or her future policy decisions is not religious bigotry, but perfectly sound decision making."
You know, if that was all it was saying I would be fine with that. It isn't what the articles are saying. They are saying Mormons (particularly those who take their religion seriously) shouldn't be President - Period!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Rabbit, this isn't about Romney, and I can agree with you that his Mormonism is talked about because of his Conservative credentials. However, anything about Mormonism said in relationship to him is directly about Mormons - and not about Romney's individual faith.
Occasional, I never said it was about Romney. Twenty five years ago when my brother's wife converted to the Mormon church, her step mother started attending anti-Mormon classes taught by the minister of her church. Fifteen years ago when I first moved to Bozeman Montana, my husband and I went into a local "Christian" Bookstore hoping to find some useful inspiring stuff. What we found was an entire section of the store devoted to anti-Mormon literature. Ten years or so ago when a Mormon was running for the republican nomination for Montana Senator, he was official opposed by the Montana Christian Coalition because he was Mormon.
Nothing that you are seeing in the press lately is at all new. Its making the press because Mitt Romney is courting the vote of the people who have been putting out this kind of anti-Mormon propaganda for decades.
You need to look at who is saying these things and take it with a grain of salt.
I know many Mormons who think that Mormons share the same values and therefore political agenda as the Christian Coalition and other right wing religious groups. They need to look a little closer because the LDS church doesn't back any political agenda for a very specific reasons. LDS scriptures teach the importance of strong separation of church and state, something which has been repeated affirmed by our current leaders. The Christian Coalition does not share this important belief.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Yes, but people here are saying it won't happen again. That would be a good thing.
"We're talking about articles which argue that seeing a presidential candidate's religious views as potential influences on his or her future policy decisions is not religious bigotry, but perfectly sound decision making."
You know, if that was all it was saying I would be fine with that. It isn't what the articles are saying. They are saying Mormons (particularly those who take their religion seriously) shouldn't be President - Period!
Sorta like how lots of people say liberals or conservatives shouldn't be president, period. Honestly, you are reading to far into these articles (not necessarily some of the comments, but you get all sorts of lunacy blog comments, across the spectrum). You assert there is more there, but I am unconvinced, can you explain what parts of the articles make this evident to you? Do you think the context of the articles (particularly the Huffington Report one) leave room for other, less sinister, explanations?
-Bok
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You know, if that was all it was saying I would be fine with that. It isn't what the articles are saying. They are saying Mormons (particularly those who take their religion seriously) shouldn't be President - Period!
Why aren't these same articles concerned over the fact that we have a Mormon Senate majority leader?
This may not be directly about Romney, but there are reasons why other Mormons in politics aren't receiving the same level of criticism. I don't think its because the position of President is considered fundamentally different than other political offices. The same people who are opposing Romney because he's Mormon have opposed other Mormon's for the same reason. These are people who think that being a conservative Christian of their particular stripe is essential for public service. Consider the source.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:President Hinkley has said on numerous occasions that we are largely responsible for the negative feelings people have against Mormons. If people perceive Mormons in a negative light, then we need to look inward for the reason not whine about how persecuted we are.
You are quite right. But do not forget theologically it makes perfect sense that our religion would be persecuted despite our very best efforts to be good neighbors.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:You know, if that was all it was saying I would be fine with that. It isn't what the articles are saying. They are saying Mormons (particularly those who take their religion seriously) shouldn't be President - Period!
That's only true if you believe a Mormon president couldn't respect the separation of church and state, and couldn't refrain from enforcing his system of morality on the citizen body. Of course someone who disagreed with Mormonism would refrain from electing such a candidate.
The Slate article does make the second accusation that a belief in Mormonism (as opposed to a Mormon heritage which a politician sort of leaves at the door when he enters his office) is a reflection of the believer's fundamental inability to reason through a transparent con.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The Slate article does make the second accusation that a belief in Mormonism (as opposed to a Mormon heritage which a politician sort of leaves at the door when he enters his office) is a reflection of the believer's fundamental inability to reason through a transparent con.
Unless the Slate article feels that all religious people need to leave their faith at the door when they enter public office then their statements demonstrate an irrational bias against Mormonism.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:President Hinkley has said on numerous occasions that we are largely responsible for the negative feelings people have against Mormons. If people perceive Mormons in a negative light, then we need to look inward for the reason not whine about how persecuted we are.
You are quite right. But do not forget theologically it makes perfect sense that our religion would be persecuted despite our very best efforts to be good neighbors.
As long as our current Prophet is telling us that we are largely responsible for the persecution we receive, any theologically reasons that might hypothetically lead to persecution are moot.
In my experience, Mormons are far too quick to conclude that we are being unjustly persecuted for righteousness sake and far too slow to recognize that we aren't nearly as righteous as God expects us to be.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:President Hinkley has said on numerous occasions that we are largely responsible for the negative feelings people have against Mormons. If people perceive Mormons in a negative light, then we need to look inward for the reason not whine about how persecuted we are.
You are quite right. But do not forget theologically it makes perfect sense that our religion would be persecuted despite our very best efforts to be good neighbors.
How does it make perfect sense? That sounds too much like looking for patterns in woodgrain to me. There has to be a better explanation for your statement than how I interpreted it.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:The Slate article does make the second accusation that a belief in Mormonism (as opposed to a Mormon heritage which a politician sort of leaves at the door when he enters his office) is a reflection of the believer's fundamental inability to reason through a transparent con.
Unless the Slate article feels that all religious people need to leave their faith at the door when they enter public office then their statements demonstrate an irrational bias against Mormonism.
I'm willing to bet that the writer of the article is a secularist. But he qualifies his stronger bias against a Mormon president who allows his faith to colour his politics (as opposed to, say, a Catholic one who allows his faith to colour his politics) by pointing out how recent and obvious a con the story of the origins of Mormonism is. It doesn't have the same verisimilitude offered by long-standing tradition.
I don't think that's a great reason, myself, because many aspects of Catholicism are about as ridiculous, and only benefit from being obscured by ancient history.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm willing to bet that the writer of the article is a secularist. But he qualifies his stronger bias against a Mormon president who allows his faith to colour his politics (as opposed to, say, a Catholic one who allows his faith to colour his politics) by pointing out how recent and obvious a con the story of the origins of Mormonism is.
Such a statement is deeply insulting to anyone whose Mormon. I hope Euripides that you intended only to quote the slate article and were not implying that you found Mormonism to be an "obvious con story". Otherwise, you are directly insulting a good proportion of the hatrack members as well as our host.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:The Slate article does make the second accusation that a belief in Mormonism (as opposed to a Mormon heritage which a politician sort of leaves at the door when he enters his office) is a reflection of the believer's fundamental inability to reason through a transparent con.
Unless the Slate article feels that all religious people need to leave their faith at the door when they enter public office then their statements demonstrate an irrational bias against Mormonism.
On a related note, this is pretty close to the stance that the Catholic Canadian PM and PM to-be took when the Pope condemned same-sex marriage and pretty much ordered them to cease and desist in their support of it. I thought their stance was pretty admirable and an interesting comparison to the issues that this thread raises. link
quote: Prime Minister Jean Chrétien risks burning in hell if he makes same-sex marriage legal in Canada, a Roman Catholic bishop from Alberta warned yesterday. ... At the same time, U.S. President George W. Bush declared yesterday for the first time that the legal protections of marriage should apply only to the union of a man and a woman. Moving in the opposite direction from Ottawa, Mr. Bush said U.S. government lawyers are exploring measures to legally define marriage in that way. ... The Vatican's instructions to Catholic politicians on same-sex marriages, being released today, state: "When recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."
Mr. Chrétien is a Roman Catholic, as are Liberal leadership candidates Paul Martin and Sheila Copps.
A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister said yesterday that Mr. Chrétien's primary responsibility is to serve the Canadian public — not his church.
"As Prime Minister of Canada, he has the moral responsibility to protect the equality of Canadians," said Thoren Hudyma, a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister's Office. "There needs to be a separation between the church and state."
Mr. Martin also told reporters in Toronto yesterday that his responsibilities as an MP "obviously must take in a wider perspective" than his faith.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm with you, Euripides. Catholic doctrine seems, if anything, almost more nonsensical than holy underdrawers. I only go easy on the Catholics here out of a real fear of hurting their feelings, making them sad, etc.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I'm with you, Euripides. Catholic doctrine seems, if anything, almost more nonsensical than holy underdrawers. I only go easy on the Catholics here out of a real fear of hurting their feelings, making them sad, etc.
So, it is persecution to think the Mormon faith is odd but is sensible to think the same of the Catholic faith?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Any religion can be made to look ridiculous when viewed in an overly simplified form.
My experience has taught me that rational, intelligent, thoughtful human beings can be found in virtually every religion. I conclude that there must be more to these religions than can be grasped by a simplified view from the outside. Those who conclude that religious people are all too naive to spot a ridiculously obvious con, are arogant and immature.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
Weren't Mormons percecuted in the past?
The level of persecution was a couple dozen orders of magnitude lower than the Jews', and you'll also find that Rigdon made threatening statements about extermination himself, and that some in the Mormon militia (Edit: corrected from Nauvoo Legion; thanks Rabbit and Blackblade. I apologise for the mistake) guilty of what we today would call war crimes - see the Mountain Meadows massacre, for example.
As I said, I find the attempt to buy sympathy through this 'New Jews' analogy to be nothing short of repulsive.
[ April 08, 2007, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Any religion can be made to look ridiculous when viewed in an overly simplified form.
My experience has taught me that rational, intelligent, thoughtful human beings can be found in virtually every religion. I conclude that there must be more to these religions than can be grasped by a simplified view from the outside. Those who conclude that religious people are all too naive to spot a ridiculously obvious con, are arogant and immature.
I would agree about arrogant, but I don't necessarily like using 'immature' in the pejorative, so I almost compltely agree with you.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Rabbit: Why do you limit that statement to "virtually every religion"?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I'm willing to bet that the writer of the article is a secularist. But he qualifies his stronger bias against a Mormon president who allows his faith to colour his politics (as opposed to, say, a Catholic one who allows his faith to colour his politics) by pointing out how recent and obvious a con the story of the origins of Mormonism is.
Such a statement is deeply insulting to anyone whose Mormon. I hope Euripides that you intended only to quote the slate article and were not implying that you found Mormonism to be an "obvious con story". Otherwise, you are directly insulting a good proportion of the hatrack members as well as our host.
I was paraphrasing the Slate article.
quote:My experience has taught me that rational, intelligent, thoughtful human beings can be found in virtually every religion.
I agree. Mormonism included.
quote:Those who conclude that religious people are all too naive to spot a ridiculously obvious con, are arogant and immature.
I never made such a claim.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Nauvoo Legion is guilty of what we today would call war crimes - see the Mountain Meadows massacre, for example.
The Mountain Meadows massacre wasn't commited by the Nauvoo Legion. John D. Lee orchestrated it in Utah long after the Nauvoo Legion had been disbanned. Get your facts straight.
I have yet to see the Nauvoo Legion accused of any crime other than the destruction of a printing press, which hardly qualifies as a war crime. In contrast, Mormon leaders were murdered by mobs. Members of my family were driven from their homes. Many died. What happened to the Mormons in Illinois and Missouri is not comparable to the Holocaust, but it is extremely similar to the Pograms.
You should be aware that you are treading on very thin ground. This site is owned by a Mormon and the unsubstantiated and disrespectful claims you are making are in violation of the site rules.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You should be aware that you are treading on very thin ground. This site is owned by a Mormon and the unsubstantiated and disrespectful claims you are making are in violation of the site rules.
I ask once again: it is forbidden to make marks that someone might interpret as disrespective to the Mormon faith, but it is okay to do so about other faiths?
Listen, I have seen several threads with comments made that could be easily interpreted as disrespectful to other religions here. This thread by virtue could be viewed as disrespectful to the Jews with respect to comparing to the Holocaust and other Jewish examples of persecution.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:Those who conclude that religious people are all too naive to spot a ridiculously obvious con, are arogant and immature.
I never made such a claim.
That was a response to the slate article and stevens post. As I indicated initially, it was not clear whether you were stating your own opinion or simply repeating arguments made at slate.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Euripides: A few things,
I totally agree with you that having a, "My martyrs are more persecuted then yours!" is an extremely foolish argument at best, and strongly reprehensible at worst.
But attempting to justify persecution by painting the victims in the worst possible light is I think you will agree, not wise.
While I agree that Mormons are not perfect, many even now are far too self righteous and condescending of outsiders, nothing they did justified the horrors that were inflicted upon them, forcing them to endure the hardships of their cross country trek.
Some small corrections to your statements. Sidney Rigdon, did indeed make some very inflammatory remarks when he spoke before a large group of Mormons, and some were certainly influenced by it. You should also remember that Rigdon at the time was very close to being released from his duties as his mental faculties seem to be deteriorating, (some have speculated it started as a result of terrible head injuries he sustained while being abused by a mob.)
I know of nothing the Nauvoo Legion did that could even approach a war crime, in fact they were one of the most underused group of armed men I have ever seen. The accusation of them being used by Smith to oppress the non Mormons of the area was a smoke screen used to disarm them and allow for the eventual assassination of Joseph Smith and his brother. There were no retaliations to the murder btw.
The Mountain Meadows massacre was not committed by the Nauvoo Legion, indeed the legion had long been disbanded by then. Nor was it caused by the Mormon Battalion as they never saw any action.
There WERE Mormons involved, but as far as can be reasonably proven and demonstrated by historians, their actions were not sanctioned beyond a stake level, or shall we say 2 tiers out of 7-8 tiers of church leadership.
Let me reaffirm I too do not like to play the "Who has been persecuted most game," as I find nothing of productive value to be found by doing so. Not to mention that I think if we take the Jews and put them up against Mormons that the comparison is virtually a no contest that Jews win. But again, vilifying one side to make a case for another is certainly not the best course of action.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
The Mountain Meadows massacre wasn't commited by the Nauvoo Legion. John D. Lee orchestrated it in Utah long after the Nauvoo Legion had been disbanned.
Sorry, you're right, I meant Mormon militia.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I know of nothing the Nauvoo Legion did that could even approach a war crime, in fact they were one of the most underused group of armed men I have ever seen. The accusation of them being used by Smith to oppress the non Mormons of the area was a smoke screen used to disarm them and allow for the eventual assassination of Joseph Smith and his brother. There were no retaliations to the murder btw.
The Mountain Meadows massacre was not committed by the Nauvoo Legion, indeed the legion had long been disbanded by then. Nor was it caused by the Mormon Battalion as they never saw any action.
Yes, I stand corrected on that, and am very sorry I made the mistake. I honestly meant to say 'Mormon militia' there, and mistakenly equated them with the Nauvoo Legion.
I only brought it up because this thread seemed dedicated (despite claims to the otherwise in the OP) to inflaming a 'persecution of the innocents' mentality. I have no doubt that many or most of the Mormons who did meet persecution were innocent of any crime, and see many of the actions of non-Mormon authorities during the Mormon wars to be reprehensible.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Those who conclude that religious people are all too naive to spot a ridiculously obvious con, are arogant and immature.
I would never agree to such a statement. Some religions are obvious cons and some religions are very elaborate and persuasive cons. Some religions are not cons at all. The difficulty lies in determining which is which since many claim their legitimacy from very similar prices of evidence and concepts.
I must admit that I had a quick KoM-like tongue in cheek impulse remark, but I managed to divert that impulse into a quote:
quote: Caesar: I have conquered Gaul! I have defeated Pompey Magnus, I think I can handle a small boy and a eunuch. Pasca: A small boy with 100,000 men. Caesar: I'm aware of that! He's still a boy nonetheless. Mark Antony: You seem to forget that our war is not over yet. Cato and Skippy are still at large, given time they will raise another army. Caesar: And when they do I shall crush them. Mark Antony: I'm glad you're so confident ... some would call it hubris. Caesar: It's only hubris if I fail.
Anyways, back to to the discussion, seriously why did you use the qualifier "virtually every religion"? I can think of two very different reasons why you might have used that statement and I do not want to assume either (or you might even have a third)
One reason might be that you have no personal experience with "every religion" and thus would have no evidence for such a broad general statement. Therefore, you generalised your actual experience to "virtually every religion."
The other reason might be that you have experience with certain specific religions that you think *are* lacking in rational, intelligent, human beings.
What was your actual reason for using that qualifier?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You should be aware that you are treading on very thin ground. This site is owned by a Mormon and the unsubstantiated and disrespectful claims you are making are in violation of the site rules.
I ask once again: it is forbidden to make marks that someone might interpret as disrespective to the Mormon faith, but it is okay to do so about other faiths?
Listen, I have seen several threads with comments made that could be easily interpreted as disrespectful to other religions here. This thread by virtue could be viewed as disrespectful to the Jews with respect to comparing to the Holocaust and other Jewish examples of persecution.
That question needs to be addressed to Papa Janitor. In my experience the site administrators have always tried to use an even hand and have requested respect for all religions. At the same time, however, the site owners are far more sensitive as to what represents a disrespectful attack on Mormonism because they are Mormons.
I know that some Jews are offended by any comparison made to the Holocaust. I regret having started a thread about this a few weeks back which degenerated so badly the admins locked it. That was not my intent. I was trying to get an explanation from Jews who I respect at the site. Perhaps I should have forseen that such a thread would attract anti-semitic slander but I did not.
Still, I see a significant difference between making flawed comparisons between two religions and making obvious fallacious and denegrating claims about a religion. My comments to Euripides were made because I don't want to see this thread get locked.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Let me say I don't think Mormonism is as obvious a con as Catholicism. I don't necessarily think it's entirely a con. No smoking? No drinking? No caffeine? Fine by me. I never smoke, rarely drink, and have coffee maybe twice a year. Jews in Central America? Maybe, although I doubt it went down exactly the way Joseph Smith says.
Catholicism jumped the shark several centuries ago, and hasn't gotten completely back on yet. The catholic response to Galileo is disgusting.
Again, it's not so much people's beliefs I have a problem with. It's more the Galileo situation which sickens and scares me. I rarely trust big structures, particularly when they persecute intellectual dissent with physical force. it's not a hard and fast rule, exactly....but they will get no help from me. I tithe to none, more or less.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I know of nothing the Nauvoo Legion did that could even approach a war crime, in fact they were one of the most underused group of armed men I have ever seen. The accusation of them being used by Smith to oppress the non Mormons of the area was a smoke screen used to disarm them and allow for the eventual assassination of Joseph Smith and his brother. There were no retaliations to the murder btw.
The Mountain Meadows massacre was not committed by the Nauvoo Legion, indeed the legion had long been disbanded by then. Nor was it caused by the Mormon Battalion as they never saw any action.
Yes, I stand corrected on that, and am very sorry I made the mistake. I honestly meant to say 'Mormon militia' there, and mistakenly equated them with the Nauvoo Legion.
I only brought it up because this thread seemed dedicated (despite claims to the otherwise in the OP) to inflaming a 'persecution of the innocents' mentality. I have no doubt that many or most of the Mormons who did meet persecution were innocent of any crime, and see many of the actions of non-Mormon authorities during the Mormon wars to be reprehensible.
That's good enough for me I think we both agree in principle.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Anyways, back to to the discussion, seriously why did you use the qualifier "virtually every religion"? I can think of two very different reasons why you might have used that statement and I do not want to assume either (or you might even have a third)
One reason might be that you have no personal experience with "virtually every religion" and thus have no evidence for such a broad general statement.
I have had found intelligent, rational and thoughtful people who I respect in every major world relgion and many of the minor ones. I said "virtually all" solely because I can not claim to have experience with all.
I am not at all sure what you find objectionable in my statement "Those who conclude that religious people are all too naive to spot a ridiculously obvious con, are arogant and immature."
Your comments seem to agree that at least some religious people are not too naive to spot a ridiculous obvious con, which would imply it was incorrect to assume that all religious people were too naive.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Yes, I stand corrected on that, and am very sorry I made the mistake. I honestly meant to say 'Mormon militia' there, and mistakenly equated them with the Nauvoo Legion.
I think "Mormon militia" would be also be inaccurate. Although John D. Lee who lead the attack was a major in the militia, the Colonel who commanded the militia is reported to have ordered that no attack be made. Hence it would be most accurate to say "members of the Iron County Militia" and not rather than the militia itself.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Let me say I don't think Mormonism is as obvious a con as Catholicism. . . . Catholicism jumped the shark several centuries ago, and hasn't gotten completely back on yet. The catholic response to Galileo is disgusting
Steven, Now you are crossing the line. At Hatrack we show respect to all our members and to claim that Catholicism is an obvious con is very disrespectful to the intelligent, rational and thoughtful Caltholics here.
I don't see a problem with expressing your disapproval of the Catholic church's treatement of Galileo but you cross a line when you claim this make a religion cherished by members of our community an obvious con.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:The Mountain Meadows massacre wasn't commited by the Nauvoo Legion. John D. Lee orchestrated it in Utah long after the Nauvoo Legion had been disbanned. Get your facts straight.
This is incorrect. The Utah militia was formally known as the Nauvoo Legion until it was disbanded by the federal government during the polygamy prosecutions, and though Lee was integral in organizing the massacre, local officials in the Legion such as Isaac Haight and William Dame had as much to do with it as he did. They were simply never prosecuted.
I also find it silly and simplistic to call Mormonism a 'con.' It's a religion; as with any such, there's a whole lot more complicated psychological, sociological, and spiritual stuff going on with everyone involved than the word 'con' involves.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: [QUOTE]I only brought it up because this thread seemed dedicated (despite claims to the otherwise in the OP) to inflaming a 'persecution of the innocents' mentality. I have no doubt that many or most of the Mormons who did meet persecution were innocent of any crime, and see many of the actions of non-Mormon authorities during the Mormon wars to be reprehensible.
Its sort of ironic that I was the first to take offense at your statements even though I had been the one arguing that we Mormons are largely responsible for any persecution that is currently going on.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"claim this make a religion cherished by members of our community an obvious con."
I'd really say it's more the obvious profiteering from the enslavement and murder of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans. The fact that the church to this day refuses to apologize for past abuses makes me think that things just as bad or worse could happen again.
Then, there's the Spanish Inquisition.
Need I go on?
I don't trust structure.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
steven, No you need not go on in fact you've gone way to far. Hatrack is not a site where we tolerate bashing other peoples religions.
P.S I have thus far not alerted Papa to whats going on here because I thought the people participating were mature enough to reign in their inappropriate behavior. Are you or do I need to whistle Papa?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I am not at all sure what you find objectionable in my statement "Those who conclude that religious people are all too naive to spot a ridiculously obvious con, are arogant and immature."
I never said that I found anything objectionable in that statement, I just wanted to clarify that while your statement was technically true, it also does not preclude the possibility that some religious people *are* too naive to spot the fact that their own religion is a con.
As for the "virtually every" qualifier, you seem to have managed to post while I was editing my admittedly wonky initial wording.
I would note that while the sentiment is admirable, your justification means that your initial statement is pretty inaccurate.
If you only have experience with members of all major religions and many (I'm assuming you mean many as being defined by less than say, a hundred) minor religions, you should actually have said,
quote: "My experience has taught me that rational, intelligent, thoughtful human beings can be found in several large and a handful of small religions"
The reason being that there are by one count, at least 4200 religions and I severely doubt you would have had experiences with members from a majority of the 4200.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattB:
quote:The Mountain Meadows massacre wasn't commited by the Nauvoo Legion. John D. Lee orchestrated it in Utah long after the Nauvoo Legion had been disbanned. Get your facts straight.
This is incorrect. The Utah militia was formally known as the Nauvoo Legion until it was disbanded by the federal government during the polygamy prosecutions, and though Lee was integral in organizing the massacre, local officials in the Legion such as Isaac Haight and William Dame had as much to do with it as he did. They were simply never prosecuted.
The involvement of any individual other than John D. Lee in the Mountain Meadows Massacre is a controversial subject that is unlikely to be resolved here at Hatrack.
It is unfortunate that the subject was ever brough up in this thread because it is one which has long been a favorite of Mormon bashers and is certain to cause most Mormons to feel persecuted.
There was one man who was prosecuted and convicted for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. There likely should have been at least a few more although given the National anti-Mormon fervor at the time its difficult to argue that the federal bodies involved wouldn't have been anxious to prosecute more people if they had strong evidence against them.
I'd also like to point out that one is one more than was ever prosecuted or convicted for crimes commited against Mormons in Nauvoo or Missouri. In fact, the law making it legal to kill Mormons stood on the books in Missouri until 1976.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
steven -
I really have no idea how atrocities committed in the name of religion make religion a 'con.' The conclusion doesn't follow from the examples.
Perhaps if you were to provide more sophisticated arguments than the standard shocking dead horses that village atheists have been beating since the Enlightenment, we'd be able to have a more enriching discussion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: [If you only have experience with members of all major religions and many (I'm assuming you mean many as being defined by less than say, a hundred) minor religions, you should actually have said,
quote: "My experience has taught me that rational, intelligent, thoughtful human beings can be found in several large and a handful of small religions"
The reason being that there are by one count, at least 4200 religions and I severely doubt you would have had experiences with members from a majority of the 4200.
I don't think generalizing based on a large number of experiences is normally considered a logical flaw. In fact it is the basis of science. If you have evidence to the contrary showing that many religions have no intelligent, rational and thoughtful adherents, then I will recant my original assertion. I do think such evidence would be very difficult to come by even if it were correct since it would require knowing all the adherents of many different religions well enough to verify that they are neither rational, intelligent nor thoughful.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I also find it silly and simplistic to call Mormonism a 'con.' It's a religion; as with any such, there's a whole lot more complicated psychological, sociological, and spiritual stuff going on with everyone involved than the word 'con' involves.
I can agree with this sentiment. But other people in this thread seem to be implying that if you verbalize your own opinion that a religion is clearly false, you're doing something horrible. I can understand that cushioning such statements is important to making and keeping friends, but I think it's problematic to act like verbalizing the thought is tantamount to persecution.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I can agree with this sentiment. But other people in this thread seem to be implying that if you verbalize your own opinion that a religion is clearly false, you're doing something horrible. I can understand that cushioning such statements is important to making and keeping friends, but I think it's problematic to act like verbalizing the thought is tantamount to persecution.
Amanacer, I assume that you are referring to my comments among others. They began in specific reference the statement
quote:a belief in Mormonism is a reflection of the believer's fundamental inability to reason through a transparent con.
While I have no objection to people arguing that a particular religion is wrong, claims which indicate that the flaws are so obvious as to bring the reasoning ability of any adherent into serious question are disrespectful and insulting. Its a very thinly cushioned way of saying you think all adherents to that belief system are stupid and/or naive. Such prejudiced ad hominem attacks are not welcome at hatrack no matter how well they are cushioned.
And I don't think its at all problematic to say that verbalizing the idea that all members of any given religion are stupid represents a form of persecution. If I claimed all Jews were foolish and naive, I think most would agree it was anti-semetic even if I couched in prettier language. Why is it any less offense to claim that belonging to the Mormon church is evidence of stupidity?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:
quote:a belief in Mormonism is a reflection of the believer's fundamental inability to reason through a transparent con.
While I have no objection to people arguing that a particular religion is wrong, claims which indicate that the flaws are so obvious as to bring the reasoning ability of any adherent into serious question are disrespectful and insulting. Its a very thinly cushioned way of saying you think all adherents to that belief system are stupid and/or naive. Such prejudiced ad hominem attacks are not welcome at hatrack no matter how well they are cushioned.
The full context of that quote was:
quote:The Slate article does make the second accusation that a belief in Mormonism (as opposed to a Mormon heritage which a politician sort of leaves at the door when he enters his office) is a reflection of the believer's fundamental inability to reason through a transparent con.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Euripides, I'm sorry. In editing your original quote, I did not intend to imply that this sentiment was yours rather than the slate articles. I fully accept your original answer to my queries on the subject.
I was simply trying to give a concise explanation of the specific type of criticism I find to be inappropriate. I hope that is clear.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Okay, thanks. That's clear.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:The involvement of any individual other than John D. Lee in the Mountain Meadows Massacre is a controversial subject that is unlikely to be resolved here at Hatrack.
Not particularly controversial among historians of the subject (including several who teach at BYU). I can provide references if you'd like.
The federal investigators were eager to prosecute as many as they could. Most under threat hid from investigators in rural southern Utah. Brigham Young stonewalled for twenty years then turned in Lee under intense pressure.
Now, this is not to say Young had anything to do with the massacre itself; attempts to link him to it have, in my opinion, failed and rather miserably. The evidence shows, however, it was reasonably well organized at the local level.
I agree that tensions were high for good reason, and it's difficult to get inside the minds of those involved.
My apologies for my rather hiccupy responses - my connection has been questionable tonight.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I don't think generalizing based on a large number of experiences is normally considered a logical flaw. In fact it is the basis of science. If you have evidence to the contrary showing that many religions have no intelligent, rational and thoughtful adherents, then I will recant my original assertion...
More accurately, what you're doing is generalising as a form of inductive reasoning, which while admittedly forms the basis of science, the problem is that unlike science, you're claiming a degree of certainty which is contrary to science as it is normally performed.
A symptom of this is the fact that your burden of proof is all wrong. I never claimed anything about "virtually every" religion. I do not need any evidence for my assertion because I have not made one about "virtually every" religion. On the other hand, you have made such an assertion thus you need to present your proof.
Please inform us as to which members of which major and minor religions your experiences have covered.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think I have identified a parallel to Godwin's Law, I will dub it "The Rabbits Rule".
"Any discussion of Mormonism will eventually lead to accusations regarding the Mountain Meadows Massacre"
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Wait, so when Mormons discuss Mormonism they always end up accusing each other about Mountain Meadows?
And I thought a self-flagellating albino hit man was odd.
Wow, my spell-checker knows "self-flagellating".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I didn't specify who would be accused.
And yes, if discussions regarding Mormonsims go on long enough eventually even Mormons will begin accusing someone of the Mountain Meadow Massacre.
To be faithful to Godwin's law, I should rephrase "The Rabbit's Rule"
In the limit as the length of a discussion regarding Mormonism approaches infinity, the probability that accusations regarding the Mountain Meadows Massacre will be raised approaches one.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Any religion can be made to look ridiculous when viewed in an overly simplified form.
I would go further, and say that most systems of belief look ridiculous to those who believe differently.
Heck, if you delve too deeply into your own system of belief, you often find parts that don't make any dang bit of sense. Of course, most people would rather not think about those bits. It probably just means something that I don't understand anyway, I'm sure it makes perfectly good sense to someone who's smart enough. I'll just get back to thinking about the bits I like Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Please inform us as to which members of which major and minor religions your experiences have covered.
I will assume that you actually want me to identify the religions and not each the intelligent, rational and thoughful members.
Major Religions: I have been personally acquainted with intellegent, rational, and thoughtful people who were associated Buddhism, Hindu, Islam, Sikhism, Jainism, Tauism, Shinto, Christianity, Judaism and Bahai.
Minor Religions are more difficult because there is disagreement about where dividing lines should be made. For example: Are different sects of Christianity different religions or just varients on the same religion? Is Mormonism a Christian sect or a separate religion? Are Shias and Sunnies different religions or not? I'm fairly confident that the those who come up the 4200 different religions are counting each sect of Christianity as a separate religion.
I have known intelligent, rational, thoughtful people who were Wikkans, Pagans, Church Universal and Triumphant, New Age, Gnostics, as well as numerous native American religions. Add to that a pretty good smattering of different Christian sects.
Although my experiences do not include virtually every religion, I can say the following, 1. I have found intelligent, thoughful and rational people among a broad sampling of many different world religions include some that are considered "fringe" by many people. 2. I have yet to find a religion where I have known more than one or two individuals well and have not found members who were intelligent, articulate, rational and thoughtful.
I believe that given my broad sampling, I am justified in concluding that intelligent, rational and thoughtful people can be found in virtually (or perhaps nearly) all religions.
I'm willing to admit that there may be a very few minor religions that contain only irrational fools. I suspect that some of the fringe religions which have been involved in mass suicides might include only such people but since I have not known any, I really can't make that judgement.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
MightyCow, I think no one can completely examine all of their own core beliefs for rationality and grounding in reality because many beliefs are formed when we are children, in a pre-rational mind-set, and a resistance to change of personality or an inertia of personal philosophy is critical. Otherwise, consciousness would be become too fragmented and more schizophrenic, and no one could have any long-term plans or goals.
True, some people do change philosophies as often as they change their hats, but how are they thought of by most? Flaky.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Morbo: I'm not well enough versed in psychology to be able to comment directly, but what you say rings true.
I think being flaky is an extreme though. There's nothing unhealthy about considering and refining your beliefs. That's healthy growth.
While I agree that many basic beliefs are probably largely formed during our youth, that certainly doesn't apply to the complex teachings of an adult belief system. Do 3 year olds, when they're learning that hitting people is bad, also learn the core belief that the world is 4,000 years old and was at one time completely under water?
I would suggest that it makes sense for a person to seriously examine the tenets of their chosen belief system, and fully understand them, to the best of their ability.
Lots of people change beliefs as they mature. Most religions rely on this for converts. Once you're an adult though, you don't have an excuse if you espouse a belief system with a doctrine that the earth is flat, or that one sex should be subservient to the other, or that certain demographic groups are of inherently less worth.
True, some people do believe anything that an authority figure tells them without thinking about it for themselves, but how are they thought of by most? Suckers.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Considering and refining your own beliefs is healthy, I agree. But it's rare for most. I meant people are considered flaky if they frequently change religions and philosophy.
Also, I added the part about children and a pre-rational mind set. My main point was about a neccesary inertia to change in philosophy. Not that it's impossible, just difficult and usually time-consuming.
Sure there are converts. But most don't keep converting. People might convert to a religion, maybe once more (or back to their original one) , then they're usually done.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Here is the thing about Sidney Rigdon's [edit: Independance Day Sermon. The "Salt Sermon" was a month earlier and even more problematic, although the Independance Day Sermon was what seemed to lead to a general persecution against the Mormons.] As was mentioned, there is a question of what state of mind he was in when making the comments. To me, that sidesteps the issue. For myself, I think his speech was perfectly acceptable considering what he was talking about.
His speech was made AFTER the Mormons had already been mobbed, beaten, ridiculed, and kicked out of parts of the country. He himself, along with Joseph Smith, had been dragged out of home and beaten, then tard and feathered. The point of the speech was that after such trials the Mormons were not going to sit around and get pushed around anymore. The most problematic statement was that if the mobs were going to repeat the offenses, "then it would become between us or them a war of extermination." Not the most diplomatic of comments and the excuse that has been used even until today that Mormons deserved what they got.
[ April 08, 2007, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Are you or do I need to whistle Papa?"
Please do whistle.
My complaint is that a religious organization should not have more money and power than many governments. The Vatican clearly does. That might be acceptable, if that organization weren't so clearly willing to kill/lie/cheat/steal.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I find it interesting the Harry Reid gets so little attention for being Mormon while Mitt Romney gets so much.
I think that arises because Harry Reid is a democrat so 1. He doesn't fit the stereotype of mormon or conservative religious politics and 2. He's not trying to court the fundamentalist christian vote. That makes the fact that he is Mormon politically uninteresting.
Mitt Romney on the other hand is trying to pursuade fundamentalist christians that he shares there values. Fundamentalist Christians are the only group I've observed who have a specific bias against Mormons. Many liberals have a bias against religious people in general but that isn't stronger against Mormons than against others.
...
I wonder if you are saying here that it is the public that is uninterested in Reid's church affiliation but interested in Romney's. Until Romney was running for President I had never heard that Reid was LDS so I doubt most of the rest of us had. We can't be interested in something if we have never heard of it. The media decided that Romney's Mormonism is interested and Reid's is not.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"That might be acceptable, if that organization weren't so clearly willing to kill/lie/cheat/steal."
Wow, that is just. I don't know what to say. What a horrible opinion.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Amanacer, I assume that you are referring to my comments among others. They began in specific reference the statement
While I'm not certain about the viewpoint expressed in some of your posts, what spurred my comment was Occasional's statment that:
quote:but everyone so far has said basically it is alright to slander, look negatively, say inacurate things about Mormons.
Nobody has said it's okay to slander, but if people view the religion negatively, it's their right to form such an opinion without it being called bigotry.
Rabbit, like I said before, I agree that calling a long standing religion a con is overly simplistic. I think out world perspectives are so profoundly shaped as children that it's near impossible to completely rid yourself of your way of seeing the world. What seems clearly false to one person will seem like the absolute truth to somebody who has been taught to view the world in that way. Calling that a con is silly. Calling it clearly false is not so silly. In the same way people believe their religion is the absolute truth and an experiment can be performed to prove it, people can believe a religion is absolutely false and research can be performed to prove it. I think both ways of thinking require different assumptions about the world and calling either naive, arrogant, or immature is really just throwing the buck back and forth.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
errrmmm... steven, you do know that The DaVinci Code is fiction, right?
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Name-calling is not good reasoning anyway, even when the names are deserved. I could point out that someone's belief that the earth is flat is disproved by the angle at which the sun hits the earth at solstice, or by Magellan's voyage, or by NASA's photographs. Or I could call the belief primitive, ignorant, and crazy, but that would be insulting and isn't a good proof anyway.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Fundamentalist Christians are the only group I've observed who have a specific bias against Mormons. Many liberals have a bias against religious people in general but that isn't stronger against Mormons than against others.
That's how I feel about the issue. I knew that Reid is LDS, and I know that Romney is LDS, but until they start spearheading the drive for public stonings, I could care less, it's all a kooky class of Protestant to me. Granted, it's a religion with a complicated racial history, but seriously, I don't expect Romney to be more thoughtful about race relations in this country than Bush was. For the next four years, if Romney is elected, black graduation rates will continue to fall, black incarceration rates will continue to rise, and Romney will be blissfully occupied with other concerns.
[ April 08, 2007, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Wait a minute. How is any of that directly the fault of the President? ... I mean, inherently.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I could not find a graph of black incarceration rates, to confirm that it rises primarily under un-race-thoughtful administrations (if we could identify which those are). I could find that NJ black incarceration rate rose 40% from 1990 to 2001: 2 years of Bush, 8 years of Clinton, and 1 year of Bush 2.0. Maybe other states are different. http://www.njisj.org/reports/portrait_present.html
This paper shows that liberal states have a higher percentage of the prison population being black than do conservative states, and that the reason would not have to be racism. I did not check it in any depth: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/prison.htm
I could not find numbers for black high school graduation rates for more than one year.
It is not clear how this would be a President's fault anyway. Presidents do not have jurisdiction over how schools are run or how crimes are prosecuted, because these are state issues. I suppose a President could indirectly affect college graduation rates by proposing student loan legislation, or vetoing it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm not saying that any democrat would be better than any republican, but the presidents are our chief executives. They set the tone. The President could set the tone to wean us off of foreign oil. If Presidents want to set a tone for more morally attractive business practices and accounting procedures, they could set the tone. The same way the Administration set the tone that allowed torture.
Romney's tone is business as usual, minus government inefficiency, and if you are happy with our cultural priorities--which include economic practices, education, and criminal justice-- then a vote for him seems well-placed. ____________________________________________
Politically, I am a world away from anyone running in this race, on the democrat or republican ticket, it's as if Mitt Romney were stranded in the middle of Baghdad and had to pick between Sunni and Shite sympathies.
[ April 08, 2007, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: presidents ... set the tone.
I wish they didn't but I guess they do, at least if they dont' get drowned out by other talking heads.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattB:
quote:The involvement of any individual other than John D. Lee in the Mountain Meadows Massacre is a controversial subject that is unlikely to be resolved here at Hatrack.
Not particularly controversial among historians of the subject (including several who teach at BYU). I can provide references if you'd like.
The federal investigators were eager to prosecute as many as they could. Most under threat hid from investigators in rural southern Utah. Brigham Young stonewalled for twenty years then turned in Lee under intense pressure.
Now, this is not to say Young had anything to do with the massacre itself; attempts to link him to it have, in my opinion, failed and rather miserably. The evidence shows, however, it was reasonably well organized at the local level.
I agree that tensions were high for good reason, and it's difficult to get inside the minds of those involved.
My apologies for my rather hiccupy responses - my connection has been questionable tonight.
That doesn't sounds like the religion had to do with the crime. I am admittedly not aware of the details, but at the time wasn't Young running the territory as well, so this could have been better considered a politically motivated issue that may have had some religious undertones? If so, I don't see the big deal people make of it regarding the Mormon faith. If not, there must be some things I don't know about.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:I am admittedly not aware of the details, but at the time wasn't Young running the territory as well, so this could have been better considered a politically motivated issue that may have had some religious undertones?
Yes, actually. Briefly, the situation was this:
In 1857, Young was governor of the territory. The new president, James Buchanan, decided to remove Young (his legal right), and sent both a message to that effect and an army in case the Mormons, who the federal government to that point had more or less ignored, resisted.
The Mormons got word that the army was approaching before they got Buchanan's message. As you might imagine, people freaked out. Long history of persecution, etc.
It didn't help that this was also the period of what historians call the Mormon Reformation; lots of Mormon leaders were traveling throughout the territory preaching fire and brimstone, apocalyptic rhetoric about the Second Coming and repudiating sin and so forth. Two months before the massacre the Mormon leader Parley Pratt was murdered in Missouri. So the Mormons are kind of jittery.
When Young learned of the army, he sent raiders to harry it and slow it down; this is what is usually called the Utah War. Similarly, he sent orders to the Mormon settlements in Southern Utah that no food was to be sold not help to be given to the various groups traveling through Utah headed for California. He also gave some cryptic messages to various Indian groups soliciting their help. He's preparing for a siege.
Into this situation enters the Fancher party, a group of settlers heading for California. There's a lot of debate over what exactly happened as the party worked its way southwest through Utah - they certainly clashed with locals who proved less than willing to sell food, which the Fanchers were not expecting; there was a small riot in Cedar City in southwestern Utah. There are also reports that the Fanchers engaged in some Mormon-baiting, and that Mormons did things like poison wells. Both are of uncertain veracity in detail, but in general it's certain that neither the Fanchers nor the locals were particularly friendly toward each other.
What is known is that John Lee, previously mentioned, rode south from Salt Lake and met with some Indian tribes. There were also meetings among local Mormon leaders discussing the Fancher problem. The militia was mobilized. And one morning the Fancher party found itself under siege. First by Indians, then the militia showed up. Shots were exchanged; the party was killed.
Unfortunately, there's a movie coming out about the thing starring General Zod as Brigham Young that promises to be for Mormons what the Da Vinci Code is for Catholics. It's going to argue that Young ordered the event. There is no evidence that he did, and a fair amount of evidence that he was distressed afterwards, so, alas.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Well, if you're (general you) getting a Mormon Da Vinci Code then that must mean you're finally making the big time, right?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)