Hi. I'm not sure of all the particulars, but the guy who runs the Mormon Stories podcast is taking a survey of people who used to be true-believing members of the LDS church, but have fallen away. Apparently he's gathering data to share with someone in church leadership.
I have nothing to do with this survey, and I'm not privy to the exact intended audience or purpose, so please don't hold me to anything. Also, I'm not trying to instigate any Mormon/ex-Mormon bashing here on the forum.
All I can tell you for sure is that I took the survey and found it interesting. And from what little I know about the Mormon Stories people, I doubt it's any kind of con. So I thought I'd pass it along.
[ October 28, 2011, 05:01 AM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Interesting. The survey seems to be based on a pretty well-informed view of the ex-Mormon and disbelieving-Mormon community (at least the English-speaking, online segments of that community that I'm familiar with).
So much so that I began to doubt whether the survey sponsor has any current connection to higher levels of the LDS leadership hierarchy. That is, unless, they are determined apologists who attempt to confront all challenges.
(Obviously I don't know much about the Mormon Stories podcast, but it looks pretty interesting and I'm going to look more into it.)
I filled it out. I guess it'll be interesting to see the results.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I'm still not totally sure I have a solid handle on what Mormon Stories is all about. I discovered it about a year ago when I was wondering whatever happened to Richard Dutcher. I did a little Googling, and found that he'd done an interview for this podcast, so I downloaded it and had a listen.
The series of Dutcher podcasts came to something like a 7 hour interview. Turns out this isn't that unusual. The podcasts can be interesting, but tend to err on the side of exhaustiveness. I don't know how anyone with a normal life would ever get through them.
The interview intrigued me enough that I've been picking through their archives for a year or so. It was incredibly puzzling at first. They interview people from all across the spectrum of belief, from true-believing members to excommunicated and bitter ex-Mormons. It was very hard to pin down a purpose or point of view. The one common thread seems to be interviewees who are very well informed about Church history, and unafraid to tackle controversy.
The best I've been able to discover is that they come from the point of view of "Cultural Mormonism" or "Uncorrelated Mormonism," (Mormonism that resists the Correlation program). It seems like their purpose is to open up Mormonism to people who don't necessarily literally believe it, but still want to have some connection with their family history and culture. Or people who do believe in it, but want to take a broader view than they might find in Sunday School.
They also have a connection with Joanna Brooks, who seems to have become a go-to media source for Mormon info in the Romney/Huntsman primary season.
I'm not sure where I stand on Mormon Stories as an organization. Just from listening to the podcasts, I find some things about them frustrating or irritating. But I've also found some things in there that are fascinating, and incredibly valuable. In any case, they seem like an honest group of people who are trying to do a good thing, so I have a hard time hating, even if I'm not totally on the bandwagon.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The survey was pretty good from the people I know who have left the church. Most people I know aren't leaving cause they want to sin or are mad at someone but for more legitimate concerns. I felt a little uneducated as some of the controversies I am unaware of. I was surprised prophetic succession wasn't discussed as it was the reason for several splinter groups.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Cultural Mormonism?
I'll be honest-- I think it's a bit ridiculous. I think you can culturally identify being from the mountain west/Utah; I don't think you can claim to be a Mormon without also declaring some allegiance to the faith.
Mormonism is still too young to be separated from its theological roots; it's not Judaism. It's not even anywhere near that much of a bulwark.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
For people who have lived their whole lives in a fairly unique subculture (Utah LDS)... are you sure it's ridiculous? Any other culture they can claim has probably been much less significant in their lives. Non-Mormons in Utah belong to a rather separate culture - disbelief doesn't automatically give you access to it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Scott, I know a fair number of ex-Mormons. And there is definitely a Mormon culture that exists independently of the church.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
There is definitely a distinct culture in Utah. It is heavily informed by the church. It evolves depending on where you are on the Wasatch front or off of it. It is really hard to be completely independent of the church most places in Utah and even SE Idaho. Everybody's life is colored by it somehow.
I grew up in Minnesota in an active Mormon family, and I definitely didn't experience the equivalent of that culture there. We had the people in our ward, and you could say we formed a little mini culture, but every one of us church members knew way more non-members than members and interacted with them much more frequently. Those Mormons who weren't active in the church, and ex-Mormons, didn't form a cohesive group of their own, in my experience. They more or less dissolved back into the surrounding Minnesota culture around us.
That could have changed in the last 15+ years, especially with Mormonism much more prevalent in the news in the last 5 years. Maybe even far away from Utah now it's possible to have a unique culture of sorts as an ex-Mormon.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Apparently it has changed--Mormon Stories has a support community in the twin cities.
Anyway, plenty of cultural Mormons still go to church. Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If you check out stayLDS.com, there are a lot of people who want to be part of the church and that culture without believing. If your whole family is LDS, even if you don't believe, leaving can mean a loss of more than just faith.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Cool. I guess there are a lot of these communities. Probably more than we realize.
I remember my seminary teacher once telling me that no one ever leaves the church without becoming a rabid anti-Mormon. I think it was a scare tactic. Like if you let the Holy Ghost slip away, you'll become possessed by the Devil and spend the rest of your life consumed by the dark side of the force.
It didn't seem right to me at the time, even though I didn't really have any way of proving him wrong. But after seeing all the online communities built around appreciation/tolerance post-testimony, I guess we can put that theory to bed.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I hadn't listened to any of these podcasts for a while, but after starting the thread I thought I'd grab a couple for work today. And the first one I listened to featured a story about a young Orson Scott Card. I love coincidences.
***NOTE: This story seems to be all in good fun. But obviously there may be history or subtext I'm not aware of. So if there's anything about this story that makes our host uncomfortable about linking it from his forum, feel free to let me know, or to delete this post without notice. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Speed: Not all those who leave the church become frothing at the mouth folk, but many malcontents carry very deep and bitter resentment towards the church the rest of their lives when they break away, especially under unpleasant circumstances.
Not to mention those who just stop doing the basic things designed to maintain faith excusing their behavior by devoting their energies to fault finding in the church, rather than looking inward at their apathy and sloth.
That isn't to say all who stop say reading the scriptures are lazy, but there are more than a few who just stop, and then wonder why they lose that which they had, which the scriptures clearly indicate is what happens.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I don't dispute that it happens. Many people do leave the church and remain bitterly angry for the rest of their lives. Plenty of people are still fuming about the girl that dumped them in 1987, too.
What I thought was silly about my seminary teacher's warning was the supposed inevitability. There's a whole spectrum of possible responses to a loss of faith. Once the dust settles, I'm sure there are far more people that calmly move on with their lives than let themselves be driven mad with rage. Some people even retain friendships and fond feelings for the church long after they stop believing in its literal truth.
And as to your last paragraph: even at my most active, I always smelled a little something bogus when people would warn me never to stop reading my scriptures lest I lose my testimony. If something is honestly true, I shouldn't have to read the same book every day to keep myself convinced. I haven't read a physics textbook in years, but I've never lost faith that force equals mass times acceleration.
(Anyway, it was the reading more than the stopping that sapped my testimony. But that's a topic for a different thread.)
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
From the people I know who have lost faith, it is more the too educated issue. The unfaithful often have more knowledge and understanding of scriptures than the faithful, from my experience. They start losing their faith and desperately try to find it again, searching the scriptures for more understanding but instead getting more questions. I also don't know many who have lost their faith who are anti. I know several who say if they have kids, they would go to church. They won't be like temple members, but they want the community for their children.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Speed:
quote:What I thought was silly about my seminary teacher's warning was the supposed inevitability.
Oh certainly. I have been pleasantly surprised to find out that sentiment is very much mistaken.
quote:And as to your last paragraph: even at my most active, I always smelled a little something bogus when people would warn me never to stop reading my scriptures lest I lose my testimony. If something is honestly true, I shouldn't have to read the same book every day to keep myself convinced. I haven't read a physics textbook in years, but I've never lost faith that force equals mass times acceleration.
I don't study Chinese nearly as much as I used to. Am I losing it? Absolutely. Words slowly disappear, phrases break up, idioms are lost, the number of conversations I can comfortably have diminishes.
If I do not practice the piano and the guitar, I do in fact eventually forget how to play songs, and my understanding of chords and their relationship grow fuzzy. It's not instantaneous, but it's a constant gradual process.
Reading the scriptures does not have to be exactly analogous to other texts. Though it can be in many respects. I have to keep reading history books to gain a mastery of certain periods of time. I have to read with a different emphasis to get a multifaceted understanding. Colored by my experiences reading the scriptures has always brought me new insights every single time I work through the text.
I've always loved the scripture, "For where you treasure is, there your heart will be also." I love that it's in the order that it's in. Had I written it, I would have bungled it and put heart first. But there's something right about the treasure being there first. We don't always realize our heart has moved until we've accumulated some of the fruits of our actions. We don't notice the atrophy of a neglected relationship until we try to experience it again.
As a missionary I read my scriptures and a variety of gospel literature several times daily. I did it for about three years. I was astounded how much texts I thought I had a grasp on exploded outward. My understanding of the scriptures as a web of concepts grew very lush. There were even times I swear I would read a text, get a fantastic scripture that would fill a void in my understanding, I'd write it down excitedly, but then later when I tried to reference it for others, it would be gone. My quote was still written down for all to read, but it wasn't to be found in the book. I'd look for it in every single page. It was as if God was sending me phantom scriptures just for me.
Then, one day, I stopped. I just flat out stopped. For years I rarely even cracked my scriptures. When I read I quickly started forming new insights, but there was always something missing. I'd talk to people about an idea and I couldn't for the life of me discuss it, I couldn't tell you except as a crude paraphrase what the scriptures said about it. I sometimes read talks I gave at church about topics when I was reading my scriptures faithfully and I marvel at the understanding. I then read talks I gave when I was not reading my scriptures and I shake my head. It's like I turned into a moron.
The certainly may not be the case for you, but for me it was absolutely true. You'd think knowing that, reading scriptures would be a no-brainer for me. And yet, I find myself often too busy with other commitments to just sit down and read. But I cannot lie and say I don't see a difference.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom, would you feel comfortable calling those friends "Mormons?"
Would you be comfortable being called a Bahai'i?
[ October 29, 2011, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If a person still identifies as Mormon (as some in these communities do), is it acceptable to call them mormon if they don't actually believe? If not, what should they be called?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
BlackBlade: I know that details tend to dissolve when we stop active study. I remember watching Jeopardy not too long ago, and mixing up a line from Othello with King Lear. I couldn't believe it. But I hadn't read Othello in several years, so what did I expect.
I re-read Othello, and there was a lot of stuff I'd forgotten. Great lines, plot twists, some characters. But the one thing I hadn't forgotten was how awesome that story is. After all the stuff that leeched out of my brain from disuse, I don't think I was ever in danger of believing that Othello was a bunch of crap.
I'm not saying that people should stop reading their scriptures every day. But if someone really loves the scriptures, that should be a better incentive than Holy-Ghost-abandonment scare tactics. That's why I never bought the idea that people have to pound scriptures into their brains every day like medicine, whether they want to or not.
And I recognize that discontinuation of scripture study often precedes a loss of faith. But I don't accept a causal relationship between those activities. Your child might start scratching her head before you discover any lice. That doesn't mean that if you can stop her from scratching you'll prevent an infestation. And if someone is already headed toward a loss of faith, force-feeding them scriptures that they no longer fully believe in is likely to do more harm than good.
quote:I've always loved the scripture, "For where you treasure is, there your heart will be also."
Right on.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Tom, would you feel comfortable calling those friends "Mormons?"
Would you be comfortable being called a Bahai'i?
If your friends consider themselves Mormon, call them Mormons. If Tom doesn't consider himself Baha'i, don't call him Baha'i. It doesn't have to be too complicated.
If you want to hear the point of view expressed very clearly by someone in that community, go here and skip to about the 14:30 mark. It may not convince you, but it should at least give you an unambiguous and well-reasoned understanding of where they're coming from.
Anyway, I know I couldn't make their argument any better than that, so I won't try. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If your friends consider themselves Mormon, call them Mormons.
This is a valid point, to a certain extent. I'm all for reasonable self-definition.
Let me point out that if you go someplace where Mormonism is only known as a religion-- say, anywhere outside of Utah or Idaho- and say, "I'm Mormon," people are going to have a set of expectations that probably don't include the idea of cultural Mormonism.
Interestingly, I'm NOT uncomfortable with people saying that Mormons are not Christians, even though we self-identify as such. Hmm...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, would you feel comfortable calling those friends "Mormons?"
Would you be comfortable being called a Bahai'i?
I don't think there's a recognizable Baha'i culture, for what it's worth.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Speed:
quote:And I recognize that discontinuation of scripture study often precedes a loss of faith. But I don't accept a causal relationship between those activities.
And that's fine. I certainly don't believe reading scriptures will somehow act as an immovable bulwark against loss of faith. But I do believe that in many cases when we suffer a crisis of faith, a person who is well acquainted with their scriptures suffers less anguish than one who does not. If for nothing else the one who reads would stand a greater chance of remembering the scriptural guidance on the issue, whereas the one who has not read must look to other avenues.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Like the topical guide? Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:From the people I know who have lost faith, it is more the too educated issue. The unfaithful often have more knowledge and understanding of scriptures than the faithful, from my experience. They start losing their faith and desperately try to find it again, searching the scriptures for more understanding but instead getting more questions.
I have not found this to be the case at all. Certainly I have met people who fit this description, but the vast majority of inactive members I have talked to do not. From a purely anecdotal point of view (though I would point out that I've spoken with several thousand "less active" members over the course of my short, Church career so it's at least a lot of anecdotes ) the number one reason for leaving is never being very grounded in the Church to begin with. Be it converts who didn't get traction before slipping away or life-long members who grew up in partially active or completely inactive homes.
Hobbes Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Today the high councilman speaker started off his talk with how much he likes the Princess Bride (the movie) and how "Columbo" describes the book as having everything you could want in a book. He then drew then analogy to the Book of Mormon as the book with everything.
I waited for him to go to the child's response of "Grandpa, is this a kissing book?" as a correllary to some people's nitpicking of the Book of Mormon, but he never did.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I am perhaps the only person who has ever used Catcher in the Rye extensively in a sacrament meeting talk. Not as the bad example, either. I pulled quotes from it and everything.
Posted by JohnHansen (Member # 41) on :
Hobbes, I am curious how you came to have spoken with several thousand less active Latter-day Saints? I am inclined to believe that I haven't spoken to several thousand people period over the course of my long life. Literally "spoken with"? Recorded anecdotes?
The only thing I am certain of anymore is that I am not certain enough about anything to strongly express my opinion. To be so sure seems somewhat sophisticated if that word meant something more like sophomoric.
My opinion, though, on this matter is that a healthy plant generally dies when it is neglected or even tortured by its owner. Maybe it doesn't die completely but it produces little or no fruit and the leaves all whither and you think pretty much every day that you might as well pluck it out to make room for something better.
It's not the plant's fault.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Plenty of people are still fuming about the girl that dumped them in 1987, too.
I thought I asked you to never mention that again?!?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Of course, some plants are hardier than others.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Cultural Mormonism?
I'll be honest-- I think it's a bit ridiculous. I think you can culturally identify being from the mountain west/Utah; I don't think you can claim to be a Mormon without also declaring some allegiance to the faith.
Mormonism is still too young to be separated from its theological roots; it's not Judaism. It's not even anywhere near that much of a bulwark.
I've been thinking about this and wanted to acknowledge that this is a fair point. LDS culture, in my experience, is tied strongly to the faith. So much so, that if you lose your own faith, you can feel set adrift from your own culture. It's very alienating (not to put undue credit on either party for that alienation - it's just not easy to belong in the culture without sharing the beliefs).
There is Mormon culture, though. And I think people who feel alienated from their own cultural background sometimes want to reclaim some of it. They can find some community in people like themselves, and examine the culture and what they can still have. And they sometimes want to look for ways to delineate between culture and faith, perhaps in novel ways, as one way to make such cultural alienation less necessary.
But as it stands, it's still a stretch to say "I'm culturally Mormon [but not a believer]." So far, IMO, it's not easy to separate the culture from the belief and still have much left to work with.
My initial reaction was that the desire to inherit the culture is not ridiculous. I don't think the effort to do so is ridiculous. But the idea of a full-featured Mormon culture as something that can currently stand separate from the faith, well, I can agree that doesn't seem to be much of a thing, yet anyway.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Things I think of as Mormon cultural signifiers, based on my own experience, that don't appear to have anything to do with doctrine:
1) Jello as a side dish 2) White guys who're really into basketball 3) Arguments over which non-English language is harder to learn 4) A fondness for awkward comedy (i.e. Napoleon Dynamite) 5) Adults who really enjoy cosplay 6) Dressing up to visit family 7) Extremely horrible names, especially for girls 8) Very, very serious obsessions, be it conspiracy theories or science fiction fandom or knitting; this causes some overlap with nerd culture.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Plenty of people are still fuming about the girl that dumped them in 1987, too.
Year I was born, so that would be my mother.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: 7) Extremely horrible names, especially for girls
oh god, it's true. Hi, I'm Chastidee LaVernal Almah Moroni Young
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
9) Gorgeous women married to loser men.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
brb converting
Posted by JohnHansen (Member # 41) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Of course, some plants are hardier than others.
It doesn't matter how much heart a plant has, if you rob it of nourishment or poison it with herbicides you will kill it. The heartiest are not much harder to kill than a freshly planted seed if you put your mind to it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: 9) Gorgeous women married to loser men.
This is hardly unique to -- or even, as far as I can see, more common among -- Mormons, culturally or otherwise.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Things I think of as Mormon cultural signifiers, based on my own experience, that don't appear to have anything to do with doctrine:
1) Jello as a side dish 2) White guys who're really into basketball 3) Arguments over which non-English language is harder to learn 4) A fondness for awkward comedy (i.e. Napoleon Dynamite) 5) Adults who really enjoy cosplay 6) Dressing up to visit family 7) Extremely horrible names, especially for girls 8) Very, very serious obsessions, be it conspiracy theories or science fiction fandom or knitting; this causes some overlap with nerd culture.
This is what I'd say to those as a lifelong Mormon who grew up outside of Utah and now lives there: 1) Utah, baby boomer generation, dying out 2) US Mormon culture 3) US Mormon culture 4) US Mormon culture 5) Utah (also - guilty as charged. And I really enjoyed myself on BYU campus today. There was a Sexy Sax Man who kept wandering in and out of buildings playing "Careless Whisper") 6) Never seen this. Maybe Utah? 7) Utah, mostly the WWII generation. I'd say dying out, even though there are still plenty of Braydens and Jaidens, because those seem to be American trends in general. 8) I've only seen this in Mormon culture at the same rates that I've seen in in the general culture. There are plenty of pathologically "normal" Mormons, and they're just as weirded out by the weirdos as anyone else.
I have not identified any of these in LDS culture outside of the US, and granted, in the areas I lived the LDS church was relatively new, but there were areas of Tokyo I lived in with established LDS families and 3rd generation members.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
As to white guys playing basketball, many LDS ward buildings in the US are built with gyms, or "cultural halls," that feature basketball hoops and the appropriate floor paint. Playing basketball is a natural result, IMO. Volleyball is also played. If the buildings were built with racquetball courts instead for some reason, then "Mormon culture" would include white guys playing racquetball.
ETA: Sports at the church building could be one legitimate "cultural Mormon" thing. Many people who don't have or don't want ties to any other facet of the church come to play basketball or some other activity at the church gym.
Awkward comedy is, perhaps, the Mormon answer to comedies that revolve around sex, the main theme in Hollywood. Responding to the mainstream Hollywood culture with our own particular do's and don'ts does put us in awkward situations. A kiss doesn't automatically lead to a tumble on the sheets, in other words, and the consequences can be hilarious!
I have never heard of dressing up to visit family in a Mormon context. I don't know where this came from. Some people prefer to stay in their Sunday clothes all day (baby boomers in my experience) and family visits are often done on Sunday (for the same reasons anyone does family visits on Sunday, not for any particular religious reason). That's all I can think of.
Arguing over which language is hardest to learn would be directly related to everyone in the discussion having served a full-time mission outside the US. I served my mission in France and took about 6 months to really be comfortable speaking and listening to French as spoken by French people. Many missionaries go to Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking countries. Others may go to Japan or Taiwan. I don't think these arguments happen very often, certainly not often enough to be a cultural signifier. I've never been in one and I haven't ever heard one, and I've associated with many, many returned missionaries.
Cosplay? I think that's its own culture. Mormons so inclined will enjoy it just as much as anyone else.
If this is just baiting, then good job.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't understand why you would consider this baiting. Or be insulted by it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm not, and I didn't think it was. Just hedging my bets.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: 1) Jello as a side dish 2) White guys who're really into basketball 3) Arguments over which non-English language is harder to learn 4) A fondness for awkward comedy (i.e. Napoleon Dynamite) 5) Adults who really enjoy cosplay 6) Dressing up to visit family 7) Extremely horrible names, especially for girls 8) Very, very serious obsessions, be it conspiracy theories or science fiction fandom or knitting; this causes some overlap with nerd culture.
1) I admit that as often as I joke about jello, I've never really seen it served at the Mo potlucks I've been to. 2) My dad was crazy for basketball-- not the pro games or even the college stuff, but for the game itself. He passed his passion on to my older brother, and tried very hard to get me and my younger brother involved. He was atypical of the other Mo men I knew growing up. They enjoyed playing once a week; but they weren't passionate about the game the way Dad was. Dad didn't get this passion from Mormonism-- he didn't convert until he was 30 or so, and he's never lived in a Mo hub like Utah or Idaho. 3) Never heard this one. We'll joke about whose mission was more difficult, though. 4) Hm...this is a new one for me, too. 5) I don't even know what cosplay is, really. 6) Nope-- not among the Mo's I know. 7) Utah thing. The lifetime Mo's I grew up with in Texas and in Virginia have no such convention. 8) What Annie said.
*DISCLAIMER: Reading Monsters and Mormons which includes one of my stories, has me thinking that there are a lot of folk-tales and culture involving Mormons that I know nothing about.
So take my opinion with a grain of salt.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Jello was served at potlucks for my Dad's work when I was growing up, and there was not a disproportionate number of Mormons there. Also, Bill Cosby? Not Mormon.
Basketball courts in the churches was part of a churchwide initiative to essentially get youth off the streets.
3) You got me there, but I'm a theoretical linguist married to an applied linguist. 4) My husband hates awkward comedy. Except for maybe Monk. Though he got burned out and didn't finish it. How on earth can you start watching Monk and not finish it? 5) I don't enjoy cosplay, people who are into it kind of frighten me. I'd much rather discuss the relative difficulty of learning different languages. 6) Uh, someone else covered this. 7) I perceive this as being part of Mormon culture* 8) Sci fi, granted. Knitting? I guess. Dr. Who scarves? Ding ding ding.
But some Mormons really eschew the sci fi thing, since it lends itself to perversions like Head Six and Ansett.
So I acknowlegde there is Mormon Culture. The church's guidelines on not using the word Mormon specify it can be used in description of the culture (or did last time I checked them). I'm not going to argue whether someone could identify as a solely cultural Mormon. But it would be like moving to Canada to get away from being a US citizen, but then insisting on belonging to American culture. Maybe.
Wonderful baiting. Were you hoping someone would call you a master at that?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Also, Bill Cosby? Not Mormon.
That would be Jello as a dessert, NOT as a side dish.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
In thinking seriously about this, I think there is a sense in which disaffected Mormons are more hard put upon than disaffected Jews or Catholics. For while there is certainly guilt in those traditions if you are not practicing, the role of family in Latter Day Saint belief is such that one isn't just letting one's parents down. One is preventing them from returning to the hereafter with honor. (From a certain very OCD way of thinking). Due to my experiences with my family growing up, I plan to just be grateful for what I can get, rather than be upset if anyone doesn't make it. This includes me!
[ November 01, 2011, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:if you are not practicing, the role of family in Latter Day Saint belief is such that one isn't just letting one's parents down. One is preventing them from returning to the hereafter with honor. (From a certain very OCD way of thinking).
Let me reiterate that this is NOT what the doctrine teaches. Else Lehi, Joseph Smith, Abraham, Noah, and a whole slew of other prophets would be "returning without honor."
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think Jell-O as a side dish is a rural midwestern/western (call it central-continent) thing. I grew up in the city/suburbs and thought of it more as a dessert item and was startled the first time I went to a funeral at a small rural church and heard it referred to as a salad. I've since been to dozens of such funerals where the standard meal is ham buns, "salad" (jello) and cake.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Jello is a side dish-- not a salad-- in the South, too.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yep. Side dish which could be passed off as a dessert by a parent on a health kick at home but certainly not at a party.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Not that Tom's list is good (I wouldn't know, really), but just because a number of items don't apply to you doesn't mean that it isn't valid.
For instance, if a European was to make a list of "American Culture" aspects, they might include:
1) Fondness for red meat / hunting. 2) A love of guns in general. 3) Appreciation for fast and powerful cars and SUVs. 4) Following football and/or baseball. 5) Being a believer of a religion, typically Christianity. 6) Regularly eating fast food. 7) An inclination to watch reality TV shows.
And so on. Now not a single one of the above attributes apply to me. Does that mean that the list is crap? Maybe it is, but I can't just go through and say that these things don't apply to me and so it must be.
You can do the same for "Mexican-American Culture" or "Black Culture" or what have you.
Edit: If someone were to make a list of "Nebraska Culture", the number one item would be "Follows Husker Football". I would claim that this is valid, even though my wife and I do not do so.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: 1) Jello as a side dish 2) White guys who're really into basketball 3) Arguments over which non-English language is harder to learn 4) A fondness for awkward comedy (i.e. Napoleon Dynamite) 5) Adults who really enjoy cosplay 6) Dressing up to visit family 7) Extremely horrible names, especially for girls 8) Very, very serious obsessions, be it conspiracy theories or science fiction fandom or knitting; this causes some overlap with nerd culture.
Most the commenters who have taken issue with Tom's list (which I think was a good-faith effort) haven't simply said the list doesn't apply to them, but rather that they don't know many/any Mormons to whom it applies. If you didn't know anyone who followed Husker football, either 1) you aren't part of "Nebraska Culture" or 2) the perception of Nebraska Culture as being strongly correlated with following Husker football is fallacious. That so many Mormons on this thread (including me) don't see in themselves or those they know the attributes Tom suggested makes me think that his proposed correlates of "Mormon culture" are somewhat faulty.
For the record: 1) I've certainly been to lots of family reunions where jello dishes outnumber casseroles, but I agree this stereotype isn't strongly grounded in modern reality. I don't think I've seen more than a handful of Jello dishes at the 50 or so potlucks I've been to here in MA. 2) Basketball and yard work are two of the main male bonding rituals in my ward. 3) I'm with Scott; RMs (a phrase unique to Mormon culture) are more likely to fight about whose mission was harder, which might or might not include the difficulty of learning a language. 4) I don't see this; Napoleon Dynamite was overly popular with Mormons because it was written and produced by Mormons and set in Southern Idaho, not because of any inherent qualities. I can't think of other exemplars of awkward comedy that are unduly popular among Mormons. 5) I had to look up cosplay. 6) Only for Thanksgiving. 7) Maybe, although I think this is probably more a correlate of middle income America than anything else. 8) I haven't perceived excessive obsessiveness among Mormons vs. non-Mormons.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
If I, being a white male, made such a list in an attempt to describe Mexican-American culture, black culture, European culture, or any other culture, I would likely be accused of stereotyping and pigeonholing. I would be told that a list of 7 or 8 items does not a culture define, and maybe even that making a list at all is a poor way to try to define a culture. And who am I to try to define black culture, even if I know a lot of black people?
Certainly my list would be different than the one someone who is part of that culture might make. Would my list still be equally as valid as their own description of their culture? Possibly. But I wouldn't expect them to refrain from commenting on the points of my list, either, and explaining why they might be on there or discrediting them as myths, etc.
Posted by JohnHansen (Member # 41) on :
After debating a response something along the lines of Annie's I decided that TD was sarcastic or he thought he was saying something important and true so responding was in either case a waste of my time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* I was neither being sarcastic nor thinking that what I was saying was important. If I held AFR in higher regard, I'd be insulted that he'd think I'd think I could, in a list of under ten items, somehow authoritatively define a culture. Luckily, that isn't a problem.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Luckily, that isn't a problem.
Geez. That was charming.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Of interest might be http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com and it's various followers like Stuff Black People Like, Stuff Asian People Like, etc.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, I can be charming when people are being all insulting. Or I can not be charming. Were you planning to leap to my defense at some point, or would taking the high road have been lonely, per usual?
I mean, seriously, you know and I know that they're insulting me and being all defensive for no good reason. What do I accomplish by pretending otherwise?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, I can be charming when people are being all insulting. Or I can not be charming. Were you planning to leap to my defense at some point, or would taking the high road have been lonely, per usual?
I mean, seriously, you know and I know that they're insulting me and being all defensive for no good reason. What do I accomplish by pretending otherwise?
Hmm?
Posted by JohnHansen (Member # 41) on :
quote:Does that mean that the list is crap?
Generally the answer to your question is yes. Not because the list items do or do not apply personally but because the items are all forms of Jeff Foxworthy "you might be a redneck" jokes.
Yes, you might be a Mormon if you are alive and breathing and live in SLC but you might also be a Baptist or Jewish or Atheist.
None of the items on Tom's list are indicative of any particular culture, let alone anything you might call Mormon Culture, which in reality varies a lot from state to state and even ward to ward. And a casual observer of a tiny and peculiar subset of a culture whose primary lens is forum posts can't possibly have a decent enough handle on the whole complex big picture to say wise and important things about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's an excellent question, Scott. I wish I were qualified to answer it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
John, forgive me, but are you seriously implying that posts should be restricted to people who have wise and important things to say on any given topic? Because tumbleweeds would blow through the Internet if that were somehow enforced, I suspect.
---------
In related news, "trailer park culture" is different in France than it is in America. And I understand that geeks in Japan are geeky in slightly different ways than geeks in New York. *laugh*
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
*blink* I don't see where I was being insulting. I wasn't insulted and I wasn't trying to return the favor.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Tom, for the record, I wasn't trying to insult you. I figured you were trying to elucidate a list of aspects of Mormon culture and I was pointing out that that list didn't reflect Mormon culture as I've experienced it.
I don't know whether a distinct "Mormon culture" exists (although I'm more of a mind that it does than that it doesn't). I didn't find your list offensive or rude the way other commenters seem to have, but I also didn't think it reflected reality either.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't see where I was being insulting.
The implication of your previous comment, as I understood it -- "But I wouldn't expect them to refrain from commenting on the points of my list, either, and explaining why they might be on there or discrediting them as myths, etc." -- was that this was what I was doing; it's certainly John's implication, above. If I misunderstood your meaning, I apologize.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm wondering if someone hacked Tom's account.
I mean-- I try not to indulge in mind-reading, and heaven knows we haven't agreed on anything regarding religion since 1999...but the tone is waay weird.
Except for this:
quote:I decided that TD was sarcastic or he thought he was saying something important and true so responding was in either case a waste of my time.
...I didn't see anything that was insulting. Did I miss one of AFR's posts somewhere? Or are Tom's comments shadowing something else that's occurring on the board, and I'm just missing it?
...and to be honest, I'm probably the only one in the virtual universe that would have a problem with JH's post. Mild problem, mind you-- I don't like to speculate on what others are thinking. I don't think anyone else should, either.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I think Tom's list does a pretty good job of enumerating a few prominent aspects of Utah Mormon culture. But if we're talking about "Cultural Mormonism", I don't think awkward comedy and Jello salad are as relevant as, say, owning a Triple Combination and taking at least a passing interest in Church history.
Speaking from an operative term perspective, when you talk about "Cultural Mormonism," I think the "Mormonism" is at least as important as the "Culture." From what I've seen, anyway.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I specified that I was providing cultural signifiers I'd encountered that didn't seem to have anything to do with the church itself.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I don't see where I was being insulting.
The implication of your previous comment, as I understood it -- "But I wouldn't expect them to refrain from commenting on the points of my list, either, and explaining why they might be on there or discrediting them as myths, etc." -- was that this was what I was doing; it's certainly John's implication, above. If I misunderstood your meaning, I apologize.
I DO hold you in high enough regard that I didn't assume you were seriously trying to make a blanket definition of Mormon culture, or that you couldn't do a fair job of it if you were really trying. My post was in response to Xavier's, who IMO took it more seriously than you did. I was wondering if you were baiting us just a little.
ETA: If you were simply providing a list of things you've observed, that's perfectly fine with me. I didn't think you'd be offended by any comments made on it. The list got turned into something more than it was intended to be.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nah. It honestly never crossed my mind that anyone on that list could be interpreted as even slightly insulting.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I specified that I was providing cultural signifiers I'd encountered that didn't seem to have anything to do with the church itself.
I know. I wasn't implying that your list was bad. But it seems like a lot of people assumed that you were saying that people who identify themselves as Mormon, outside the Priesthood orthodoxy, are doing so because they can't give up the Jello salad.
I know that wasn't what you had in mind when you made the list, but I thought it might be worth saying. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
In the middle of all this, we have scholarette's #9:
quote:gorgeous women married to loser men
Which is potentially far more insulting and stereotypifying than Tom's whole list put together.
But alas-- I do know some of these couples. They drive me insane. The only defense is that the same thing occurs fairly frequently in society outside the Church.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
It's not an insulting list. I think it just has a few cliches and myths on it that we just can't resist talking about, lest somebody actually think they are in force.
Posted by JohnHansen (Member # 41) on :
Tom,
Where did you get the impression that a white guy liking basketball would in any way signify that said white guy was LDS or a member of something called Mormon culture? Maybe I just am not understanding what you mean by "Mormon cultural signifiers". It is items like this that make me nearly certain that you can't have been serious. Which makes me think you were joking. But if you do seriously believe that white guys really liking basketball is something that can be used to identify the culture they are from then how could there be any sense in trying to refute such a nonsensical belief? So in both cases response is nonsense too unless the response is simply LOL.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I mean, seriously, you know and I know that they're insulting me and being all defensive for no good reason.
I don't know what you know, but I know nothing of the kind. I don't see anyone being insulting (or particularly insulted, actually, except maybe pooka and JH) until you took that slam at AFR. Which seemed to not even be about this thread, but about a larger history that I appear to have missed.
From my perspective, it was an incredibly disproportionate response to something another poster (not even a direct response to AFR) had said.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:My post was in response to Xavier's, who IMO took it more seriously than you did.
Nah. In fact with the strange direction this thread took, I now wish I hadn't posted.
I just saw Tom make a list, and lots of people respond with what I interpreted as "Bullet points 1, 3, 7, and 8 don't apply to me so this list is stupid." It seemed like people were going to keep on making those types of posts, and I wanted to respond that these posters were kind of missing the point.
The point that those making posts countering the list were also saying "and I haven't seen this at all elsewhere in Mormons" for some of the bullet items is a valid one.
Edit: I also don't think it helped that my post became the top of page post for the second page.
Posted by JohnHansen (Member # 41) on :
quote:It honestly never crossed my mind that anyone on that list could be interpreted as even slightly insulting.
Tom, I think you are way too smart and long lived on the Hatrack forums for it to have never crossed your mind that some of your items might be considered to be insulting. If you list anything that a reader thinks of as silly or stupid and associate that thing with the reader's culture it does not take a genius to conclude that there is at least a slight chance that the reader will be slightly insulted.
But all would be made clear if you just explained how you came to conclude that these items somehow signify Mormon culture through your own experience. Then we could all say "Ah, I see how you came to that conclusion. Still a bad conclusion, but I understand how you drew it."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: ... It seemed like people were going to keep on making those types of posts, and I wanted to respond that these posters were kind of missing the point.
I thought it was a good point. For example, the full stuffwhitepeoplelike list is about 128 points, I wouldn't expect more than, say, 50 of them to apply to any given person that identifies with that particular culture, but that doesn't stop it from being a fun list.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Man, that list is exactly the sort of thing it is silly to get knicker-twisted about, and yet here I'm watching it happen!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Man, that list is exactly the sort of thing it is silly to get knicker-twisted about, and yet here I'm watching it happen!
Hmm-- I'm not sure that's occurred. People are saying that Tom's list isn't really applicable, but I don't see anyone getting upset over the list (maybe AFR? Only if you don't believe him when he says he isn't upset).
I think the follow up discussion-- tangential to the list-- is where people are beginning to raise their voices.
Posted by JohnHansen (Member # 41) on :
quote:I don't like to speculate on what others are thinking. I don't think anyone else should, either.
My apologies! You are right. I should have just replied, What were you thinking, Tom?
Posted by JohnHansen (Member # 41) on :
I would avoid assuming whether voices are raised or not and especially avoid any kind of assumptions as to the state of other people's knickers.
My voice is certainly not raised nor are my knickers twisted. I just very calmly and rationally think Tom's list is silly and that there is nothing worthy about it to defend. As usual I should have followed my initial plan and ignored the post.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You'll notice that I haven't attempted to defend it. Engaging in an explanation of why I put those items on the list, as you have requested, would IMO constitute taking it more seriously than it should be. Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You'll notice that I haven't attempted to defend it. Engaging in an explanation of why I put those items on the list, as you have requested, would IMO constitute taking it more seriously than it should be.
Your view of things you think of as Mormon cultural signifiers, based on your own experience, that don't appear to have anything to do with doctrine, was refuted by multiple people. We're not in your head so we can't know why[/] you put those items on the list or [i]why you don't wish to defend your position but the important fact still remains - your opinion on what constitute cultural signifiers isn't accurate, according to multiple qualified posters.
Debating the intent or perceived intent of the list is irrelevant. The list can be insulting or not, in the end it was found to be inaccurate.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
My knickers definitely were not twisted by the list. I thought it was amusing. Sounds like others have gotten upset over some of the list items, but not me.
If it had been an attempt at baiting, I would have been a little upset, but still not very.
Like any sycophant, I'm just flattered that I'm actually on Tom's radar! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:your opinion on what constitute cultural signifiers isn't accurate, according to multiple qualified posters
I would say that this is not an accurate summation of the conversation above. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Without loosing my dog into this fight, I felt like Tom's post, while not even close to perfect, still touched on some Utah Mormon culture.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Man, that list is exactly the sort of thing it is silly to get knicker-twisted about, and yet here I'm watching it happen!
Hmm-- I'm not sure that's occurred.
It is a slow and inexorable process; thankfully not many of you are.
But if you still don't think it's happening after capax's post, dunno what to tell you!
(pps, this is mostly a lighthearted post!)
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
This thread got way funny.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
One of the initial sticking points I had with the idea of Cultural Mormons was that Mormonism doesn't really have a culture. It's not old enough to have developed a set of cultural practices or tendencies that exist independent of the faith. I stated that what people take for cultural Mormonism is actually Utah Regionalism.
Tom stipulated that the things in his list are cultural identifiers independent of the Mormon faith.
The objections to his list have largely purposed to show that Tom's list is either not applicable in general (according to the objector's POV), or are Utah Regionalisms. We haven't missed the point of the list, Xavier-- we've just disagreed with Tom's findings.
quote: Engaging in an explanation of why I put those items on the list, as you have requested, would IMO constitute taking it more seriously than it should be.
You took it seriously enough to think people were insulting you when they objected to it. Why the change in heart?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You took it seriously enough to think people were insulting you when they objected to it.
No, that's not why I thought they were insulting me. I'm fine with all the objections.
(As a side note: do you believe that what you're calling a "Utah regionalism" is something common among non-Mormons in Utah as well?)
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
The field of Mormon cultural studies is complicated, in dispute, lacking solid data (so prone to anecdote) and in need of better theoretical models.
Which is to say: you people are all somewhat right, but also pretty much wrong.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:do you believe that what you're calling a "Utah regionalism" is something common among non-Mormons in Utah as well?
Good point-- I don't know.
quote: that's not why I thought they were insulting me.
Also a fair point-- sorry.
quote:The field of Mormon cultural studies is complicated, in dispute, lacking solid data (so prone to anecdote) and in need of better theoretical models.
Which is to say: you people are all somewhat right, but also pretty much wrong.
Prove it! Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
I'm neither Mormon, nor religious, but have a fair amount of contact with Mormon families and here's my idea of non-religious Mormon culture (no jello, cosplay, or jello-based cosplay).
The basic element of Mormon culture that I see from the outside looking in is the interconnectedness (if that's a word). All of the families are constantly fully involved in all of the other families.
That type of community would feel a little constrictive to me, regardless of faith, but I bet a lot of people love that feeling of community and miss it when it's gone. Especially if they grew up in it.
I get that a lot or all of that time spent together is for directly religious purpose, lessons, services, etc..., but not all of the benefit people derive from it is faith related.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BBegley: jello-based cosplay
That's just not right.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nor is jello-based Cosby.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think he tends more to the pudding-based.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BBegley: jello-based cosplay
That's just not right.
Oh, now I'm offended.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Scott:
I don't have to -- you all already did.
BBegley:
I have two words for you: Matthew Barney (and, yes, he was raised Mormon).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Oh, now I'm offended.
I know that's what the Young Mens and Young Womens organizations in the ward and stake attempt to do--provide the youth with a significant, regular experience that combines cultural and spiritual aspects in an appropriate way. It's not always well-handled, however, and certainly not immersive. I agree that the church doesn't have enough of a culture for its youth to "consume and create via Mormonism rather than apart from it." I wonder if something like that is even possible with the church's no fence sitters philosophy. It's hard to see the church being comfortable being just an environment and not an active force in someone's life.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It's hard to see the church being comfortable being just an environment and not an active force in someone's life.
I'm not sure that Zalmoxis was proposing this. What makes you think he was?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm just trying to imagine the church becoming a complete enough cultural environment to replace the outside culture that the church's youth are assimilating. I can't see it happening. The church is too focused. That's just something that popped into my head while reading the article. It's not necessarily what Zalmoxis was saying.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
My problem with the idea of having a "Mormon Culture" outside and apart from faith is that it cheapens the mission and reason for the culture's existence (and yes, there are parts of the culture that are more secular). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Religion with spiritual goals tied to Salvation based on Faith. To try and reduce it, like Mormon Stories does, to a set of shared culture and history is near treasonous. It has doctrines, no matter how loosely developed, that make direct claims about the purpose of life and existence with real world consequences along with eternal ones.
Those like John Dehlin who are trying to change the LDS Church while not even believing in its core faith claims make appeals to "Mormon Culture" as a reason to stay seem undesirable. There are those of us who are making sacrifices of our lives, if you will, in the name of Jesus Christ out of devotion to God and what is seen as His Church. To have those who don't believe push their agendas from the inside is more or less an act of insurgent war. There is nothing wrong with wanting to believe and not, but too many don't believe and are happy in that situation and want others to follow them in the unbelief. There is Mormon scriptures about such a person.
Now for my harsh conclusion:
If you want to feel the Love of God and want to believe, then continue attending. Do all that is asked of you for Jesus said those who do His Will can know the truth. To those who don't believe and do not have the intention of doing so, either attend as a silent ghost or don't attend at all. The idea of "Mormon culture" is killing Mormonism, and those who are pushing that there is such a thing (no matter if there really is) know this and are using it to their advantage.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To have those who don't believe push their agendas from the inside is more or less an act of insurgent war.
Given the two options, I'd go with "less."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I wouldn't call it insurgent war, but I would call it apostasy.
Posted by talsmitde (Member # 9780) on :
I can't think about Mormon culture without thinking about Elder Dallin Oaks' talks about gospel culture and how no current culture includes all that is needed in a true gospel culture (April and October 2003 General Conferences). As someone who identifies as orthodox LDS, I find the talks to be helpful reminders.
I'm sad to hear that John no longer believes the Church's claims about the restoration, especially because Mormon Stories has been helpful for many of my friends who had questions and felt out in the cold because they had questions.
I agree with Occasional that cutting out the "roots" of the truth claims fundamentally undermines trying to preserve what the person attempting the cutting sees as the best of Mormonism. With that said, there's a lot of stuff that accumulates in the surrounding culture that's not gospel truth, and insofar as Mormon Stories and this survey help people focus on the gospel of Jesus Christ and actually keeping covenants, I support the work.
To give two contemporary examples: people in the Intermountain West or South who identify as orthodox LDS but pursue harsh measures against illegal migrants and their families despite the Church's statements, or those who support education for boys/men to a greater extent than education for girls/women . . . I don't see them as orthodox, but rather as "Cafeteria" or "Menu" Mormons, all too willing to let local culture and false traditions override their commitment to the gospel. In my experience, many of my friends who are Facebook friends with John Dehlin (I'm not), have been most frustrated by this kind of hypocrisy/apostasy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I wouldn't call it insurgent war, but I would call it apostasy.
Well, sure. But there's a very important distinction, namely that being an apostate is not a violent act of destruction.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"helpful for many of my friends who had questions and felt out in the cold because they had questions."
Great for them, but I have the exact opposite experiences related to me by others. Those who get involved with Mormon Matters quickly question their faith and then lose it. This mostly happens not because of the questions, but because of the kind of answers given stand in direct conflict with gospel truths. They minimize the doctrines in a way to make it of less consequence until they don't believe in anything. Those that "pursue harsh measures against illegal migrants and their families despite the Church's statements, or those who support education for boys/men to a greater extent than education for girls/women" remain strong in the faith regardless of what you and they think is hypocrisy. However, those who follow John Dehlin, who considers his role as an un-ordained Apostle even if never claiming the title, are in every instance filled with hypocrisy/apostasy and not just one or two items.
"I wouldn't call it insurgent war, but I would call it apostasy."
Spiritually speaking, they are the same thing. Tom, the definition of "war" doesn't just include physical violence and destruction. Do you believe that "culture wars" as used in the media is not really a war? What words would you use when there is a struggle where one or the other side has serious conflict? Maybe the word "conflict"?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I wouldn't call it insurgent war, but I would call it apostasy.
Well, sure. But there's a very important distinction, namely that being an apostate is not a violent act of destruction.
It can be, did you read Cain and Abel?
Posted by talsmitde (Member # 9780) on :
See, Occasional, the assertion that those who go out of their way to persecute migrant workers or try to minimize women's potential "stay strong in the faith" strikes me as quite wrong. Something about lips drawing close but hearts remaining far. I think we agree about the importance of scripture study, daily prayer, church and temple attendance, tithing, etc., but we may have to agree to disagree about what we consider apostasy and hypocrisy.
Imho, the fact that people turn to sites like Mormon Matters suggests that there's a desire/need for answers that's somehow going unmet. I also think anyone who thinks John Dehlin is some sort of unordained apostle are way out there. He wasn't the first one to raise questions or provide a forum for discussing things. And I think I agree with you on how we balance answers. How much does Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger matter? Not much, in my view (others, of course, disagree), but to completely deny it, or efforts by well-meaning individuals to portray Joseph Smith as infallible from birth to death (a portrayal he vigorously fought), sets people up to experience great disillusionment when they find out that these false, non-doctrinal portrayals aren't actually true.
For the record, I have nine mutual Facebook friends with John Dehlin. Of those nine, eight have gone through the temple, all of those eight are actively participating, and six (in my not-so-humble, judgmental opinion) do I consider to be living in line with all gospel standards, and other three are all rather good people who care for others and are actively striving to build a better world. Their alienation from the Church stems from growing up amidst the kind of hypocrisy you've asserted is "strong in the faith."
I don't want to re-litigate the culture wars with you, nor will I, but suffice it to say that I don't think either side had/has all of the truth, or all of the Gospel.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Those that "pursue harsh measures against illegal migrants and their families despite the Church's statements, or those who support education for boys/men to a greater extent than education for girls/women" remain strong in the faith regardless of what you and they think is hypocrisy.
I would submit that these people continue to claim to be strong in the faith, and that this claim -- perhaps made falsely, and not contradicted -- might accelerate other people's departure from the church.
quote:Do you believe that "culture wars" as used in the media is not really a war?
That is precisely what I believe, yes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: The idea of "Mormon culture" is killing Mormonism, and those who are pushing that there is such a thing (no matter if there really is) know this and are using it to their advantage.
So it doesn't even really have to exist? Merely advancing the idea of mormon culture is a tool purposefully used to aid in 'killing Mormonism?'
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:"I wouldn't call it insurgent war, but I would call it apostasy."
Spiritually speaking, they are the same thing.
There's a difference in the way that we deal with apostates vs. those that seek the destruction of the church. To the Zoramites, we send Alma and his sons; to the king-men, we send Captain Moroni.
Metaphorically speaking, of course. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Yes Samprimary, because many who are advocating there is a Mormon culture are using that as a way to de-value and reject the claims of its divine nature. They are trying desperately to make it into secular Judaism where its supernatural claims and Priesthood authority are easily dismissed, replaced with social tradition and community authority. They want to be atheists in a theist religion and still have influence.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's fascinating how much insight you have into the minds of the enemies of Mormonism, who seek to kill it. How on Earth do you know all of this with such authority, Occasional? Do you regularly speak with 'secular Mormons'? Have you read papers they've written on the subject? Do you hang around these God-killing secular Mormons so well that you can be expected to know what they're thinking on very complicated topics?
Or are you just...guessing, overreacting, and using inflammatory language in doing so as you're known to do when the topic of religion in general and Mormonism in particular comes up?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Cool. I always wanted to be an insurgent warrior and it turns out I don't even have to leave my cushy chair.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's interesting how when someone does things to promote Mormonism, they're well-intentioned and not trying to destroy anything, except maybe evil and sin in the world or something. But when someone does something that even smacks of weakening the influence of Mormonism (or lots of -isms, for that matter)...well. They're engaged in a culture war-which they started. They're trying to kill the church. Kill it. Such charged language.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Occasional, I'm interested in something very different from what John Dehlin is doing, and if you can't make that distinction then I'm afraid that we don't have a lot to talk about. I mean when I say they need to be yoked together. And I"m specifically talking about actual cultural production of works for art as opposed to touch feely substitutes for attending the three hour block each week.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Or to put things another way: interesting discussion, but very little of what's been said here on this page so far actually relates to what I wrote about. I'm talking about Mormon culture for active LDS -- not cultural Mormonism for inactive/semi-active LDS.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Yes Samprimary, because many who are advocating there is a Mormon culture are using that as a way to de-value and reject the claims of its divine nature.
Are you asserting that this is taking place, for instance, here? And how? Mindreading?
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: They want to be atheists in a theist religion and still have influence.
A 'theist religion' — as opposed to what? There some atheist religions wandering about?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
If they have lots of holidays, I'm in.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"There some atheist religions wandering about?"
No, but there are atheists who have reconciled their religious upbringing as a form of socialization. Since they want to remain part of the tradition they were raised in for any number of reasons (don't want to be alienated by family, see themselves as part of the community, hold some value in parts of the religion, etc.) then they seek to bring it down to a more secular level. This is often done by stressing doctrines as mythical and allegorical, like interpreting a novel. The next step is since the religion is not really divine, but only a way to conceptualize moral or social ideals, then leadership positions are honorary at best and hold no real power. What then follows, to try and make it more secular, is constant pressure to have the Church change its stances to conform to (almost always liberal) worldly political positions. Maybe this is rare, but its been discussed in Mormonism enough to be recognized.
Here are some reading materials to get a handle on what I am talking about when I talk about cultural Mormons:
quote:I often tell people that 'Culturally, I am a Mormon." What this means, is that my entire family is composed of practicing Mormons, descended from pioneers. It means that I was raised with (and am proud of) my Mormon sensibilities. It means that I retain the "seek and ye shall find" attitude instilled within me at a young age. It also means that I grew up with enormous cans of dried beans, rice and flour under my bed and in every empty space
The reason that I do not simply identify as either "Mormon" or LDS, is because I am not practicing and have enormous conflicts and quandaries. This does not divide me from my past or upbringing.
I would however, point out that the church's involvement and stance regarding Proposition 8 in California was extremely secular. Aside from being divisive and very mortifying (I felt) This, of all things, made me feel for the very first time distinctly apart from Mormonism. I think that it is ironic that the schism in my reality is born not of conflict with the doctrine or spiritual concepts of the church, but with its involvement in wholly secular matters.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:A 'theist religion' — as opposed to what? There some atheist religions wandering about?
I am considering finding a religious community that is atheist. (Atheism isn't a very interesting religion, but a religion can be atheist)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No, but there are atheists who have reconciled their religious upbringing as a form of socialization. Since they want to remain part of the tradition they were raised in for any number of reasons (don't want to be alienated by family, see themselves as part of the community, hold some value in parts of the religion, etc.) then they seek to bring it down to a more secular level. This is often done by stressing doctrines as mythical and allegorical, like interpreting a novel. The next step is since the religion is not really divine, but only a way to conceptualize moral or social ideals, then leadership positions are honorary at best and hold no real power. What then follows, to try and make it more secular, is constant pressure to have the Church change its stances to conform to (almost always liberal) worldly political positions. Maybe this is rare, but its been discussed in Mormonism enough to be recognized.
Again, strange how when atheists or even just agnostics or doubters do this, they're making war on religion-trying to kill it, even. For everyone. When religious people do it, especially when they're the right religion, well. Then they're just spreading the faith, doing good work, and they're well-intentioned, too.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Here is more links if anyone still doubts there are secular Mormons:
The Chosen is a book loved by them. As you see John Dehlin is right in the middle of this discussion:
quote:There are no self-identified secular Mormons? Really?
There is nothing analogous to Conservative Jews (which I take to mean somewhat progressive and non-literal) within Mormonism? Nothing?
“We still think of Mormon identification as essentially binary.”
Do we? I’m not so sure about that. Not in my experience, anyway.
I see orthodox Mormons….jack Mormons…liberal Mormons…moderate Mormons…secular Mormons….every day. All around me. And they do tend to cluster in groups. Many of them may not have brick and mortar religious homes — but they have online homes, and they have social homes.
It’s true that we’re a young faith — so these groups have yet to gain critical mass. But I see a very wide spectrum in my Mormon associations. Very wide.
quote:Huntsman “may be living a brand of Mormonism that doesn’t have a name for itself yet - the equivalent of reform Mormonism,’’ said Joanna Brooks, a literature professor at San Diego State University and a Mormon who blogs on religion and culture at religiondispatches.org. That is, she said, “someone who is culturally Mormon, who identifies with the tradition, who has been shaped by Mormon thought in his upbringing, but doesn’t necessarily maintain orthodoxy on doctrinal beliefs.’
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:A 'theist religion' — as opposed to what? There some atheist religions wandering about?
I am considering finding a religious community that is atheist. (Atheism isn't a very interesting religion, but a religion can be atheist)
I know some atheists who need a religion so desperately that they latch onto some other cause and treat it with religious fervor (and believe in it with unyielding religious faith no matter what). It's... pretty sad.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
That would explain professional sports.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Occasional:
No doubt there exist people who call themselves secular Mormons.
I'm just saying that such a label is silly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:A 'theist religion' — as opposed to what? There some atheist religions wandering about?
I am considering finding a religious community that is atheist. (Atheism isn't a very interesting religion, but a religion can be atheist)
I know some atheists who need a religion so desperately that they latch onto some other cause and treat it with religious fervor (and believe in it with unyielding religious faith no matter what). It's... pretty sad.
Why sad? There are plenty of causes worthy of devotion. Some more worthy than some religions. I would, for example, much prefer a person to be devoted to helping the poor than to be devoted to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Scott R, in what way is it silly? That someone would call another person that or a person would call themselves that? Not that I have a positive feeling about the label as noted, but I wouldn't call it silly so much as misguided for those who either self label or live like one.
As one Holly Welker states before listing "Mormon reformers" both in and out of the LDS Church:
quote:As far as I'm concerned, my activity in the Mormon church is irrelevant to my identity as a Mormon. Mormons call themselves saints; I suppose these days I'm a secular saint rather than a devout one. But that indelible mark made on the collective Mormon psyche by the trek across the plains? It's as vivid and deep on my psyche as on anyone's. What it marks is not my relationship to orthodoxy but to sacrifice, landscape, the unknown, and change.
I really liked this rebuttal to her comments.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's silly in that the word Mormon has connotations to the general public which are explicitly not met in the usage of the individual claiming to be a 'secular Mormon.'
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Scott R, in what way is it silly? That someone would call another person that or a person would call themselves that? Not that I have a positive feeling about the label as noted, but I wouldn't call it silly so much as misguided for those who either self label or live like one.
As one Holly Welker states before listing "Mormon reformers" both in and out of the LDS Church:
quote:As far as I'm concerned, my activity in the Mormon church is irrelevant to my identity as a Mormon. Mormons call themselves saints; I suppose these days I'm a secular saint rather than a devout one. But that indelible mark made on the collective Mormon psyche by the trek across the plains? It's as vivid and deep on my psyche as on anyone's. What it marks is not my relationship to orthodoxy but to sacrifice, landscape, the unknown, and change.
It seems to be that the rebuttal makes a rather serious and damning assumption about the writer of the original author. And one for which I found no evidence. Mr. West asserts several times that Ms. Welker and others like her have changed their beliefs for convenience or in order to "seek the praise of the world". I think it every bit as likely that Ms. Welker (and others like her) have simply followed their reason or their conscience.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
kmbboots, maybe your right. The point still stands though as Scott R points out. She is not a Mormon in any meaningful way. In my personal estimation she needs to be called out for faithlessness and lack of proper devotion to the truth claims of Mormonism. Regardless, the point of the rebuttal is that she is defining herself by doubts and not faith.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:A 'theist religion' — as opposed to what? There some atheist religions wandering about?
I am considering finding a religious community that is atheist. (Atheism isn't a very interesting religion, but a religion can be atheist)
I know some atheists who need a religion so desperately that they latch onto some other cause and treat it with religious fervor (and believe in it with unyielding religious faith no matter what). It's... pretty sad.
Why sad? There are plenty of causes worthy of devotion. Some more worthy than some religions. I would, for example, much prefer a person to be devoted to helping the poor than to be devoted to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
What's sad is when people apply the same blinkered, uncritical, non-skeptical zeal normally associated with religion to their cause of choice. It precludes the possibility that their devotion to that cause is misguided. And so, if their cause is misguided, it can result in them achieving terrible results while fervently believing that they are doing the right thing.
Ideally, atheists should be skeptics who understand fallibility, but in practice they often aren't. They're simply people who don't like religion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:A 'theist religion' — as opposed to what? There some atheist religions wandering about?
I am considering finding a religious community that is atheist. (Atheism isn't a very interesting religion, but a religion can be atheist)
I know some atheists who need a religion so desperately that they latch onto some other cause and treat it with religious fervor (and believe in it with unyielding religious faith no matter what). It's... pretty sad.
Why sad? There are plenty of causes worthy of devotion. Some more worthy than some religions. I would, for example, much prefer a person to be devoted to helping the poor than to be devoted to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
What's sad is when people apply the same blinkered, uncritical, non-skeptical zeal normally associated with religion to their cause of choice. It precludes the possibility that their devotion to that cause is misguided. And so, if their cause is misguided, it can result in them achieving terrible results while fervently believing that they are doing the right thing.
Ideally, atheists should be skeptics who understand fallibility, but in practice they often aren't. They're simply people who don't like religion.
Blinkered, uncritical, non-skeptical zeal that precludes the possibility that their devotion to that cause is misguided is just as sad when it is religious. And, if their cause is misguided, it can just as easily result in them achieving terrible results while fervently believing that they are doing the right thing.
Added: There are plenty of examples in both of our religions (okay more in mine but we have been at it longer) to support that. Goodness, just look at the fervently believing Catholic bishops who have been enabling child rapists. They were fervently following orders from the Vatican and fervently believing they were protecting the Church.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oops, I think we're talking past each other!
So, what I was saying is that I hoped that atheists would be better than religious people in this regard. But often, they aren't. The fact that they aren't makes me sad. I wasn't saying they are worse than religious people, I was saying I was sad they weren't as consistently better as I would like them to be.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah. I see. Okay. You know, some religious people aren't all that bad and blinkered either. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Heh, I know! I also think the Judeo-Christian tradition has overall been an overwhelmingly positive force for humanity and moral knowledge. But that doesn't stop me from thinking that moral, skeptical atheism is a step in the direction we should ultimately go.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Oops, I think we're talking past each other!
So, what I was saying is that I hoped that atheists would be better than religious people in this regard. But often, they aren't. The fact that they aren't makes me sad. I wasn't saying they are worse than religious people, I was saying I was sad they weren't as consistently better as I would like them to be.
I see your point, as an atheist I too am disappointed with my own wasted potential. Although honestly, atheism (in my opinion) is less about humanism and reaching potential and more about freeing oneself from the shackles of mythology and regulations set by crazy people in the distant past. There are plenty of atheists who are humanists and activists but their activities have nothing to do with wether or not magic is real, they help their fellow man because they love them and seeing -insert favored bad thing here- hurts their faith in goodness and the value of a human life just the same as a theist in the same situation.
Atheism is a lack of belief in the unbelievable, I have never found it be indicative of potential or willingness to help others.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: kmbboots, maybe your right. The point still stands though as Scott R points out. She is not a Mormon in any meaningful way. In my personal estimation she needs to be called out for faithlessness and lack of proper devotion to the truth claims of Mormonism. Regardless, the point of the rebuttal is that she is defining herself by doubts and not faith.
You didn't even read what she said about herself. *You're* defining her by her doubts-she clearly believes in many things, things she even mentioned in the paragraph you quoted!
But then it's easy to make that sort of mistake when you show up to an issue having long since made up your mind.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The point still stands though as Scott R points out.
Scott R said this:
quote:the word Mormon has connotations to the general public which are explicitly not met in the usage of the individual claiming to be a 'secular Mormon.'
NOT THIS:
quote:she needs to be called out for faithlessness and lack of proper devotion to the truth claims of Mormonism.
From the Church's standpoint regarding treatment of 'secular Mormons,' I don't believe people who refute the prophets' authority and deny the divinity of the Book of Mormon should be given callings. That's just good sense-- you don't let the Young Earth Creationist teach evolutionary biology, for example. Otherwise, Christ Himself gave us the guidelines for how to treat those who are apostate:
3 Nephi 18
quote: 22 And behold, ye shall ameet together oft; and ye shall not forbid any man from coming unto you when ye shall meet together, but suffer them that they may come unto you and forbid them not;
23 But ye shall pray for them, and shall not cast them out; and if it so be that they come unto you oft ye shall pray for them unto the Father, in my name.
24 Therefore, hold up your light that it may shine unto the world. Behold I am the light which ye shall hold up—that which ye have seen me do. Behold ye see that I have prayed unto the Father, and ye all have witnessed.
25 And ye see that I have commanded that none of you should go away, but rather have commanded that ye should come unto me, that ye might feel and see; even so shall ye do unto the world; and whosoever breaketh this commandment suffereth himself to be led into temptation.
[...]
28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;
29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.
30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.
31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered.
32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.
33 Therefore, keep these sayings which I have commanded you that ye come not under condemnation; for wo unto him whom the Father condemneth.
Even though Christ is speaking specifically of those who are unbaptized in the latter verses, verses 22-25 are quite clear on how we should conduct ourselves.
If Saul was deemed to be redeemable, even after having helped murder Steven, surely we can do no less for our brothers and sisters.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Though I find reading a discussion about the mechanics of a religion I have never been a member of to be comparable to watching paint dry, I'm in the middle of my first front-to-back reading of the Book of Mormon, and thought perhaps this thread may prove educational.
And I want to say that, having personally seen people kill themselves and other people (and in one case, attempt to blow up an elementary school with female students) due to religious and political feuds, I find the application of the term "insurgent war" to refer to the actions of a few peaceful apostates to be particularly annoying. "Insurgent" has the explicit connotation of violent insurrection, especially when pared with "war." I dislike incendiary language in general. It hampers rationality, inspires anger, and, eventually, can lead to actual violence... and the Church has more than enough of that in it's history. Call a spade a spade, not a backhoe.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Very well put.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered."
There isn't enough of this going on in the LDS Church. Too much pandering to PR and trying to not look disagreeable. Sin and unbelief are rampant and no one is doing anything about it because a few newspapers and loud voices are screaming and gnashing teeth against the real and very specific teachings of Mormonism and Commandments of the Lord! The only real consolation I have is that a lot of them ex-communicate themselves (go inactive).
"*You're* defining her by her doubts-she clearly believes in many things, things she even mentioned in the paragraph you quoted!"
Fine, but whatever she believes it is NOT Mormonism.
As for war:
There was War in Heaven that continues here on Earth. Its not the "Disagreement in Heaven" that we read about.
It is not uncommon to hear of spritual war that has nothing to do with bloodshed.
quote:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
There is warrior imagery in how the faithful are to protect themselves against the evils of this world.
quote:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.
Although armed conflict and violence are the main meaning of the word "War," others are recognized. For instance, Mariam Webster defines it also to include:
quote:2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>
Therefore, there is a war going on. It might not be with bombs and bullets, but it is with ideas and spiritual conflicts.
[ November 09, 2011, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There isn't enough of this going on in the LDS Church. Too much pandering to PR and trying to not look disagreeable. Sin and unbelief are rampant and no one is doing anything about it because a few newspapers and loud voices are screaming and gnashing teeth against the real and very specific teachings of Mormonism and Commandments of the Lord! The only real consolation I have is that a lot of them ex-communicate themselves (go inactive).
*snort* It's illustrative of your thoughts that that's a consolation to you. It's also fascinating that of what Scott said, you seized on the one portion that could be twisted to fit your meaning-excluding the rest.
You're also totally right that no one is doing anything about it! Because the only definition of 'doing something about it!' is to cast them out-excommunicate them, shun them, scorn them, make war on them like they do on you.
Right?
quote:Fine, but whatever she believes it is NOT Mormonism.
An unsurprising refusal to examine your own thoughts on the subject. "She don't believe in nothin'! She defines herself by doubt and unbelief!" "Umm...no, she doesn't. You're completely wrong." "Fine, but she ain't Mormon!"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Occasional: These are instructions to the elder Alma regarding a very large rift in the church. Believers and unbelievers were contending sharply with each other, fist fights, and there was a significant clique actively going from church to church trying to convince everybody to stop believing.
Why should the church aggressively seek to corner people into fessing up to their unbelief and telling them they are not welcome anymore? That runs contrary to the D&C which instructs,
quote:3 Nevertheless ye are commanded never to cast any one out from your public meetings, which are held before the world.
4 Ye are also commanded not to cast any one who belongeth to the church out of your sacrament meetings; nevertheless, if any have trespassed, let him not partake until he makes reconciliation. (this is in regards to communion)
5 And again I say unto you, ye shall not cast any out of your sacrament meetings who are earnestly seeking the kingdom—I speak this concerning those who are not of the church.
6 And again I say unto you, concerning your confirmation meetings, that if there be any that are not of the church, that are earnestly seeking after the kingdom, ye shall not cast them out.
Getting those who struggle or no longer possess belief does nothing to somehow improve the quality of church. Fighting against apathy, sloth, and instilling zeal for the gospel is IMHO our single greatest obstacle. Trying to get people enthusiastic about kicking out secular elements is a poor inadequate substitute for persuading people to truly love one another.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Trying to get people enthusiastic about kicking out secular elements is a poor inadequate substitute for persuading people to truly love one another."
That is fine and all, but that can be learned without going to Church. If you don't have faith, then what possible reason is there for the existence of a religion?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: ... In my personal estimation she needs to be called out for faithlessness and lack of proper devotion to the truth claims of Mormonism.
If we're still talking about Holly Welker, hasn't she effectively called out herself?
She's called herself a "secular saint" in a public article and as far as I can tell, she's probably not even going to go to parades or concerts that are Mormon-related.
How much more called out could she be?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That is fine and all, but that can be learned without going to Church. If you don't have faith, then what possible reason is there for the existence of a religion?
I could've sworn it had something to do with improving humanity in general and redeeming humanity in this particular case of their sins.
Anyway, isn't there some...guy, somewhere, whose ideology would be pretty opposed to your strong eagerness to pull the excommunication/shunning switch?
quote:How much more called out could she be?
Well she hasn't been thoroughly and publicly chastised and repudiated as a warning to the doubters within the group yet, has she?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I may be naive but I was under the impression that to "call out" someone was to issue a challenge to someone with the condition that if they don't accept the challenge that they will lose something valuable to them.
But in this case, she's already not going to church, so she can't lose that, she probably won't do events in public that are Mormon-related so she can't lose that, so what could the challenge be?
Without this, it seems that there's no ability to really do a proper calling out. Instead, thoroughly and publicly chastising someone seems more akin to "bitching about" rather than "calling out."
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:If you don't have faith, then what possible reason is there for the existence of a religion?
Cynical answer: If the church wasn't there, a lot of people would have nothing to define themselves against. If the church suddenly stopped pulling and changed all its doctrine and practices to be in accordance to what these people are calling for, they'd all fall over. I wonder how they would handle suddenly being the orthodox ones.
Less cynical answer: Even a rebellious teenager takes secret comfort that there's a warm, loving, constant home to come home to when he's ready. The church is there as much to be a constant standard as it is to fulfill the religious needs of individuals at different points on their "spiritual journey." People are defining themselves against the teachings of the church even when they are advocating a redefinition of it to fit whatever their own beliefs have evolved into. That's the value of religion here, IMO: it still provides the structure in which they define themselves, and it keeps the boundaries pretty clearly marked.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The Church does not ONLY exist to teach people to love one another-- Occasional is right, that can be done through secular means.
We know the Mormon Church exists for four purposes: 1) To perfect the saints 2) To redeem the dead 3) To proclaim the gospel 4) To assist the poor
I'm not sure how you're using faith, Occasional; can you explain? Your question doesn't quite make sense to me.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Advice for robots, if they were serious about wanting to be religious and holding the views they do, then there is a Mormon-centric church out there for them. They don't even have to invent one. Its called The Community of Christ and I am sure they would be welcomed with open arms. I really wish that they would be more dedicated to missionary work in the Utah based Mormon community. A lot of people are ripe for hearing their message. I would rather those like the quoted woman repent and come back in faith, but it seems hardly likely.
It is funny that the Utah-based Mormon Church is scorned for "changing past beliefs" and yet the Community of Christ has changed much more serious positions and no one bats an eye. Downgrading the divine nature of the Book of Mormon? Women Priesthood holders? Belief in the traditional Trinity? Acceptance of Gay Marriage (I am not sure of that one, but if not I don't see them rejecting the change)? Building an offense-less and non-ceremonial Temple? Seems they are getting "convenient political revelations" as the accusation goes.
Why don't more liberal Mormons flock to them is what I don't understand? They could make it theirs and rejoice in their own way.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"I'm not sure how you're using faith, Occasional; can you explain?"
The belief in foundational and basic tenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In other words, a belief that the Church is set up with divine Priesthood authority to teach the Salvation of Mankind with faith in Jesus Christ. I will propose that the 13 Articles of Faith are the guiding principal elements with baptismal questions the baseline one must affirm in the positive to remain a member of the LDS Church in at least theory.
Faith in religion is a set of beliefs that an individual or organization has about Existence, God, and Salvation that sets them apart from others. A Muslim is not a Catholic or a Jew. If for example a Muslim was to preach and teach Catholicism, would they really be a Muslim? At best by name only. Most people, and most importantly those within that person's faith, would reject them as part of the Muslim community of faith. Lets say they are Catholic and yet deny the Trinity?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I think the Mormons who define themselves as being on the fringe like being on the fringe. They don't want a church that has diluted its beliefs to be more popular. They like being able to call the LDS church stodgy and inflexible.
At any rate, I'm with Scott on this: I don't see why these people should be pushed away. Even the processes of disfellowshipping or excommunication are not, if handled correctly, a pushing away of the person from the church, but an opportunity for them to work things out in their lives and return when they are ready.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The Church does not ONLY exist to teach people to love one another-- Occasional is right, that can be done through secular means.
We know the Mormon Church exists for four purposes: 1) To perfect the saints 2) To redeem the dead 3) To proclaim the gospel 4) To assist the poor
All of those missions fall within the purview of loving another, through the mechanism of service.
Those acts of love cannot be done if the church does not exist. -------
Occ:
quote:That is fine and all, but that can be learned without going to Church. If you don't have faith, then what possible reason is there for the existence of a religion?
People who have lost their faith do not surrender all the blessings God promises those who serve him. An agnostic who comforts those who stand in need of comfort, or gives his substance to the poor, is still doing a virtuous thing, and it will be counted to their benefit. Many Mormons have truly lost their faith, and yet they continue to come to church because they need that pattern. They may just sit quietly, or they may actively serve in any number of callings, but keep their concerns quiet. Who is to say that the right person, or lesson won't be given and that they won't reconnect with their estranged faith?
[ November 09, 2011, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Certainly at least the last of those could.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I think the Mormons who define themselves as being on the fringe like being on the fringe. They don't want a church that has diluted its beliefs to be more popular. They like being able to call the LDS church stodgy and inflexible.
At any rate, I'm with Scott on this: I don't see why these people should be pushed away. Even the processes of disfellowshipping or excommunication are not, if handled correctly, a pushing away of the person from the church, but an opportunity for them to work things out in their lives and return when they are ready.
Or instead of psychoanalyzing, you could actually talk to them. People don't want the church to embrace the ways of the world. A lot of them want the church to act in a more ethical, more loving way, to treat everyone like children of God with no second class citizens. If you read like fmh, there is a lot of pain in the fringe community, pain which TBs deny and minimize.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Certainly at least the last of those could.
You are correct, I misspoke.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:How much more called out could she be?
Well she hasn't been thoroughly and publicly chastised and repudiated as a warning to the doubters within the group yet, has she?
FYI, this is not generally how excommunication is handled within the LDS church. As a rule, the proceedings and results of church disciplinary hearings are not made public, unless the individual disciplined chooses to make them public. It's very possible for someone who has been excommunicated who chooses to continue to attend meetings to be nearly indistinguishable to the members of the local church group from a member in good standing.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I think the Mormons who define themselves as being on the fringe like being on the fringe. They don't want a church that has diluted its beliefs to be more popular. They like being able to call the LDS church stodgy and inflexible.
At any rate, I'm with Scott on this: I don't see why these people should be pushed away. Even the processes of disfellowshipping or excommunication are not, if handled correctly, a pushing away of the person from the church, but an opportunity for them to work things out in their lives and return when they are ready.
Or instead of psychoanalyzing, you could actually talk to them. People don't want the church to embrace the ways of the world. A lot of them want the church to act in a more ethical, more loving way, to treat everyone like children of God with no second class citizens. If you read like fmh, there is a lot of pain in the fringe community, pain which TBs deny and minimize.
I was responding in the context of Occasional's comments. I know it's not so cut and dry. Church members are all over the spectrum on what they get from and what they expect of the church. I have read and enjoyed fmh entries. I've associated with people with many different takes on the church.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"there is a lot of pain in the fringe community, pain which TBs deny and minimize."
That is because Mormons like me recognize the Fringies are unrepentant sinners of spirit if not action. You cry repentance and they cry oppression. If they would admit to their weaknesses and not stick to their own version of self-righteousness like, "A lot of them want the church to act in a more ethical, more loving way, to treat everyone like children of God with no second class citizens," then there might something to talk about. To state the quote and then claim they don't want the Church to embrace the ways of the world is hypocrisy. The ways they want to achieve those are the ways of the world!
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
That's unnecessarily harsh, harmfully judgmental, and simply untrue, Occ.
I apologize for my earlier comments in response to this discussion. I want no part in that kind of sentiment.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Occasional: I do agree that for some sinners, the response is "The church needs to change not me". And in those instances, that is a disease of the mind that should be cured not cultivated. Heck there's a good number of those people in the Book of Mormon.
But we don't live in a world where the leaders of the church only make correct decisions at all times. I don't expect a formal apology when they don't, but I don't begrudge people the right to express their dissent, so long as it's done respectfully, and so long as God has not weighed in on the matter.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If you read like fmh, there is a lot of pain in the fringe community, pain which TBs deny and minimize.
What's fmh and TB?
quote:That is because Mormons like me recognize the Fringies are unrepentant sinners of spirit if not action.
We're ALL spiritually dying without the grace of Christ. I'm not sure that it matters what we're dying from; in most cases, I think Christ only cares that we let Him heal us.
This is not to say that we shouldn't preach repentance; true repentance is the only method by which Christ can heal us. So it's counter His grace to let sin go unrecognized and unhealed. Sure-- we call everyone to repent and be forgiven.
At the same time, I hope we recognize how desperate our own situation is. Metaphorically speaking, we are terminally ill cancer patients serving bread and water to the desperately starved. Christ is our treatment; and their sustenance.
In light of that, Occasional, the language you've chosen to use is reprehensible.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Scott: I'm pretty sure TB, is The Brethren. I can't sort out fmh.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Sorry- fmh is feminist mormon housewives. It is one of the internet communities that attracts a lot of fringe people.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Scholarette:
I'm not sure how the apostles/first presidency have denied or minimized the pain of those on the fringe. Who makes up the fringe?
It's certain that we don't know all things-- but as Jeffrey R. Holland said in 2007, we know "God loveth His children." And as Boyd K. Packer said to those suffering from same-gender attraction, "We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you."
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Packer has also in his time as a member of the 12 advocated violence against gays- long time ago, but still one of his talks that he has never apologized for that.
If you look at recent talks where they mention things like leaving because of petty offenses, it is like, really, how many people are leaving because of minor things and if they left the church over it, it isn't minor to them. Also, there have been no churchwide responses to some issues which should have been responded to- such as requiring more training to bishops in terms of proper response to abuse, especially sexual. Woman should not in this day and age talk to their bishop about being date raped and told that since they didn't fight or kissed the guy, they are equally culpable and need to repent. Maybe my sample is skewed but there are a lot of bishops out there responding that way.
I can think of other examples, but I don't want to make this a listing of every wrong the church has done or anything like that.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I'm done here. when a person speaks against an Apostle of the Lord for something that by all accounts depends on interpretation rather than fact, I am dealing with a full blown Apostate. I can see that repentance is a concept that is no longer accepted or desired. By the way, if you get raped go to the police and not the Bishop. Solved it for you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You're pretty crazy and full of it, Occasional, considering that what you just said effectively translates to you saying that a mormon openly disagreeing with you is no longer a Real Mormon.
I guess this is what drives your completely nuts social view - you desperately desire a balkanization of the united states so that the Real Mormons like you can set up a theocracy and punish all those Hateful Apostate Non-Mormons who shamelessly defy your own imaginings.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, I'll whistle that. I hope you are done here, whether it's because you leave the infidels, heathens, and Apostates alone on your own or not.
There's all sorts of places on the Net for spiteful Christianity. Maybe you should go find one of 'em.
-----
Re: excommunication, quite right-I should've been more clear. I was talking about the sort of thing I believe Occasional would like to see happen, re: community reaction.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... you desperately desire a balkanization of the united states so that the Real Mormons like you can set up a theocracy ...
Ah, Europeans and Canadians annexing Americans fantasy. Good times.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Packer has also in his time as a member of the 12 advocated violence against gays- long time ago, but still one of his talks that he has never apologized for that.
I wiki'd this, and the wiki said the talk was given in the October conference of 1976. I checked the conference talks from October '76; Packer didn't speak at all (or at least it isn't listed on the Church's website). I also checked the April session of the same year, and no dice-- Packer gave the well-known talk about spiritual crocodiles, but no violence is mentioned.
Here's what the wiki had to say:
quote:Quinn has pointed to Apostle Boyd K. Packer's LDS General Conference address from October 1976 as evidence of problematic attitudes in the LDS Church towards homosexuals. In the speech, Packer encourages teenage boys to avoid immoral activities, which he says includes viewing pornography, masturbating, participating in homosexual behavior, and participating in heterosexual behavior outside of marriage.[47] Packer encourages young Latter-day Saints to "vigorously resist" any males "who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts." Packer cites the example of a male missionary he had known who punched his missionary companion for making romantic advances. Packer says he told the missionary, "Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way."[47] After telling the story, Packer comments, "I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself."[47] Packer offers a similar warning against heterosexual advances, but without the threat of violence in return: "Never let anyone handle you or touch those very personal parts of your body which are an essential link in the ongoing of creation"[58]
The footnote for 47 mentions that there is a transcript of the talk, both reprints without permission.
The context isn't quite what you proposed, scholarette. I'm not sure it's permissable; and Dalin H. Oak's talk, and Pres. Hinckley's talks more recently make it clear that any mistreatment of homosexuals is not tolerated by the Lord. But there's a difference between advocating violence against gays, and telling boys it's not a sin to slug another guy who's trying to get in your pants.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Note, also: bishops are trained to report sexual abuse to the police.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I wrote up a response but the thing is, I don't want to be criticizing the church. I want there to be some understanding of why people are hurt by the Church or choose to be inactive/less active/jack mormons/ etc. I do feel like often the response is seeing the people as caricatures of faithlessness instead or real people with real complaints.
Regarding Packer quote, that was kinda snarky on my part and was based on my memory from long ago. I remember my seminary teacher reading it to us and a lesson on homosexuality being evil and also some AIDS as punishment from God tossed in and being really annoyed at that teacher. Most of the lesson I dismissed as crazy teacher, but the Packer story I couldn't really dismiss and it kinda stuck in my head, but not full details.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
With what I said earlier, I was definitely caricaturizing a probably vanishingly small set of people. Not very sensitive of me in any context. I've seen many people leave the church or go inactive for a variety of different reasons, some based on their own actions and some based on the actions of others. Some have pushed the church sa far away from themselves as possible and some have attempted to keep parts of it in their lives. Some church leaders have been especially sensitive and good at helping people work through their issues without being judgmental; others aren't good at working with people and harm more than they help, even if they have good intentions. Some people have been more patient with their leaders' shortcomings and some have been less patient. There's no way to blanket large groups of people with one judgment from a church perspective; it shouldn't be done. Everyone has their own unique circumstances and deserves consideration and respect for their feelings. It's not fair to slap the label of "jack mormon" on someone and it's not fair to slap on the label of "orthodox mormon" (or something less than complimentary referring to the same person) because everyone has their own challenges and we don't really know what they're feeling inside.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
afr- I think that what you said was basically what I was trying for.
on the sexual assault stuff- I am not that old and I grew up with it being taught over the pulpit by like bishop, ward leaders that you fought to the death rather than submit to sex-if you weren't in the hospital, you didn't do enough to prevent. So, in a lot of ways it is not a big surprise that some bishops don't always seem some things as rape. The story in particular I am thinking of was not me so I can't give more details but basically girl and guy on date, make out, things go a little further than kissing, girl says no, boy keeps going, girl freezes, doesn't know what to do, terrified does nothing. Afterwards, goes to bishop and has to go through repentance process. A few years later she realizes that she said no and instead of repenting, she should have been at the ER getting a rape kit done. But the story of how good people lose their virginity told even now (and is often true) is kissing alone and one thing leads to another and they have sex. The two stories can be very close when told to an outsider but really should be handled very differently.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: girl and guy on date, make out, things go a little further than kissing, girl says no, boy keeps going, girl freezes, doesn't know what to do, terrified does nothing. Afterwards, goes to bishop and has to go through repentance process. A few years later she realizes that she said no and instead of repenting, she should have been at the ER getting a rape kit done.
The realization that she said no "a few years later" is problematic for me. I don't think bishops should be expected to recognize facts about an individual's actions that the individual herself/himself doesn't even realize.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
She knew she said no at the time, but she didn't realize this meant it was rape. She had assumed that violence was required for it to be rape. In her story to bishop, she included the saying no and freezing but since she didn't fight him off, it was treated as consensual.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Assuming that you're correct, then heck yes-- that was poorly handled.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Poor old occasional needs to find himself a secluded cult commune, if he hasn't already.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I've thought about it, but its not as easy as it sounds. Right now, however, my problem is with the membership and not the leadership. It is kind of hard to "join a secluded cult commune" when you don't believe they hold the Authority of the Priesthood of God; no matter how they act or what they teach. Who holds the Keys of the Kingdom is a very specific and basic doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Its not like others where a simple "calling" is considered the equivalent of making your own congregation. More than likely I would just go inactive like so many others.
And I commented because you said something about me, and not on the subject itself.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I've thought about it, but its not as easy as it sounds. Right now, however, my problem is with the membership and not the leadership.
It sounds like you actually have a problem with the leadership: (emphasis mine)
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered."
There isn't enough of this going on in the LDS Church. Too much pandering to PR and trying to not look disagreeable. Sin and unbelief are rampant and no one is doing anything about it because a few newspapers and loud voices are screaming and gnashing teeth against the real and very specific teachings of Mormonism and Commandments of the Lord! The only real consolation I have is that a lot of them ex-communicate themselves (go inactive).
Doesn't that sound a bit like steadying the arc? The leadership is responsible for excommunications, not the membership. If you trust the Prophet/Apostles/Leadership, then let them be to handle it the correct way. Because whatever they do is correct. No questioning. They do, after all, have THE Authority and THE Inspiration.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Back on the subject of Mormon culture (whether you think it exists or not), I thought this was pretty funny:
quote:Mitt is so Mormon his Israel policy will be centered on Jackson County, Missouri.
quote:Mitt is so Mormon, he will ask members of Congress to go home and pray about his economic plan.
quote:Mitt is so Mormon he’d ask the Elders Quorum to move him into the White House.
quote:Mitt is so Mormon that if he got elected all of the White House Pyrex 9×13 pans would have a piece of masking tape on them with his name written in Sharpie.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Mitt's a High Priest, so he'd better ask his High Priest's group to help him move in...
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Scott, the old men don't move people in. That's what the young whippersnappers are for. My dad was high priest pres for a while and he used to complain so much when they asked high priests to do things like that- elders slacking on their duties.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Scott, the old men don't move people in. That's what the young whippersnappers are for. My dad was high priest pres for a while and he used to complain so much when they asked high priests to do things like that- elders slacking on their duties.
In my ward growing up we had the Melchizedek priesthood pass the sacrament on fast Sundays as a sort of reminder that all duties of the priesthood are important, and one should be ready to do any of them at any time. A new stake president moved in, a disgruntled high priest complained, boom, tradition gone.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Well, in my parent's ward, the high priests are really old so watching these little old guys shuffle around with canes and walkers and then asking them to volunteer to move someone is just cruel. My dad's issue was more the able bodied one than a too important thing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Back on the subject of Mormon culture (whether you think it exists or not), I thought this was pretty funny:
That's hilarious. And proof that I've been hanging out with all of y'all a long time -- I got (or mostly got) almost all of those.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Mitt's a High Priest, so he'd better ask his High Priest's group to help him move in...
As a (fairly young and relatively spry) HP, every time I volunteer to help with a move, my wife gives me a horrified look and gasps, "but honey, your back."
There are good reasons to leave it to the Elders.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Having just been released as Elders Quorum President, let me just say that the help of the high priests group on a move was always much appreciated. We have plenty of spry young high priests in our ward, some younger than me. While it fell to me 99% of the time to organize a move, it was nice when the high priests group leader kicked in as well and got a few bodies there as well as trucks and trailers. Elders have the stronger backs on average, but high priests tend to have more resources at their disposal.
In a ward with any apartments in it, you tend to have more move-ins and move-outs, plus more families with little to no resources or family support, and thus the EQ is called on quite often to help. I bristle a bit when it's implied that the EQ is slacking when they ask for help from time to time. There were months when I had the guys out there every Saturday moving someone, sometimes doing two moves at a time. That's time away from all of our families and it's draining.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:That's hilarious. And proof that I've been hanging out with all of y'all a long time -- I got (or mostly got) almost all of those.
I'd wager you got more of them than I did.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's . . . disconcerting.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:That's hilarious. And proof that I've been hanging out with all of y'all a long time -- I got (or mostly got) almost all of those.
I'd wager you got more of them than I did.
*phones up pooka's elder's quorum president*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Mitt is so Mormon that his first act will be to make July 24 a national holiday.
I had to think and think about what this was.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
My daughter's birthday, duh.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Mitt is so Mormon that his first act will be to make July 24 a national holiday.
I had to think and think about what this was.
I just had to Google it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Mitt is so Mormon that his first act will be to make July 24 a national holiday.
I had to think and think about what this was.
Seriously? Are you sure you are an active church member? I didn't think it was possible to get far enough away from Utah that your ward never celebrated Pioneer Day.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I didn't think it was possible to get far enough away from Utah that your ward never celebrated Pioneer Day.
I'm not a fan.
It's mostly "Up with Utah!" Which is an attitude I don't think we need any more of in the Church.
Sorry-- I'm a Pioneer Day Grinch.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm not a fan.
It's mostly "Up with Utah!" Which is an attitude I don't think we need any more of in the Church.
Sorry-- I'm a Pioneer Day Grinch.
I don't disagree. But being a fan of any aspect of Mormon culture and being aware of that aspect are not the same thing. The Grinch did have to stop and wonder what was up when he observed the Whos preparing for Christmas.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Mitt is so Mormon that his first act will be to make July 24 a national holiday.
I had to think and think about what this was.
Seriously? Are you sure you are an active church member? I didn't think it was possible to get far enough away from Utah that your ward never celebrated Pioneer Day.
It is... Since I moved to Hawaii 10 years ago, I don't think I've heard Pioneer Day mentioned once.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But being a fan of any aspect of Mormon culture and being aware of that aspect are not the same thing. The Grinch did have to stop and wonder what was up when he observed the Whos preparing for Christmas.
Oh.
I'd like to understand what your angle is on this line of questioning-- are you really wondering whether or not I'm an active member, or was that just a throw-away comment?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The comment was intended to be tongue in cheek. I don't doubt you are an active member. If anything, I meant to imply you were, at a minimum, exaggerating the difficulty you had remembering the 24th of July.
I have noticed a widespread tendency for Mormons to deny familiarity with or down play the importance of any aspect of Mormon culture they don't particularly like. Part of that is because we love the church and so we train our selves not to see the things we don't like as a defense mechanism.
Part of that is a defense against negative stereotypes of Mormonism. Stereotypes nearly always have some basis in reality but they are also always caricatures that exaggerate both the good and bad. I suspect all minorities have trouble admitting that there is some truth in the negative stereotypes about their culture.
But I think the major part is that aspects of the culture that we don't like, make us feel like we don't really belong. We believe that as long as we are striving to be worthy members, we do belong and we deserve to feel like we belong. So we lie to ourselves about the prevalence of those negative cultural things because feeling like an outsider sucks.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I didn't know who Lavell Edwards was, but I am bad at sports in general.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by maui babe: It is... Since I moved to Hawaii 10 years ago, I don't think I've heard Pioneer Day mentioned once.
The church usually broadcasts a Pioneer Day concert on the church's satellite system. I know they did this year. Unless you've got some real rebels running your stake, it was almost certainly announced and broadcast in Hawaii. I believe you didn't take notice of it. I miss at least half the stuff they announce in sacrament and certainly don't remember them announcing events that don't interest me. I do sincerely doubt that it wasn't mentioned.
I find it a bit odd how divisive Pioneer veneration can be in the church. It's the only aspect of our culture I can think of which is officially pushed by the Prophet, integrated into the church curriculum, regularly featured in Ensign and spoken of at General conference and yet resoundingly disliked by many otherwise orthodox Mormons.
In 1997 (the 150th anniversary of the Pioneers arrive in Utah), I was teaching a lesson to the Gospel Doctrine class on pioneers (in accordance with the official manual). I did not say anything more provoking than "Golly, the Pioneers are good examples of faith and sacrifice" and it was the most controversial lesson I ever taught. I got shouted down by no less the the stake Patriarch who was adamant that we should not be spending time honoring the pioneers and that it was not an appropriate topic for a Sunday School. There was literally screaming and yelling I ended the class early before it actually devolved into a fist fight. I left in tears and it took a member of the Bishopric about an hour to calm me down. This is not an exaggeration. If you doubt me, I can produce witnesses.
Have considered the event for over a decade now, I think the controversy lies in the fact that pioneer veneration can so easily make people feel like they are outsiders. It divides those who grew up on stories of their ancestors that walked across the planes to Utah and those who didn't. Those who consider Utah home and those who don't.
My mother grew up in a small town in Idaho. They had a chorister who was from Utah and every year on the 24th of July she insisted on singing "Utah We Love Thee" in sacrament meeting. My mother claims that no one sang but this chorister, but she proudly persisting in singing it solo year after year. Even though most of the congregation had roots in Utah as well, they'd left Utah and were offended by the implication that they were outsiders if they didn't love Utah.
[ December 02, 2011, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Have considered the event for over a decade now, I think the controversy lies in the fact that pioneer veneration can so easily make people feel like they are outsiders. It divides those who grew up on stories of their ancestors that walked across the planes to Utah and those who didn't. Those who consider Utah home and those who don't.
Yeah-- that's a big part of it. For those of us who live in other parts of the country, it's annoying to hear constantly about how much better Utah is than everywhere else.
And then they have a whole two months dedicated to celebrating it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't mind paying tribute to the pioneers. They struggled and toiled to preserve the faith in a very difficult time. They accomplished great things, and they are as much a part of church history as Lehi leaving Jerusalem with his family. It's when people want me to appreciate the unrestrained determination and faith of the Martin-Willy handcart company that I get indignant.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Have considered the event for over a decade now, I think the controversy lies in the fact that pioneer veneration can so easily make people feel like they are outsiders. It divides those who grew up on stories of their ancestors that walked across the planes to Utah and those who didn't. Those who consider Utah home and those who don't.
Yeah-- that's a big part of it. For those of us who live in other parts of the country, it's annoying to hear constantly about how much better Utah is than everywhere else.
And then they have a whole two months dedicated to celebrating it.
Don't worry. You don't need to celebrate not living in Utah. Your reward for not living in Utah is not living in Utah.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I liked Utah while I was there. I wouldn't mind going back-- it's a beautiful state, and I found the people to be very kind. (I was only there a year-- YMMV)
That doesn't mean I want to have everything I love about Virginia, Wisconsin, Texas, Italy, or even Kansas held up against Utah standards and denounced as inferior.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I've heard Utah venerated to me by people who lived there for many years. I've also heard it excoriated. Although the people who seem to hate Utah the most are those who have either never been there or who have driven through it on the interstate a few times.
I lived there for 11 years during and after college. I don't recall Pioneer Day ever having been made a huge deal of outside of maybe a picnic on the day of. My branch in MN celebrated it more.
I wasn't too sad to leave Utah, but more for the freeway traffic along the Wasatch Front than anything else.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I just found it hot and entirely too wholesome. But I was 15.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Requesting "Stockholm Syndrome" be renamed Utah Syndrome
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Although the people who seem to hate Utah the most are those who have either never been there or who have driven through it on the interstate a few times.
When I drove across the country, Utah was the favorite part of my drive. I had to stop at least a half dozen times just to stare at the scenery.
Posted by Fubeca (Member # 12662) on :
WOW! What a hate filled thread!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
hello new member fubeca. here are your clutching pearls, enjoy
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by maui babe: It is... Since I moved to Hawaii 10 years ago, I don't think I've heard Pioneer Day mentioned once.
The church usually broadcasts a Pioneer Day concert on the church's satellite system. I know they did this year. Unless you've got some real rebels running your stake, it was almost certainly announced and broadcast in Hawaii. I believe you didn't take notice of it.
Huh. That's interesting. I know about the Christmas Devotional that's broadcast the first Sunday every December, but I never heard of the Pioneer Day concert. Now I'm curious if I've just been missing the announcement all these years. My current ward doesn't distribute a written program, but I'm usually more or less paying attention during announcement time. Weird.
I'm sorry I didn't see this before I went to church yesterday so I could ask some of the members of my ward about it. Now I'll have to wait until next week and I'll probably forget.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I also think the Judeo-Christian tradition has overall been an overwhelmingly positive force for humanity and moral knowledge. But that doesn't stop me from thinking that moral, skeptical atheism is a step in the direction we should ultimately go.