I've been wondering about the strength of anti-gay marriage sentiment in the Mormon community for a while. Most of the e-mail blasts and social networking prop 8 support came from Mormons I know.
Here's my question: What part of the drive to prevent gay marriage from within the LDS community stems from a concern that it opens a path to legal polygamy?
Is there concern that if one barrier comes down, that some faction within the LDS community would begin pushing actively to make polygamy legal? That it could divide and/or marginalize a religious denomination that is growing and becoming more accepted as a mainstream branch of Christianity?
Let's say that there is no LDS support for a move to legalize polygamy. Once it was legal, would the church allow it?
I know that OSC's position on gay marriage was been endlessly discussed here, so I have no interest in his personal feelings on the matter unless he's discussed the direct question above.
I am also aware that other organizations, in particular the Catholic church, have been very actively opposed to gay marriage. I was raised Catholic, and have a lot of Catholic family and friends. I know that the Knights of Columbus and some of the bishops are virulently opposed to gay marriage, but I don't see that opinion embedded in the general Catholic population the way I do in the general Mormon population.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I've never been exposed to a segment of the LDS church that is concerned that polygamy will be making a return. I am comfortable saying that opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with our being worried about polygamy. It stems primarily from scripture and sermons given by our leaders indicating that the acceptance of same-sex marriage in this country will further erode the basic structure of the family.
I have contemplated what doctrinally would need to be done if laws prohibiting the practice of polygamy were removed (as they should be). Part of me believes the church should then resume polygamy, but it also says quite explicitly that polygamy is not permissible at all times, and that God decides when or where to allow it. So for the time being, the church could continue to not observe polygamy until such a time as God instructed them to. A commandment that could come immediately, or many years later.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Removing laws prohibiting polygamy won't erode the basic structure of family, but gay marriage will?
edit: Or is your opinion different than the general consensus?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
It's also worth noting that most Mormons you talk to on here and in most online communities that I've seen are usually pro-gay marriage.
I haven't seen any poll numbers on how many Mormons are for or against gay marriage. There could be a strong echo chamber effect happening online but you would be surprised at how many people don't follow the general consensus.
Also somewhat interesting, most people I know that are Mormon and against gay marriage (and profess the opinion publicly for me to observe) live outside Utah.
Unfortunately this is all anecdotal so I guess pretty much useless.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Removing laws prohibiting polygamy won't erode the basic structure of family, but gay marriage will?
edit: Or is your opinion different than the general consensus?
I've made my opinions clear many times on a few threads. I was only answering the questions for the general membership (if such a thing can even be done), not offering my own opinions on gay marriage. But simply put, no I don't think allowing one but not the other is a correct choice insofar as our nation or the family is concerned.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think there is some part of LDS view on marriage influences by our history with polygamy. When the courts ruled against allowing polygamy, LDS people broke up families and excommunicated anyone who didn't go along. We accepted ye rule of society even if it went against our beliefs and families. So, at some level, I think LDS are more ok with society/government ruling what is a family and expecting that people will go with that. It is how we responded and so why can't others? I dont think this is articulated but listening to people's arguments, there are hints of that. Marriage is not a civil right everyone deserves is part of the underlying assumptions. Saying prohibiting ssm denies rights is kinda incomprehensible because we gave up our marriages when commanded to.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:It's also worth noting that most Mormons you talk to on here and in most online communities that I've seen are usually pro-gay marriage.
I wouldn't confuse being silent on the issue for being pro-SSM. I'd guess that a large majority of LDS here and on sakeriver are opposed. They just got sick of arguing it and so now no longer do so.
Which I don't particularly blame them. Their argument comes down to "this is what my religion tells me", and that's not a viewpoint that is easy to argue from.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Also somewhat interesting, most people I know that are Mormon and against gay marriage (and profess the opinion publicly for me to observe) live outside Utah.
For what it's worth, I know many people in Utah who are against SSM, which makes sense for the redest of the red states. There are plenty who support SSM as well, but we did pass one of those "no gay marriage" amendments to the state constitution pretty handily a few years back.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Polygamy at this point is almost more myth than reality for most Mormons. It's not in the conversation. People outside the church mention polygamy in conjunction with Mormons much, much more than it ever gets discussed inside the church.
SSM is a topic that is more frequently talked about, and I must say that the majority of Mormons I know are against it to some degree, for a variety of mixtures of reasons. However, I've lived in SE Idaho and Utah for long enough that I can't say I have the pulse of Mormons in the "field."
Here in the Hatrack-o-sphere, I'd say people who aren't immediately and stridently in favor of SSM for whatever reason are as tired of getting a "diagnosis" as they are of the endless standoffs.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Here in the Hatrack-o-sphere, I'd say people who aren't immediately and stridently in favor of SSM for whatever reason are as tired of getting a "diagnosis" as they are of the endless standoffs.
Yeah, no, this place doesn't have 'standoffs' against people who are nonstrident and not immediately open about support for SSM. They happen to people who are clearly against it, and it mostly happens to them because of the reasons they are against it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'd say that many of the folks who who voiced opposition to it, did at times have reasons I found compelling and legitimate. But since it's usually rooted in faith, folks who are not religious only see that as foolishness ultimately, and can't be content with it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Here in the Hatrack-o-sphere, I'd say people who aren't immediately and stridently in favor of SSM for whatever reason are as tired of getting a "diagnosis" as they are of the endless standoffs.
Yeah, no, this place doesn't have 'standoffs' against people who are nonstrident and not immediately open about support for SSM. They happen to people who are clearly against it, and it mostly happens to them because of the reasons they are against it.
Waco-style standoffs aren't exactly what I meant, but those happen too. I'd call it more trench warfare, and the trenches haven't moved for a long time. The problem being that no one feels like they can stay in the middle of the trenches for very long before ducking and running toward one or the other. Or getting down and staying there.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Waco-style standoffs aren't exactly what I meant, but those happen too. I'd call it more trench warfare, and the trenches haven't moved for a long time. The problem being that no one feels like they can stay in the middle of the trenches for very long before ducking and running toward one or the other.
Unless you're speaking strictly of Hatrack, the trenches have been moving at a very brisk pace on this topic.
Now that said, I admit: a common response of mine when someone complains that anti-SSM folks are getting a bad rap is a mental sigh or even an eye-roll. I'm well aware that this sweeps up more than a few people who don't deserve it, and I try and keep that in mind when I think about religious people complaining now that they're being unfairly criticized on the issue of SSM.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I am speaking mainly of Hatrack and various other forums frequented by jatraqueros--who tend to know each others' stances on a variety of topics and carry the same discussions between boards.
I'm curious how the trenches are moving in the overall discussion, however. My impression has been that the two sides are only digging themselves in more and more. That doesn't mean that change isn't happening at a brisk pace--but that's a different metaphor, IMO.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'd say that many of the folks who who voiced opposition to it, did at times have reasons I found compelling and legitimate. But since it's usually rooted in faith, folks who are not religious only see that as foolishness ultimately, and can't be content with it.
Not foolish so much as not relevant. People that believe it should be illegal for religious reasons have different basic views about the proper role and reach of government than I do. And the people who believe it should be illegal for non-religious reasons are usually carrying that argument on top of an existing religious opinion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'd say that many of the folks who who voiced opposition to it, did at times have reasons I found compelling and legitimate. But since it's usually rooted in faith, folks who are not religious only see that as foolishness ultimately, and can't be content with it.
As do some of us who are religious.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I am LDS and I can only see two real reasons that LDS people can be opposed to SSM:
1) It truly is a faith issue. It is based in the real belief that God has decreed that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that this decree is based on the eternal identity of our spirits, which existed before this life. When it is a faith issue, you can't really get away from that. I happen to believe that our spirits are eternally male or female. However, I also happen to believe that we can't know for sure in this life whether someone is truly male or female. This is because one of the fundamental beliefs of our church is that our mortal bodies are imperfect. This is why some people can be born with genitals of both sexes or have other physical differences that are outside the norm. I can't claim to know for sure when someone's imperfect mortal body does or does not line up with that person's eternal gender.
2) The belief that to allow SSM changes the definition of marriage. In other words, if SSM is allowed, then the old definition of marriage no longer applies. In this interview, it is worded better than I can:
quote: Some people promote the idea that there can be two marriages, co-existing side by side, one heterosexual and one homosexual, without any adverse consequences. The hard reality is that, as an institution, marriage like all other institutions can only have one definition without changing the very character of the institution. Hence there can be no coexistence of two marriages. Either there is marriage as it is now defined and as defined by the Lord, or there is what could thus be described as genderless marriage. The latter is abhorrent to God, who, as we’ve been discussing, Himself described what marriage is — between a man and a woman.
A redefinition of that institution, therefore, redefines it for everyone — not just those who are seeking to have a so-called same gender marriage. It also ignores the definition that the Lord Himself has given.
For me, a good question to address in this debate is this: If the whole world discovered, through scientific proof, that God was real and that every person had a clearly eternal spirit with a single gender that could not change, and we knew what those genders were, would it change anything about this discussion regarding the rights of marriage? Also, this discovery includes the realization that men and women are fundamentally designed to be complements of one another.
Because, basically, that is where LDS people are coming from: the firm belief that spiritual gender is eternal (though again, our mortal gender is subject to mortal interference) and can't be changed no matter what you do. LDS people believe that to try to create a form of marriage that will be incompatible in the eternal scheme is setting people up for long-term unhappiness, even though, in mortality, there can be happiness for people that have same-sex attraction and are able to be in same-sex relationships. It is based in the idea that a loving Heavenly Father is more concerned with what will make us happy forever than with what will only make us happy in mortality.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
I don't have much to say the OP.
But this did bring up an old opinion of mine: I don't have any problems with polygamy being legalized. I would imagine that at some point in the (far) future it will be.
But I think it's a bad system, especially when it's only the man, who can take several wives (This is still fairly common in many parts of the world).
The problem is, if a man has four wives, then there are three men who will never have a wife.
And not being able to have a wife, and children, is gonna cause a lot of pent-up frustration and hate, which will easily find a unhealthy outlet somewhere.
I would even go as far as to say that a lot of problems of violent extremism in Middle-East and Africa are related to polygamy. There are a lot of young men there, who due to their social status, have trouble getting wives. With no prospect of having wife, family, children, what are they gonna do with their lives? They've been castrated, they are impotent, and there is nowhere to put the aggression that keeps on building inside them.
Well, except fanaticism and violence, of course.
If it were equally acceptable for women to take many husbands, and this were a common cultural habit, It would help to solve the problem.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I'd say that many of the folks who who voiced opposition to it, did at times have reasons I found compelling and legitimate. But since it's usually rooted in faith, folks who are not religious only see that as foolishness ultimately, and can't be content with it.
Not foolish so much as not relevant. People that believe it should be illegal for religious reasons have different basic views about the proper role and reach of government than I do. And the people who believe it should be illegal for non-religious reasons are usually carrying that argument on top of an existing religious opinion.
*shrug* If the religious beliefs are irrelevant, no wonder they’re so hard to argue from.
IMO, people who think SSM should be illegal for religious reasons and people who think SSM should be illegal for non-religious reasons are only two groups of people. But others get herded into the same corral with them all too often.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:*shrug* If the religious beliefs are irrelevant, no wonder they’re so hard to argue from.
Well the problem is that at that point there's a meta-argument about whether the government should be codifying the religious views of a particular denomination as laws that everyone else should be subject to.
We all generally support a secular government, even those who sneer the word "secular" as if it were a curse word, right up to the point where we think we can abandon that principle without fear of our own liberties being threatened. The LDS church was once the victim of mob-rule majority-driven disenfranchisement and they have benefited greatly from the increasingly secular nature of Federal and State government, even while delivering conference talks on the danger of secularism.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The word is definitely being co-opted. “Secular” meaning a government with no state religion and “secular” meaning influences that don’t always square with one’s religious values aren’t necessarily the same thing. Church leaders aren’t pushing for establishment of a state religion in conference talks. They are cautioning church members to hold to certain standards and values in their personal lives while eschewing others.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The word is definitely being co-opted. “Secular” meaning a government with no state religion and “secular” meaning influences that don’t always square with one’s religious values aren’t necessarily the same thing.
I agree that the distinction is important and wish there was more precision around that.
quote:Church leaders aren’t pushing for establishment of a state religion in conference talks.
To the extent that they are suggesting which laws should exist based on explicitly religious reasons they are, though. "Legalizing immorality" is the phrase that jumped out at me. Because the immorality of SSM is largely determined by religious opinion, that is an explicit condemnation of secular law.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Well, and whether or not this leads to a discussion on the separation of church and state, there's still a difference between pushing for the establishment of one's church as the state religion and desiring to see one's values, religious or otherwise, reflected in legislation. I'll hold that yes, the church leaders are pushing back against the legalization of SSM with that phrase. That's pretty obvious in the context of the particular talk. However, I don't think the Mormon church is coming out in opposition to the legislative process, which thanks to the separation of church and state clause, is secular in nature. They're certainly not doing more than a huge variety of organizations are on both sides of the SSM debate in calling for their values and ideals to be represented in ongoing legislation.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: For me, a good question to address in this debate is this: If the whole world discovered, through scientific proof, that God was real and that every person had a clearly eternal spirit with a single gender that could not change, and we knew what those genders were, would it change anything about this discussion regarding the rights of marriage? Also, this discovery includes the realization that men and women are fundamentally designed to be complements of one another.
An equally good question would be, what if the whole word discovered, through scientific proof, that God is real and every person has a spirit and the spirits aren't gendered. That gender is a limitation of mortality and irrelevant to the eternal essence of the person.
Because that is, I think, the essence of the gap between people who insist that same-sex marriage is contrary to the definition of marriage and those who don't. The first group sees marriage as the combination of two fundamentally different things, and the second doesn't.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I spent some time in Colorado City, AZ when I was 18, and it left me pretty disgusted with Mormonism for a while afterwards. (I try to be very civil about it on these boards, and have no problem with most Mormons as individuals, but I consider the religion as a whole to be evil - mostly because of the huge number of friends and acquaintances who have been damaged by it) From what I've seen, polygamy seems to inevitably lead to abuse, and an inclination to treat wives as property rather than equals. The large barracks-like houses with boarded up windows, young women with furtive, haunted looks (when I saw them at all)... I challenge any of you to spend a week in that town and tell me you think Polygamy is a good idea.
That being said, I also believe if 3 or more consenting adults choose to marry one another, than it's not my business to stop it. I can see a lot of problems with taxation, inheritance, power of attorney, etc. that would need be resolved, though. For example, how many wives can you claim on your taxes? If you're n the hospital, which wife gets to choose whether to pull the plug or go ahead with a risky operation? Do they vote? What if there's a tie?
What if two of your wives (or husbands) want to gay marry eachother? Can that be worked into your existing contract, or do they have to get their own separate marriage contract? Does it count as adultery?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm there with you on the whole 'in practice' problems being so substantial that I wonder if the problem is actually with the practice or as a result of its illegality. I'm inclined to think that *any* arrangement of polygamy that involves one husband and multiple wives only would be prone to abuse, because, well, the inequality is built in. It's on the ground floor.
---------
quote:For me, a good question to address in this debate is this: If the whole world discovered, through scientific proof, that God was real and that every person had a clearly eternal spirit with a single gender that could not change, and we knew what those genders were, would it change anything about this discussion regarding the rights of marriage? Also, this discovery includes the realization that men and women are fundamentally designed to be complements of one another.
For me it wouldn't. Assuming it somehow became possible to know all of these things without asking this hypothetical Creator a bunch of pointed questions, why does one human being have the right to attempt to govern the private practices of another? You need a good reason, and in this scenario it's actually unchanged: God says so, except that it is known definitively that this is true.
Well, alright, God says its wrong, so after we firmly shore up the ban on SSM, we then move on to full criminalization of homosexuality I assume, and blasphemy?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm there with you on the whole 'in practice' problems being so substantial that I wonder if the problem is actually with the practice or as a result of its illegality. I'm inclined to think that *any* arrangement of polygamy that involves one husband and multiple wives only would be prone to abuse, because, well, the inequality is built in. It's on the ground floor.
Polygamy isn't criminalized (unless you do so to commit tax fraud). It's not like, say, marijuana or internet piracy. You can claim to have as many wives as you want, just not legally.
Gay marriage is illegal in most of the US, and I've yet to see *any* studies, even from NOM or other anti-SSM organizations, that postulate that gay unions (whether they claim to be married, or are simply cohabiting/raising a child together) are more prone to abuse and domestic violence than straight ones. Polygamy, OTOH, at least the one older man, many younger (often teenaged) women type, is founded on unequal relationships - and is far more prone to abuse by it's very nature. It's legal status has nothing to do with that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dogbreath:
quote:I spent some time in Colorado City, AZ when I was 18, and it left me pretty disgusted with Mormonism for a while afterwards. (I try to be very civil about it on these boards, and have no problem with most Mormons as individuals, but I consider the religion as a whole to be evil - mostly because of the huge number of friends and acquaintances who have been damaged by it) From what I've seen, polygamy seems to inevitably lead to abuse, and an inclination to treat wives as property rather than equals. The large barracks-like houses with boarded up windows, young women with furtive, haunted looks (when I saw them at all)... I challenge any of you to spend a week in that town and tell me you think Polygamy is a good idea.
Yeah, that's not Mormonism. That's Mormon Fundamentalism.
None of the Mormons on this board have ever been in a polygamist compound. The last polygamist in my family for example was my great great grandfather.
Not only that, that's not polygamy anymore than the illegal brothels that Oscar Wilde frequented that produced drugged up boys for his pleasure are what is meant when we talk about homosexuality. Polygamy is underground, because of laws against it. As a result only those willing to flout the law practice it.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Several people I know IRL *have* been in polygamist compounds. One joined the military to get away from it. (When you live in the desert, don't have a car, the local authorities are members of your religion, as is everyone you know, escaping isn't as easy as you might imagine. Yes, even if you're a "consenting adult")
That being said, polygamy isn't exactly criminalized. Any man can live with as many consenting adult women as he pleases and call them his wives, and the authorities won't stop him unless he actually tries to get a marriage contract with more than one of them. You could say the same thing about any gay couple who refer to themselves as "married" while living in a state where SSM is illegal. Yet gay couples aren't any more prone to domestic violence and abuse than straight couples, nor are they "underground."
I do think it's funny that any time someone of your religion does something morally despicable, the classic response I get is "oh, he's not a *real* Mormon." I don't think the actions of those people necessarily automatically damn the church as a whole, just as I don't think I should be blamed for a soldier who goes crazy and kills 15 people, but me claiming "oh, he's not a *real* soldier" would just be silly. For that matter, just as I believe the military tends to attract, and also create, violent people, I do think the LDS church (particularly the fundamentalist wings thereof) promotes values which are in opposition to morality and society. I think of working with homeless youth who were disowned by their parents for violating some Mormon doctrine or another (usually for being gay), or friends who have been shunned by their families and communities for basically being honest about their personal beliefs and being men of honor and integrity. I also know another Mormon man who lies about his lifestyle and personal beliefs every time he goes home, so he won't be shunned by his family.
I don't want to get into too big of an argument, partly because of time, and partly because I hold a lot of respect for you, but I hope you can trust me when I say I have a lot of good reasons for viewing Mormonism as a despicable and immoral religion, and for thinking that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (in all it's iterations) has had a profoundly deleterious impact on society.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Several people I know IRL *have* been in polygamist compounds. One joined the military to get away from it. (When you live in the desert, don't have a car, the local authorities are members of your religion, as is everyone you know, escaping isn't as easy as you might imagine. Yes, even if you're a "consenting adult")
That being said, polygamy isn't exactly criminalized. Any man can live with as many consenting adult women as he pleases and call them his wives, and the authorities won't stop him unless he actually tries to get a marriage contract with more than one of them. You could say the same thing about any gay couple who refer to themselves as "married" while living in a state where SSM is illegal. Yet gay couples aren't any more prone to domestic violence and abuse than straight couples, nor are they "underground."
I do think it's funny that any time someone of your religion does something morally despicable, the classic response I get is "oh, he's not a *real* Mormon." I don't think the actions of those people necessarily automatically damn the church as a whole, just as I don't think I should be blamed for a soldier who goes crazy and kills 15 people, but me claiming "oh, he's not a *real* soldier" would just be silly. For that matter, just as I believe the military tends to attract, and also create, violent people, I do think the LDS church (particularly the fundamentalist wings thereof) promotes values which are in opposition to morality and society. I think of working with homeless youth who were disowned by their parents for violating some Mormon doctrine or another (usually for being gay), or friends who have been shunned by their families and communities for basically being honest about their personal beliefs and being men of honor and integrity. I also know another Mormon man who lies about his lifestyle and personal beliefs every time he goes home, so he won't be shunned by his family.
I don't want to get into too big of an argument, partly because of time, and partly because I hold a lot of respect for you, but I hope you can trust me when I say I have a lot of good reasons for viewing Mormonism as a despicable and immoral religion, and for thinking that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (in all it's iterations) has had a profoundly deleterious impact on society.
There's not a smart religion out there. The very idea is oxymoronic. Singling out Mormons is pointless. Mohammed married a 9-year-old girl, for Pete's sake. You think Islam wasn't set up from the beginning for the subjugation of women by that? All the major religions are about equally stupid. The reason most of the long-term atheists and agnostics around here don't go after the Mormons specifically is because Mormonism is a minor blip in the face of all the stupid, stupid things that have been done in the name of religion. It's like getting mad at one crow that steals from your garden, when an entire flock of them took 1000 times as much food from you yesterday.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
This thread is about Mormons and polygamy, steven. So I feel like this is a good place as any to talk about some of the shortcomings of Mormonism and polygamy. Were this a thread about Islam, I would probably be talking about Islam. I don't think you have a leg to stand on, nor do I think it's reasonable to start a topic like this and not expect some negative reaction to it. Or to expect those who react negatively to keep their opinions to themselves.
Just because there is more than one stupid religion doesn't mean it's pointless to discuss one religion in particular. Nor does it mean all religions are equally stupid and destructive. Islam is far, far worse than Mormonism in that regard, for example.
You'll also notice I never called the LDS church stupid, nor do I really have a problem with religions based on how intellectually stimulating I believe them to be. My sole criteria (as far as this thread is concerned) is how *harmful* they are.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I do think it's funny that any time someone of your religion does something morally despicable, the classic response I get is "oh, he's not a *real* Mormon." I don't think the actions of those people necessarily automatically damn the church as a whole, just as I don't think I should be blamed for a soldier who goes crazy and kills 15 people, but me claiming "oh, he's not a *real* soldier" would just be silly. For that matter, just as I believe the military tends to attract, and also create, violent people, I do think the LDS church (particularly the fundamentalist wings thereof) promotes values which are in opposition to morality and society.
Dogbreath, this isn't analogous to finding out that an enlisted man has shot civilians and then claiming he doesn't count because that's against military code. This is analogous to some guy wanting to shoot up civilians, getting kicked out the military for it, forming his own militia that claims to be the real US military and then shooting civilians. The LDS Church is different from most other, non-Catholic, Christian denominations in that membership in the Church is very regimented. And there's no "fundamentalist wing", or any other wing. If you proclaim different doctrine than taught by the Church (i.e. claim polygamy is to be practiced today) you will get excommunicated quite swiftly.
Hobbes Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:That being said, polygamy isn't exactly criminalized. Any man can live with as many consenting adult women as he pleases and call them his wives, and the authorities won't stop him unless he actually tries to get a marriage contract with more than one of them. You could say the same thing about any gay couple who refer to themselves as "married" while living in a state where SSM is illegal. Yet gay couples aren't any more prone to domestic violence and abuse than straight couples, nor are they "underground."
Oh, OK. So as long as it's not done through legal channels, and with all the benefits and protections marriage is afforded by the government, you can be as polygamist as you want.
quote:I do think it's funny that any time someone of your religion does something morally despicable, the classic response I get is "oh, he's not a *real* Mormon."
Dude, seriously? Do you think any percentage of what people call the "Mormon/LDS Church" is polygamist these days? Seriously. If you are a member of the church, and take an additional wife, instant ex-communication. Why do you think many of the Mormon Fundamentalists broke off in the first place? They weren't willing to stop being polygamists.
quote:I do think the LDS church (particularly the fundamentalist wings thereof) promotes values which are in opposition to morality and society
I'm sorry you feel that way, I think the religion is an enormous force for good.
quote:I think of working with homeless youth who were disowned by their parents for violating some Mormon doctrine or another (usually for being gay), or friends who have been shunned by their families and communities for basically being honest about their personal beliefs and being men of honor and integrity.
FWIW The church has recognized this disturbing trend and has vocally instructed that it stop. You will never hear a leader of the church advocate for that sort of disfellowship.
quote:I don't want to get into too big of an argument, partly because of time, and partly because I hold a lot of respect for you, but I hope you can trust me when I say I have a lot of good reasons for viewing Mormonism as a despicable and immoral religion, and for thinking that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (in all it's iterations) has had a profoundly deleterious impact on society.
You have met some polygamist Mormon Fundamentalists, and also worked with youth who were treated terribly by their parents who were Mormons.
What can I say? Those parents were sinning, just like all of us do, and unfortunately very grievously in this case. But who are you to judge? You're extrapolating a bad behavior that has basis in bad tradition, and somehow that tips the balance worldwide.
There are more Mormons outside the United States than in, none of those Mormons have ever been polygamists, and politically they aren't conservative in many cases or liberal, they are whatever they have over in that country.
Yes, the church makes mistakes, but it also spends an incredible amount of time caring for the poor, the sick, the needy, the uneducated, the suffering. Mormons aren't tooting their own horn while they do it, and the news doesn't exactly care when a church does charitable work, it's much more interesting to focus on where they're weird or against the grain, and hammer on that all day.
--------
steven: I can't permit those sorts of posts as moderator. You are not permitted to disparage a specific religion or religion in general. You know this.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Dogbreath, the LDS church excommunicates anyone who practices polygamy and has repeatedly proclaimed that polygamy is not acceptable. So, when people say polygamist are not real mormons, it is based on more than just a nebulous definition of real. The LDS church also has fairly extensive records of membership and those in polygamist compounds will not be listed in them. A random person who claims to be Mormon but has never been baptized would be discounted as well because they are claiming membership to a church but have not fulfilled even the basic requirements of membership.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
also steven Islam was very progressive by contemporary standards when it came to treatment of women. Officially doctrine called for all your wives to be treated and cared for equally. Additionally women could own property and inherit and so on.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QUOTE]Oh, OK. So as long as it's not done through legal channels, and with all the benefits and protections marriage is afforded by the government, you can be as polygamist as you want.
I think you misunderstood the point that I'm trying to make: if abuse happening in illegal polygamous families only happens because polygamy is illegal and that they've been "driven underground", then why isn't there similar levels of abuse happening in illegally married gay families? Neither are criminalized, both happen, but has one drastically worse results.
I don't think legalizing polygamy would change this. Though as I said, I'm not opposed to legalizing it. Just because I personally think it's appalling and immoral doesn't mean I think the law should prohibit it, necessarily.
quote:Dude, seriously? Do you think any percentage of what people call the "Mormon/LDS Church" is polygamist these days? Seriously. If you are a member of the church, and take an additional wife, instant ex-communication. Why do you think many of the Mormon Fundamentalists broke off in the first place? They weren't willing to stop being polygamists.
Many protestant churches splinter for various reasons (I know of one that split because they couldn't agree on what constituted "appropriate worship music"), and many (even the majority?) are accountable to no higher body or denominational authority than the congregation itself. Yet I feel I can use the word "protestant Christian" to refer to Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, and a 30 member non-denominational church in the middle of nowhere, and I'm seldom corrected for doing so. (I have had some baptists use the "they're not real Christians! They haven't been born again!" line on occasion) And this is a group with far more differences between their various churches than there are between the various sects of Mormonism - hell, try to find 2 IFB churches that agree with each other doctrinally more than the LDS and FLDS church. But they're both undeniably Baptist. And I argue that the LDS and FDLS churches are both undeniably Mormon.
So, to be absolutely clear, when I say "Mormonism", I refer to the religion as a whole, not any specific church, ward, bishopric, or governing body. And again, I find it strange that so many of your religion claim that members of the FLDS church aren't Mormons. Perhaps they aren't members of your specific church, but they certainly follow your religion and it's tenants.
quote:I'm sorry you feel that way, I think the religion is an enormous force for good.
As do I. And I think the LDS Church does a tremendous amount of good as well. You might be conflating my comments with Steven's, but you'll notice I didn't say I found it to be *just* those things or *just* evil, and in other places I have on occasion praised Mormonism as well as other religious groups. But that doesn't mean I should ignore the evil and harmful parts of it. It's not about "tipping the scale", it's about "holy crap, this religion has a tremendous amount of power, and because of some silly or dangerous principles and doctrine inherent to the religion, a lot of evil is being done in it's name, and because of it's influence." I think that evil and it's cause needs to be recognized and addressed.
quote:FWIW The church has recognized this disturbing trend and has vocally instructed that it stop. You will never hear a leader of the church advocate for that sort of disfellowship.
Nonetheless, it happens, and in disproportionate numbers to the rest of society. To be fair, Mormonism isn't the only religious group that does it - Independent Fundamentalist Baptists are just as bad, if not worse, and think of them the same way I do Mormons.
As far as the rest of the post: I think maybe you're underestimating my intelligence, or ability to understand the subject rationally. Which is fair - you shouldn't necessarily have to interpret my words in the best light possible, especially when those words are ambiguous and many others have made arguments similar to the one you're arguing against. So I don't blame you for that. But believe me when I say I'm not simply judging the religion based on anecdotal evidence - I'm judging it based on the influence it has on people, and how it inspires, encourages, and justifies the actions I mentioned.
I am willing to concede that I may be biased or blind in this matter in some way I don't realize, and I'm definitely open to new ideas.
I also argue (based on many years of lurking on this forum and reading your posts) that you are somewhat blind in the defense of your own religion, and use tactics you wouldn't accept or use when discussing other subjects. You keep dismissing the tremendous amount of harmful things being done by Mormons as being individual cases... at what point do you realize that these actions are far more common among Mormons than the rest of society, and start examining what parts of your religion cause people to do these things? I believe you when you say the prophet isn't telling people to disown their gay or atheist children, yet this continues to happen at far higher rates than among families with similar beliefs and conviction, but different religion.
I'd argue it has to do with something I've seen in IFB churches I call "the appearance of evil" (after a sermon I heard), which is a idea that it's important to pretend like you have a sinless family and life, and that hiding just sin as important, if not more, than actually confessing and repenting from it. It's actually something I'd like to discuss in more detail, but this post is overly long already, and it wouldn't really fit this thread.
[ April 12, 2013, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I'll start another thread about it tonight or tomorrow, if you're interested in discussing it, though. Or I'll make a detailed post in this one, provided it doesn't get too bogged down or flamey.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I'll start another thread about it tonight or tomorrow, if you're interested in discussing it, though. Or I'll make a detailed post in this one, provided it doesn't get too bogged down or flamey.
I think it would be a good idea to read the response to you that Hobbes offered. The distinction between LDS and FLDS is way bigger than you're making it out to be.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I'll start another thread about it tonight or tomorrow, if you're interested in discussing it, though. Or I'll make a detailed post in this one, provided it doesn't get too bogged down or flamey.
I think it would be a good idea to read the response to you that Hobbes offered. The distinction between LDS and FLDS is way bigger than you're making it out to be.
I understand there's a large difference, I've done a decent amount of research on them. (I passed through Colorado City while heading to the Paria Canyon from Vegas, and ended up staying a few days on my way back with an (unmarried and rather bitter) guy there who runs a gas station/convience store and sells hiking gear to people passing through. He gave me a pretty indepth history of the town. He also called all the residents Mormons, and they self identified as Mormons, from what I saw.
My argument over this is mostly semantic. I'm aware the LDS church centered in Salt Lake City prohibits polygamy. I wasn't attacking that church at all, I was attacking polygamy - something I first witnessed being practiced by Mormons in Colorado City. And sure enough, several people felt the need to tell me "they aren't real Mormons!"
Even fundamental baptists, who claim only people who have been "washed in the blood" are "real Christians" will generally accept people outside of their little sect referring to Cathoics and Anglicans and Methodists Christian. Yet LDS typically feel as if they have the authority to forbid nonbelievers from using the term to apply to other LDS they happen to disagree with. Which is just crazy. What gives them the superior claim to the word? I'm prettt sure it was coined to describe followers of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon long before any schisms.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Is it a for real official standpoint, wherein the LDS says that the fundamentalist mormons aren't mormons?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Correct. They are not part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly referred to as the Mormon church, based in Salt Lake City, Utah. They are not counted on the church's records. They are not part of church administration in any way. This isn't just a doctrinal difference between two sects of the same religion. Insisting that it is, the way Dogbreath is, is kind of silly.
ETA: If the FLDS call themselves Mormons, so be it. It's not the official name of either church. But if someone is going to start talking about Mormons and their polygamy, then yes, expect someone to point out the distinction.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Lest anyone think this is just Mormons circling the wagons - I'll back this up as well. The FLDS and several other splinter groups that trace their lineage back to Joseph Smith's organization are in no way affiliated with the current Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of Prop 8 and sending missionaries to interrupt your football game watching fame.
That's not to say that some of them don't have a plausible argument justifying their legitimacy above that of the church in Salt Lake City, but that ship sailed many many decades go. Victors write the history and all that.
If you keep going on about how horrible Mormons are because of the whole polygamy thing you're going to sounds pretty silly to anyone who knows better and you are unfairly smearing the larger organization that most people actually interact with.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I'll start another thread about it tonight or tomorrow, if you're interested in discussing it, though. Or I'll make a detailed post in this one, provided it doesn't get too bogged down or flamey.
I think it would be a good idea to read the response to you that Hobbes offered. The distinction between LDS and FLDS is way bigger than you're making it out to be.
I understand there's a large difference, I've done a decent amount of research on them. (I passed through Colorado City while heading to the Paria Canyon from Vegas, and ended up staying a few days on my way back with an (unmarried and rather bitter) guy there who runs a gas station/convience store and sells hiking gear to people passing through. He gave me a pretty indepth history of the town. He also called all the residents Mormons, and they self identified as Mormons, from what I saw.
My argument over this is mostly semantic. I'm aware the LDS church centered in Salt Lake City prohibits polygamy. I wasn't attacking that church at all, I was attacking polygamy - something I first witnessed being practiced by Mormons in Colorado City. And sure enough, several people felt the need to tell me "they aren't real Mormons!"
Even fundamental baptists, who claim only people who have been "washed in the blood" are "real Christians" will generally accept people outside of their little sect referring to Cathoics and Anglicans and Methodists Christian. Yet LDS typically feel as if they have the authority to forbid nonbelievers from using the term to apply to other LDS they happen to disagree with. Which is just crazy.
Well, no.
The above passage is confusing.
This:
quote: Even fundamental baptists, who claim only people who have been "washed in the blood" are "real Christians" will generally accept people outside of their little sect referring to Cathoics and Anglicans and Methodists Christian.
Is referring to who gets to call themselves Christian. And by the way, many member of those denominations don't like calling Mormons Christians.
But then here:
quote:Yet LDS typically feel as if they have the authority to forbid nonbelievers from using the term to apply to other LDS they happen to disagree with.
"The term" is no longer Christian, it's Mormon. You switched it.
I promise you, Catholics would object to a protestant denomination calling themselves Catholics.
If we find a Lutheran sect that sacrifices babies to god, does that reflect poorly on Catholics? After all, they were the same religion, once.
That's the quality of argument that you've put forth so far.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
On a different tangent, I heard a suggestion that the threat Gay Marriage has for "traditional marriage" for conservatives is not really the legitimization of homosexuality.
Its the total abandonment of standard traditional sexual roles.
Men can not be considered "Masters of the household" if both members of the household are men, or if neither of them are men. The traditional roles of Men and Women become blurred and this is something that a patriarchal institution like LDS and most other churches, find disturbing.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: If you keep going on about how horrible Mormons are because of the whole polygamy thing you're going to sounds pretty silly to anyone who knows better and you are unfairly smearing the larger organization that most people actually interact with.
I'm not going on about how horrible Mormons are about the whole polygamy thing... I'm going on about how horrible polygamy is about the whole polygamy thing. My dislike of Mormonism nowadays comes from entirely different factors. (which I've also stated in this thread) And,FWIW, that *was* my first interaction with the Mormon Church.
Regardless, I have met people who call themselves Mormons and Latter Day Saints, and who are called Mormons by those around them, who practice polygamy. They follow the teaching of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and they practice the same religion. If some members of their religion want to claim they're "not real Mormons" that's fine, but I think it's absurd to make everyone else redefine a term just because you happen to not like them, and rather dishonest as well.
Dan: Ok. What about if a Baptist church split into 2, and they both went on calling themselves Baptist? Because that happens all the time. Also, I'm aware many members of those denominations don't like calling Mormons Christians. Do you agree with that assessment? Do you think Mormons should be forbidden from referring to themselves as Christians?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Regardless, I have met people who call themselves Mormons and Latter Day Saints, and who are called Mormons by those around them, who practice polygamy. They follow the teaching of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and they practice the same religion. If some members of their religion want to claim they're "not real Mormons" that's fine, but I think it's absurd to make everyone else redefine a term just because you happen to not like them, and rather dishonest as well.
I think you're creating a big conflict out of thin air here. While there might be some LDS members who sniff when you mention the FLDS church and say, "Oh, those aren't real Mormons," they are few. Most LDS think of the FLDS as a completely separate church--not as a bunch of wannabe Mormons, but as a separate church entirely. As in, Methodists and Lutherans are separate churches. They may have similarities and common roots, but a member of one church probably does not think of herself as a member of the other. All anyone on this thread has been doing is making that distinction--not bringing up some old dislikes and grumbling about them.
There isn't some silly fight going on between two branches of the same sect. Maybe it's perceived differently among FLDS members. I don't know. If so, it's a very one-sided fight. If they call themselves Mormons as well, so be it. They do share that heritage. I didn't know they regularly called themselves Mormons. I'm used to "Mormon" referring to my church. But I'm not going to begrudge them the name if they claim it as well, even if it creates confusion.
But it's reasonable to expect that, as people (even seasoned journalists) continue to conflate the FLDS and the LDS churches, especially in terms of polygamy, the LDS church will continue to emphasize that we are separate churches, and if pressed, emphasize that we are separate organizations with some quite different fundamental beliefs and practices.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dogbreath: I'm not sure if you want to change your mind on the subject, and I don't get any jollies out of defining what other people's beliefs are.
But FLDS and other Mormon splinter groups actually have an *enormous* difference of doctrine. It's big enough that there *has* to be a distinction, or else discussion is impossible. It's not the same religion. It has nothing to do with me not liking them calling themselves Mormons. They can call themselves what they want.
The FLDS you met probably do believe the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, but that's where the similarities largely end. There are like 13 prophets since then that all LDS people believe in, that they definitely do not. They have 3-4 leaders/prophets that the LDS church would never recognize as legitimate.
The LDS church ex-communicated that entire community back in the 1930's. They don't believe our church is the true church, we don't believe theirs is.
You are welcome to call them Mormons, as are they. But when you say in essence, "I think the Mormon church is a force for bad because of polygamy and anti-homosexuality" it's going to cause people to go "Bwuh?" Because you are talking about two different groups of people.
Also what AFR said.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry to double post but I have to agree with AFR on something else. I don't hear the FLDS church being discussed by people where I go to church. If there is a conflict, I'm not aware of it. We largely ignore what they do.
I only know about the FLDS church because of Warren Jeffs, and my own researching/seeing the news.
The whole Mormons want to be called Christians but Christians don't want that, isn't really what is going on here, when we take issue with you calling the FLDS church "Mormons".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hmm. You know initially I thought Dogbreath was being somewhat unfair, conflating F and LDS, but having considered it more I think I can see where the differences to a complete outsider would seem more like window dressing and less like a serious, fundamental difference. Yes, the LDS have cast out the FLDS, but what is that to someone unconnected to either, who sees both as untrue, outside faiths?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Hmm. You know initially I thought Dogbreath was being somewhat unfair, conflating F and LDS, but having considered it more I think I can see where the differences to a complete outsider would seem more like window dressing and less like a serious, fundamental difference. Yes, the LDS have cast out the FLDS, but what is that to someone unconnected to either, who sees both as untrue, outside faiths?
*Shrug* An opportunity to do a little research before saying anything? If both churches are just untrue, outside faiths to you, I don't see where you can second-guess what they say about their internal differences.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
BlackBlade: I'm willing to drop the point. It's pretty minor and I think it's distracting from other topics which I feel should be discussed in this thread. From now on I'll refer to members of your specific church as Salt Lake Mormons, to avoid confusion. You should be aware though this isn't just a hypothetical argument - I know members and former members of the FLDS church who refer to themselves as Mormons. You can understand why I (and they) might take umbrage at being told they aren't real Mormons, and for being called ignorant for referring to them by the name they call themselves.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dogbreath: Who here has said "they aren't REAL Mormons"? You keep acting like that's what we are doing. You'll note I didn't say the parents who exiled their children for being gay weren't "real Mormons" just bad ones.
But even if you are an outsider looking in, you have to distinguish between the two groups because they don't act in concert.
The originator of this thread wanted to talk about Mormons, Gays, and Polygamy. He's clearly *not* talking about the FLDS church or the RLDS church.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Regardless, I have met people who call themselves Mormons and Latter Day Saints, and who are called Mormons by those around them, who practice polygamy.
And I support their right to use these terms to refer to themselves and I concur that they are accurate terms so far as context is observed. Because their doctrine and practices diverge so starkly from the official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints good communication requires noting the distinction.
Wrong: "Mormons practice polygamy." The vast majority of those who identify as Mormon do not. The large organization most people recognize as the Mormon church does not. The only Mormon group with any amount of political power does not. It's a minority fringe practice.
Right: "The RLDS church practices polygamy."
quote: They follow the teaching of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and they practice the same religion. If some members of their religion want to claim they're "not real Mormons" that's fine, but I think it's absurd to make everyone else redefine a term just because you happen to not like them, and rather dishonest as well.
Again I think they have the right to continue to identify themselves however they want. A few of the more well-known offshoots came into existence as the result of a power-struggle that could have gone either way. ("I'm the prophet!" "No, I'm the prophet!"). So while the Mormons here may wish to constrain the definition, and the larger Church organization has issued public statements to that effect, I'm just suggesting that when criticizing a religion you make a distinction between the groups that are guilty of the crimes you accuse them off.
For instance, complaining about modern day Mormon polygamy and opposition to SSM in the same breath is confusing and misleading.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:I spent some time in Colorado City, AZ when I was 18, and it left me pretty disgusted with Mormonism for a while afterwards. (I try to be very civil about it on these boards, and have no problem with most Mormons as individuals, but I consider the religion as a whole to be evil - mostly because of the huge number of friends and acquaintances who have been damaged by it)
What they call themselves is their prerogative, but here you are at least implying that all Mormonism (including Salt Lake Mormonism since you referenced members on this board who are members of SL Mormonism) is evil because of the actions of the FLDS group in Colorado City.
I'll agree with you that "They aren't real Mormons" isn't the right phrasing. More appropriate would be "They aren't members of my religion, they don't believe what my religion believes, and I have a problem if you try to judge me, my friends, any members of my religion, or my religion as an institution by the actions of that completely unaffiliated group."
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
LDS and FLDS are the same like American Football and Australian Football are the same. Pretty much in name only.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I've already stated I know salt lake Mormons don't practice polygamy. My comment there was an aside about my initial encounter with Mormonism - an opinion that has been altered and broadened since then. My actual post was an attack against polygamy, not Mormonism. My dislike of Mormonism as a whole has to do with other aspects of the religion - polygamy isn't really tied to that dislike at this point in my life. (though I certainly do dislike polygamy)
[ April 12, 2013, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: For instance, complaining about modern day Mormon polygamy and opposition to SSM in the same breath is confusing and misleading.
FWIW, I'm "complaining" (if that's what you call expressing my personal experience and disgust with polygamy) about polygamy in general, whether practiced by Mormons or other groups. The religion of those who practice it isn't really relevant. Where have I complained about Mormon opposition to SSM exactly?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I promise you, Catholics would object to a protestant denomination calling themselves Catholics.
Not so! The Roman Catholic Church would have an objection to other groups calling themselves Roman Catholics, but there are other groups that also use the name "Catholic" and even lots of protestant denominations (all of them that use the Nicene Creed) that consider themselves part of the lower-case "c" catholic church.
</tangent>
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
So is it safe to say that even if polygamy were legalized, it would likely still be prohibited by the LDS church, and that the continued prohibition would have widespread approval within the Mormon community?
Posted by Arjen (Member # 12980) on :
FOr me, the key to understanding is to realize that the LDS definition of marriage comes from what we believe to be revelation. We believe that God has set boundaries for what is considered acceptable within marriage. Now whether those boundaries are eternal principles that God recognized, or if they are principles that he created is another question. The key comes down to a belief of what is morally acceptable. Now, my understandin is that the church agrees that same sex unions should certainly be allowed the same benefits of marriage, IE tax benefits, hosptial visitation rights etc. But one major key is whether these unions would be allowed to fight for the right to be married in any building or by any person who is authorized to marry. Whether it is true or not, I was told that one of the church's concerns was that if SSM happened, that there would be a fight to force the church to allow ssm in the temple, something we do not believe in. That fight could end up making it so the church could no longer marry in the US. Even if the US were to allow SSM, and thereafter remove any sort of prohibitions to polygamy, the church would not immediately jump on the bandwagon to allow members to have polygamous unions. It would take revelation to the prophet. Now whether the prophet receives revelation or is just delusional is a matter of faith. Now can the church improve? Certainly. No one is perfect, and we can and should all work to improve ourselves, remembering to hate the sin, and not the sinner. I personally would say yes to SSM as long as there are rights granted to churches that allows them to practice their faith in terms of whether or not SSM is allowed within their faith. Until I see something that specifically allows that, I would likely be opposed to it. While the Constitution allows for a seperation of church and state, some might argue that if marriage is a basic right, that to not allow SSM would be discriminatory.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I promise you, Catholics would object to a protestant denomination calling themselves Catholics.
Not so! The Roman Catholic Church would have an objection to other groups calling themselves Roman Catholics, but there are other groups that also use the name "Catholic" and even lots of protestant denominations (all of them that use the Nicene Creed) that consider themselves part of the lower-case "c" catholic church.
</tangent>
Thanks! You saved me some work. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Arjen: As far as I know, there are no laws that say you have to marry (I mean, perform the ceremony) anyone who comes up and asks you to. I know of a church that refuses to do inter-racial weddings and and sets a dress code for those being married. They're certainly within their rights to do so and have not been reprimanded by the government for it. I imagine the same will go for LDS - you'll still be allowed to marry or not marry any couple you please. Allowing SSM won't change that.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I promise you, Catholics would object to a protestant denomination calling themselves Catholics.
Not so! The Roman Catholic Church would have an objection to other groups calling themselves Roman Catholics, but there are other groups that also use the name "Catholic" and even lots of protestant denominations (all of them that use the Nicene Creed) that consider themselves part of the lower-case "c" catholic church.
</tangent>
Thanks! You saved me some work.
That's interesting, thanks for the info.
Now, is this actually contradicting my point? I'm not sure.
Clarify something for me: if one of these lower case c catholic Protestant groups had some horrific practice that the Roman Catholic Church decried, then would it be reasonable to lay the blame for that on "Catholics" in general? Are they sufficiently related and intertwined for that?
I don't know the answer. But I hope you do! Because, in context of this actual thread, that's the analogy I was presenting.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by BBegley: So is it safe to say that even if polygamy were legalized, it would likely still be prohibited by the LDS church, and that the continued prohibition would have widespread approval within the Mormon community?
Yes.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I promise you, Catholics would object to a protestant denomination calling themselves Catholics.
Not so! The Roman Catholic Church would have an objection to other groups calling themselves Roman Catholics, but there are other groups that also use the name "Catholic" and even lots of protestant denominations (all of them that use the Nicene Creed) that consider themselves part of the lower-case "c" catholic church.
</tangent>
Thanks! You saved me some work.
To extrapolate on this somewhat - most protestant churches will, in their doctrine statement, claim to be part of the holy catholic church. (sometimes also called "the Bride of Christ". It's a theological concept that all Christians form one spiritual "body") Because of the Reformation, they don't place themselves under the authority of the Vatican, but they certainly consider themselves to be a part of that body.
I actually don't know if LDS claim this or not. I know they reject other parts of the Nicene Creed... I'd appreciate if someone would educate me on this.
Edit: Dan, I've already stated several times that I don't lay that specific blame (polygamy) on "Mormons" in general, and explained why. I'm sorry if it's not clearer, but reread my posts. You're assuming I'm making an argument that I'm not. I realize I was making several different points in the various posts I've made, and you might think I'm intertwining those points in a way that I'm not. My thinking it absurd that Salt Lake Mormons are so quick to dismiss other LDS as "not real Mormons" is not tied to an attempt to blame all Mormon churches for the sins of one small faction. And my current dislike of Mormonism that I expressed is not tied either.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by BBegley: So is it safe to say that even if polygamy were legalized, it would likely still be prohibited by the LDS church, and that the continued prohibition would have widespread approval within the Mormon community?
Yes.
There aren't enough of the smilies in the Universe for my response to your post.
I don't even know where to start.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
You can start with a "you can't seriously believe" and follow that with a "any reasonable person knows" and you could certainly layer in few "inescapable conclusions". I mean, it's not that hard.
You'd still be completely wrong, of course. But knowing where to start in displaying your sense of superior knowledge of someone else's culture is the LEAST of your problems.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by BBegley: So is it safe to say that even if polygamy were legalized, it would likely still be prohibited by the LDS church, and that the continued prohibition would have widespread approval within the Mormon community?
Yes.
There aren't enough of the smilies in the Universe for my response to your post.
I don't even know where to start.
Apparently not, because you didn't.
Anyway, I'm here all week.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I highly doubt you'll get a sincere reply from him, afr.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:I actually don't know if LDS claim this or not. I know they reject other parts of the Nicene Creed...
No, the LDS church does not consider itself part of this. That's probably one big reason many other churches don't consider us Christian.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Thanks! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Regardless, I have met people who call themselves Mormons and Latter Day Saints, and who are called Mormons by those around them, who practice polygamy. They follow the teaching of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and they practice the same religion. If some members of their religion want to claim they're "not real Mormons" that's fine, but I think it's absurd to make everyone else redefine a term just because you happen to not like them, and rather dishonest as well.
I think you're creating a big conflict out of thin air here. While there might be some LDS members who sniff when you mention the FLDS church and say, "Oh, those aren't real Mormons," they are few.
But you just clarified for me that it is the official position of the LDS that the FLDS aren't really mormon.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Regardless, I have met people who call themselves Mormons and Latter Day Saints, and who are called Mormons by those around them, who practice polygamy. They follow the teaching of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and they practice the same religion. If some members of their religion want to claim they're "not real Mormons" that's fine, but I think it's absurd to make everyone else redefine a term just because you happen to not like them, and rather dishonest as well.
I think you're creating a big conflict out of thin air here. While there might be some LDS members who sniff when you mention the FLDS church and say, "Oh, those aren't real Mormons," they are few.
But you just clarified for me that it is the official position of the LDS that the FLDS aren't really mormon.
I misread your question and amended it with an ETA.
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The originator of this thread wanted to talk about Mormons, Gays, and Polygamy. He's clearly *not* talking about the FLDS church or the RLDS church.
That is correct. I'm curious about the motivation and thought process for the currently non-polygamous Mormon community.
Obviously, FLDS would prefer that polygamy were legal. I was wondering if LDS feared SSM as a possible prelude to legalizing polygamy.
My impression thus far is that most LDS members do not think about polygamy at all, and those that do are not worried at all about a return to it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That's interesting, thanks for the info.
Now, is this actually contradicting my point? I'm not sure.
Clarify something for me: if one of these lower case c catholic Protestant groups had some horrific practice that the Roman Catholic Church decried, then would it be reasonable to lay the blame for that on "Catholics" in general? Are they sufficiently related and intertwined for that?
I don't know the answer. But I hope you do! Because, in context of this actual thread, that's the analogy I was presenting.
No and no.
I think the comparable would be that it's appropriate to call members of the fundamentalist sects Mormon, as they use the Book of Mormon and refer to themselves that way. But it would be incorrect to refer to them as part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as that is the name of a specific organization that they are not a part of.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Regardless, I have met people who call themselves Mormons and Latter Day Saints, and who are called Mormons by those around them, who practice polygamy. They follow the teaching of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and they practice the same religion. If some members of their religion want to claim they're "not real Mormons" that's fine, but I think it's absurd to make everyone else redefine a term just because you happen to not like them, and rather dishonest as well.
I think you're creating a big conflict out of thin air here. While there might be some LDS members who sniff when you mention the FLDS church and say, "Oh, those aren't real Mormons," they are few.
But you just clarified for me that it is the official position of the LDS that the FLDS aren't really mormon.
It's the official position of the LDS church that its members are not "Mormons". They actually discourage the use of the monicker amongst church members.
So it's kinda a non-starter that other groups want to be called Mormons.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Regardless, I have met people who call themselves Mormons and Latter Day Saints, and who are called Mormons by those around them, who practice polygamy. They follow the teaching of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and they practice the same religion. If some members of their religion want to claim they're "not real Mormons" that's fine, but I think it's absurd to make everyone else redefine a term just because you happen to not like them, and rather dishonest as well.
I think you're creating a big conflict out of thin air here. While there might be some LDS members who sniff when you mention the FLDS church and say, "Oh, those aren't real Mormons," they are few.
But you just clarified for me that it is the official position of the LDS that the FLDS aren't really mormon.
It's the official position of the LDS church that its members are not "Mormons". They actually discourage the use of the monicker amongst church members.
So it's kinda a non-starter that other groups want to be called Mormons.
Well, they at least discouraged the use in the late 90's and early 2000's. I think they changed that approach realizing they were trying to swim up stream and have since started trying to make the term "Mormon" a positive thing. (See the I'm a Mormon campaign.)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Yeah, what stilesbn said - after a brief period trying to correct people they've now embraced the term.
On the topic of what other groups call themselves, President Kimball famously said "There is no such thing as a fundamentalist mormon."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That's interesting, thanks for the info.
Now, is this actually contradicting my point? I'm not sure.
Clarify something for me: if one of these lower case c catholic Protestant groups had some horrific practice that the Roman Catholic Church decried, then would it be reasonable to lay the blame for that on "Catholics" in general? Are they sufficiently related and intertwined for that?
I don't know the answer. But I hope you do! Because, in context of this actual thread, that's the analogy I was presenting.
No and no.
I think the comparable would be that it's appropriate to call members of the fundamentalist sects Mormon, as they use the Book of Mormon and refer to themselves that way. But it would be incorrect to refer to them as part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as that is the name of a specific organization that they are not a part of.
Right, this makes sense.
I originally (wrongly) interpreted Dogbreath as saying, in effect, "I've known lots of Mormons who do X, and X is bad, so Mormons have that to answer for."
And by what you've said above, I think this would be an unreasonable position to take if it were reapplied for Catholic denominations.
It's sort of moot since I misinterpreted his position, though. Still, thanks for the info. I'm not terribly familiar with the nuances of Christianity. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Yeah, what stilesbn said - after a brief period trying to correct people they've now embraced the term.
The progression seems similar to the use of the term "Christian" to describe followers of Jesus Christ. It was originally used as a derogatory term and early Christians referred to themselves for several decades (or possibly centuries) as "Followers of the Way" (according to the book of Acts) before eventually co-opting the term, then having the term "Christianity" replace "The Way."
It makes me wonder if the term "Latter Day Saint" will eventually be replaced and the Church will change it's name from "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" to "The Mormon Church" or something in the next hundred years or so.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: It makes me wonder if the term "Latter Day Saint" will eventually be replaced and the Church will change it's name from "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" to "The Mormon Church" or something in the next hundred years or so.
I doubt it. One of the claims of the church is that it's the Church of Jesus Christ. It is very important to have the name Jesus Christ in there and the Book of Mormon highlights in numerous places the fact the the followers of Christ were called the Children of Christ or Church of Christ. I suppose anything is possible but chances are the official name will remain the same with the informal name being "Mormons."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
They also have trademark rights to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." I don't think anyone owns "Mormon".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's the official position of the LDS church that its members are not "Mormons". They actually discourage the use of the monicker amongst church members.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: They also have trademark rights to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."
Nobody inside the church quite gets just how Scientology-ish that seems, do they?
My closest friend grew up in the Community of Christ. Your church sued them out of their name, "Reorganized Latter Day Saints", and made all of you look pretty silly by doing it.
Trademarking the name, indeed. The RLDS church has been around every bit as long as yours has, and comes from the exact same source, the schism that happened as a result of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s somewhat sudden and unexpected death.
The bizarre and funny part is, a lot of Mormons haven't the slightest idea about that whole situation. 5 churches were created out of that schism, and the largest was the group that headed to Utah and became the current church. The other 4 are still around, though.
Trademarking the name, indeed.
[ April 13, 2013, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: steven ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by BBegley: So is it safe to say that even if polygamy were legalized, it would likely still be prohibited by the LDS church, and that the continued prohibition would have widespread approval within the Mormon community?
Yes.
There aren't enough of the smilies in the Universe for my response to your post.
I don't even know where to start.
Apparently not, because you didn't.
Anyway, I'm here all week.
You know, it's not necessarily all that difficult to predict the behavior of some groups of people, especially those that exist as a result of people trying to achieve a measurable, fairly objective goal. However, you're talking about predicting the behavior of a religious group, a pretty new one. This is a group that reverses itself pretty regularly, through 'divine revelation' mediated by its leadership.
I don't know where you get the self-importance to predict future 'divine revelations', but it's mystifying. I mean, I've heard from at least a couple of Mormons here on Hatrack that they wouldn't mind a return to polygamy. Do you deny that at least some would be happy about that?
You know, I'm getting the distinct feeling that you're trying to assure us that you are all far more mainstream than you really are. I understand that, it's a human impulse to try to fit in. However, a lot of non-Mormons here are pretty aware of the church's history. We're the wrong group to try to this with, I think, OK?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Man, was there as point when we asked on Hatrack 'hey, could we have an embarrassing, rude element of our side of the aisle to say things that make the rest of us embarrassed' and you signed up, steven?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Man, was there as point when we asked on Hatrack 'hey, could we have an embarrassing, rude element of our side of the aisle to say things that make the rest of us embarrassed' and you signed up, steven?
I only jumped in when AFR decided he was going to predict the future.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
steven: You're also being snide, condescending, and rude. Also, scientology sounding? Pretty sure we've got Hubbard beat by over 100 years.
quote:The bizarre and funny part is, a lot of Mormons haven't the slightest idea about that whole situation.
Wait what? You mean Mormons are not all up in their own history just like *everybody* else on the planet?
What a bizarre and funny thing!
[ April 13, 2013, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: steven: You're also being snide, condescending, and rude. Also, scientology sounding? Pretty sure we've got Hubbard beat by over 100 years.
quote:The bizarre and funny part is, a lot of Mormons haven't the slightest idea about that whole situation.
Wait what? You mean Mormons are not all up in their own history just like *everybody* else on the planet?
What a bizarre and funny thing!
You're doggone straight I'm being snide, condescending, and rude. I'm still just stating facts, though...and not even in an unbalanced way. IMHO.
Speaking of history, though, wouldn't you agree that Mormons are highly genealogy-focused, as a group? Highly.
How about THIS genealogy for you, Blackblade? None of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s descendants even BELONG to your church. They went with another splinter group, the one that your church forced to change its name through a copyright and a lawsuit.
In fact, up until 1996, the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS, until you sued them) was run by an unbroken line of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s descendants. I will be happy to provide links for that, if you would like.
So exactly what does that say about your church? It's so focused on genealogy, but completely without the most important Mormon lineage.
And I really don't mean all that to come off as harsh as it does. I'm sorry that it does.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:My closest friend grew up in the Community of Christ. Your church sued them out of their name, "Reorganized Latter Day Saints", and made all of you look pretty silly by doing it.
My church? I'm not LDS. As far as I'm concerned it's all hooey. I just choose not to be an ass about it.
quote:Trademarking the name, indeed. The RLDS church has been around every bit as long as yours has, and comes from the exact same source, the schism that happened as a result of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s somewhat sudden and unexpected death.
And? Whenever any single legal entity (church, business, marriage) splits into two the shared property and rights necessarily split as well. The current LDS church won the rights to that name and took legal action to protect it. Another sect won the copyright to some of the early scripture written Joseph Smith, etc. There's nothing very Scientology about using the legal system. Scientology's thing is abusing the legal system - suing with the express purpose of harassing and financially destroying enemies and critics.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:My closest friend grew up in the Community of Christ. Your church sued them out of their name, "Reorganized Latter Day Saints", and made all of you look pretty silly by doing it.
My church? I'm not LDS. As far as I'm concerned it's all hooey. I just choose not to be an ass about it.
quote:Trademarking the name, indeed. The RLDS church has been around every bit as long as yours has, and comes from the exact same source, the schism that happened as a result of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s somewhat sudden and unexpected death.
And? Whenever any single legal entity (church, business, marriage) splits into two the shared property and rights necessarily split as well. The current LDS church won the rights to that name and took legal action to protect it. Another sect won the copyright to some of the early scripture written Joseph Smith, etc. There's nothing very Scientology about using the legal system. Scientology's thing is abusing the legal system - suing with the express purpose of harassing and financially destroying enemies and critics.
Um, yeeeeeeaaahhhh....if your religion is suing another religion over, well, anything, something has gone very fricking wrong. VERY.
when you find yourself involved in petty silliness like that, it's time to rest a moment, take stock of the situation.
I don't remember ANY major religious figure (Buddha, Jesus, etc.) suing anyone. If anything, they were all "render unto Caesar...", "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle...", etc.. They were kind of above petty squabbles and materialism, were they not?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:How about THIS genealogy for you, Blackblade? None of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s descendants even BELONG to your church. They went with another splinter group, the one that your church forced to change its name through a copyright and a lawsuit.
There is no doctrinal support for the idea that the prophet of the LDS church should be determined through patrilineal succession. That assumption contradicts Joseph Smiths's statement that "all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith." So one group held a vote, choosing Brigham Young, and the other went with his son.
quote:So exactly what does that say about your church? It's so focused on genealogy, but completely without the most important Mormon lineage.
The purpose of LDS genealogy is not to determine status, but to ensure that sacred ordinances are delivered to as many people as possible. There is nothing more important about one lineage over another.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:So exactly what does that say about your church? It's so focused on genealogy, but completely without the most important Mormon lineage.
So in order for you to care about genealogy, it must also be a means by which succession is determined? Are you even listening to yourself? There are zillions of prophets that did not have fathers who were also prophets. In fact, that's so rare when it comes up people actually make a point of mentioning it "The God of Abaraham, The God of Isaac, The God of Jacob." Moses' sons aren't even mentioned if he had any, Jesus didn't have a son take over, Peter didn't have a son take over, why should it suddenly be super important for Joseph Smith?
You're assuming it's necessary for one of his progeny (which not many survived) be the next leader of the church. Joseph Smith's lineage is *not* the most important, it's not even more important than the Joe Smith who is also a Mormon who lived down the street from the prophet.
I'm sorry your genealogy lesson was wasted on me, I was aware that one of Joseph Smith's lines led the RLDS church, and that my church instead went with Brigham Young when I was a young boy. We do have plenty of Joseph Smith's family in my church though.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:My closest friend grew up in the Community of Christ. Your church sued them out of their name, "Reorganized Latter Day Saints", and made all of you look pretty silly by doing it.
My church? I'm not LDS. As far as I'm concerned it's all hooey. I just choose not to be an ass about it.
Yep, well said!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:So exactly what does that say about your church? It's so focused on genealogy, but completely without the most important Mormon lineage.
So in order for you to care about genealogy, it must also be a means by which succession is determined? Are you even listening to yourself? There are zillions of prophets that did not have fathers who were also prophets. In fact, that's so rare when it comes up people actually make a point of mentioning it "The God of Abaraham, The God of Isaac, The God of Jacob." Moses' sons aren't even mentioned if he had any, Jesus didn't have a son take over, Peter didn't have a son take over, why should it suddenly be super important for Joseph Smith?
You're assuming it's necessary for one of his progeny (which not many survived) be the next leader of the church. Joseph Smith's lineage is *not* the most important, it's not even more important than the Joe Smith who is also a Mormon who lived down the street from the prophet.
I'm sorry your genealogy lesson was wasted on me, I was aware that one of Joseph Smith's lines led the RLDS church, and that my church instead went with Brigham Young when I was a young boy. We do have plenty of Joseph Smith's family in my church though.
Dude, I couldn't care less about your church, it's legitimacy in the larger Mormon theological universe, blah blah, etc.. Don't care, never cared, WON'T EVER care. It's all fantasy and role-playing, IMO.
My point was that, on the face of it, it's a bit inconsistent to NOT be the church that was led by Smith's descendants, yet still be so laser-focused on genealogy as a mark of purity, holiness, etc, etc., blah blah, etc. etc.
And as far as having any of Joseph Smith's descendants in your church, PROVE IT. I don't believe it for a second.
And again, I don't mean this to be as harsh as it sounds.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:My point was that, on the face of it, it's a bit inconsistent to NOT be the church that was led by Smith's descendants, yet still be so laser-focused on genealogy as a mark of purity, holiness, etc, etc., blah blah, etc. etc.
For somebody who couldn't care less you sure talk emotionally about it.
Being focused on genealogy has nothing to do with feeling pure or holy. It's a way to get in touch with those who came before you, and bind them to you as a family. It's one of the key reasons we build temples. It has nothing to do with making sure certain blood lines are in leadership positions.
quote:And as far as having any of Joseph Smith's descendants in your church, PROVE IT. I don't believe it for a second.
OK, contrast that, with this,
quote:We do have plenty of Joseph Smith's family in my church though.
A tiny hint, you can have lots of family outside of your own children.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:My point was that, on the face of it, it's a bit inconsistent to NOT be the church that was led by Smith's descendants, yet still be so laser-focused on genealogy as a mark of purity, holiness, etc, etc., blah blah, etc. etc.
No, it's not. You just misunderstand why genealogy is important. For instance, you are again way off the mark when you suggest that genealogy has anything to do with "purity, holiness, etc."
A quick lesson: The LDS church believes that certain ordinances are required to fully progress spiritually. Baptism, for example.
They also believe that a physical body is required to receive these ordinances. This creates a conundrum - what about all those people who died without having that opportunity?
The solution is proxy baptisms, where a living person can perform the physical ordinance as a stand-in for a deceased person.
In the LDS church genealogy is completely about discovering people who have not yet participated in these ordinances so proxy ordinances can be performed on their behalf. Full stop. Nothing about holiness, purity, status, etc. It's actually a pretty banal bookkeeping task.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:My point was that, on the face of it, it's a bit inconsistent to NOT be the church that was led by Smith's descendants, yet still be so laser-focused on genealogy as a mark of purity, holiness, etc, etc., blah blah, etc. etc.
For somebody who couldn't care less you sure talk emotionally about it.
Being focused on genealogy has nothing to do with feeling pure or holy. It's a way to get in touch with those who came before you, and bind them to you as a family. It's one of the key reasons we build temples. It has nothing to do with making sure certain blood lines are in leadership positions.
quote:And as far as having any of Joseph Smith's descendants in your church, PROVE IT. I don't believe it for a second.
OK, contrast that, with this,
quote:We do have plenty of Joseph Smith's family in my church though.
A tiny hint, you can have lots of family outside of your own children.
So then we have a misunderstanding.
I do seem to remember an article by OSC telling a story about how arrogant some of his relatives are about being descended from some of the first members of the Utah LDS church. However, I'm sure not all Mormons are equally focused on such things.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Moses' sons aren't even mentioned if he had any
quote:Exodus Chapter 2: 21 And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.
22 And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.
quote:Exodus Chapter 4: 20 And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt: and Moses took the rod of God in his hand.
quote:Exodus Chapter 4: 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
quote:Exodus Chapter 18: 2 Then Jethro, Moses' father in law, took Zipporah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her back,
3 And her two sons; of which the name of the one was Gershom; for he said, I have been an alien in a strange land:
4 And the name of the other was Eliezer; for the God of my father, said he, was mine help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh:
quote:I Chronicles 23:
15 The sons of Moses were, Gershom, and Eliezer.
16 Of the sons of Gershom, Shebuel was the chief.
17 And the sons of Eliezer were, Rehabiah the chief. And Eliezer had none other sons; but the sons of Rehabiah were very many.
...For that matter, you can read the Book of Chronicles and track the history and notable achievements of Moses's descendants. But I think it's a little disingenuous for you to simply say "they weren't mentioned, if he had any." Maybe say "the LDS Church doesn't recognize the legitimacy of Moses's alleged sons" or something, so people realize it's an issue of your religion's dogma, not of historical records.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dogbreath: Disingenuous, or mistaken perhaps? That's great you corrected my incorrect assumption. Moses' sons didn't succeed him, which falls in line with what I was saying, but that's cool to know he had them.
I don't know how we got to the LDS church from there, but the fact remains the records states Moses ordained Joshua to succeed him.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:My point was that, on the face of it, it's a bit inconsistent to NOT be the church that was led by Smith's descendants, yet still be so laser-focused on genealogy as a mark of purity, holiness, etc, etc., blah blah, etc. etc.
For somebody who couldn't care less you sure talk emotionally about it.
Being focused on genealogy has nothing to do with feeling pure or holy. It's a way to get in touch with those who came before you, and bind them to you as a family. It's one of the key reasons we build temples. It has nothing to do with making sure certain blood lines are in leadership positions.
quote:And as far as having any of Joseph Smith's descendants in your church, PROVE IT. I don't believe it for a second.
OK, contrast that, with this,
quote:We do have plenty of Joseph Smith's family in my church though.
A tiny hint, you can have lots of family outside of your own children.
So then we have a misunderstanding.
I do seem to remember an article by OSC telling a story about how arrogant some of his relatives are about being descended from some of the first members of the Utah LDS church. However, I'm sure not all Mormons are equally focused on such things.
People will from time to time mention being a member of one of the early families as a means to establish a depth of belief or heritage. But there is no expression of that belief insofar as church members being given preferential treatment.
It's much like an American finding out I am proud to be a direct descendent of William Bradford, second Governor of Plymouth Colony. It's cool, but I wait in line at immigration just like everybody else.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Dogbreath: Disingenuous, or mistaken perhaps?
Oh, nevermind then. The "stranger in a strange land" quote, as well as Moses' life story, is so well known even among nonbelievers (thanks to movies like The Ten Commandments, The Prince of Egypt, as well as passover, and Jewish and Christian culture in general) that I figured you had to be referring to some obscure LDS belief that Moses' sons weren't legitimate or something. Heck, even OSC wrote about them and made them characters in Stone Tables.
quote:I don't know how we got to the LDS church from there, but the fact remains the records states Moses ordained Joshua to succeed him.
Indeed, though Moses' children (and their descendents) were given positions of power and prestige, and highly esteemed by the Children of Israel.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Oh, nevermind then. The "stranger in a strange land" quote, as well as Moses' life story, is so well known even among nonbelievers (thanks to movies like The Ten Commandments, The Prince of Egypt, as well as passover, and Jewish and Christian culture in general) that I figured you had to be referring to some obscure LDS belief that Moses' sons weren't legitimate or something. Heck, even OSC wrote about them and made them characters in Stone Tables.
Now that you mention it, I can recall his sons being shown in The Ten Commandments, but not in Prince of Egypt. And because his sons don't go on to do anything super notable, I guess my mind just discarded them.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Re-reading that post I realized the tone isn't very clear: my intent isn't to be condesending, just explaining why I made the assumption that I did. I know LDS have some additional scriptures regarding Moses (which I've yet to read unfortunately) so my brain just went "oh, he's talking about that" without considering other options first.
Posted by cloark (Member # 12400) on :
quote: And as far as having any of Joseph Smith's descendants in your church, PROVE IT. I don't believe it for a second.
quote: Among Joseph and Emma’s posterity are now some 125 living adult descendants who are members of the Church, and of them, at least 14 have served full-time missions.
Bob Smith is a great-great-grandson of Joseph Smith, Jr and joined the LDS church in 2006.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'll try reverse psychology: hey, Steven, please continue to be an adverserial, sneering interrogator even to people known for courtesy. And then at the end of each instance, make sure to take on a one-line boilerplate such as 'I don't mean this as harsh as it sounds'. It's certainly not an embarrassment nor is it an obvious falsehood.
-----
Would it hurt that who-knows-why steven ego to just say, "Are you sure, BlackBlade? I've read otherwise and I have a difficult time believing it." You completely lack the moral or intellectual credibility around here to be going around shouting for answers.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'll try reverse psychology: hey, Steven, please continue to be an adverserial, sneering interrogator even to people known for courtesy. And then at the end of each instance, make sure to take on a one-line boilerplate such as 'I don't mean this as harsh as it sounds'. It's certainly not an embarrassment nor is it an obvious falsehood.
-----
Would it hurt that who-knows-why steven ego to just say, "Are you sure, BlackBlade? I've read otherwise and I have a difficult time believing it." You completely lack the moral or intellectual credibility around here to be going around shouting for answers.
I've little patience in a general sense, and even less so with people who are already proven to play fast and loose with the truth. And yes, I count religions, all of them, in that number.
I mean, they're all going to be proven wrong in a few decades anyway, if Moore's Law keeps going long enough, because we'll eventually have a Grand Unified Theory that can be experimentally proven. Who has time to be patient? I don't have any ambition of converting any of them. Science will handle that, whether I'm alive or dead. There are way more interesting things to do in life than be so nice to religious people that they actually stop believing. I'm too busy figuring out how the world works to make BFFs with people who, deep down, don't really care how the world works, and are basing their worldview on something other than observable fact and common sense.
Again, no offense, I have no wish to be harsh to the religious, I'm just being honest. This is what's in my heart. I generally don't talk religion IRL, because this is what happens. Either that, or people just get bored with me. I apparently have the power to put people to sleep with my musings about the deeper nature of the Universe.
And Rakeesh, I have a question for you. Roughly, what percentage of the time are you really in the box, versus just pretending to be? I've wondered that a few times.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by cloark:
quote: And as far as having any of Joseph Smith's descendants in your church, PROVE IT. I don't believe it for a second.
quote: Among Joseph and Emma’s posterity are now some 125 living adult descendants who are members of the Church, and of them, at least 14 have served full-time missions.
Bob Smith is a great-great-grandson of Joseph Smith, Jr and joined the LDS church in 2006.
Fascinating. I'd never have thought it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I've little patience in a general sense, and even less so with people who are already proven to play fast and loose with the truth. And yes, I count religions, all of them, in that number.
If I hadn't read so many of your posts over the years, I would seriously wonder if a statement this hypocritical when made by you was meant to be secretly ironic.
quote:And Rakeesh, I have a question for you. Roughly, what percentage of the time are you really in the box, versus just pretending to be? I've wondered that a few times.
Wait, you forgot to tack on your 'hey, I'm just poking a little fun' transparent BS on the end of this, Steven.
quote:Fascinating. I'd never have thought it.
Never thought to do five or maybe even ten minutes' worth of looking around before you demand people PROVE IT? Yeah, I know you'd never have thought it. Nor would you apparently think to say 'whoops, sorry for being so not-meaning-to-be-harsh, guys, I was mistaken about that' either.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I've little patience in a general sense, and even less so with people who are already proven to play fast and loose with the truth. And yes, I count religions, all of them, in that number.
If I hadn't read so many of your posts over the years, I would seriously wonder if a statement this hypocritical when made by you was meant to be secretly ironic.
quote:And Rakeesh, I have a question for you. Roughly, what percentage of the time are you really in the box, versus just pretending to be? I've wondered that a few times.
Wait, you forgot to tack on your 'hey, I'm just poking a little fun' transparent BS on the end of this, Steven.
quote:Fascinating. I'd never have thought it.
Never thought to do five or maybe even ten minutes' worth of looking around before you demand people PROVE IT? Yeah, I know you'd never have thought it. Nor would you apparently think to say 'whoops, sorry for being so not-meaning-to-be-harsh, guys, I was mistaken about that' either.
You still haven't answered my question.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's not even your question. Though it is understandable that you'd want to outsource your witticisms to...well, nearly anyone really, but xkcd is a good choice.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Steven - I don't know if you can hear me underneath that dogpile, but overall I think you're right. The only thing seperating scientology and the lds is a century's worth of time between the birth of two con men. Give scientology another hundred years and it'll be taken every bit as seriously as the mormon faith. After all, people alive today remember meeting Hubbard. No one remembers Smith.
You're also correct in mentioning that some Mormons on this very board talk like they already have their second wife picked out and they're just waiting for the pesky feds to get their noses out important church patriarchy bs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The only thing seperating scientology and the lds is a century's worth of time between the birth of two con men.
I think that's more than a little unfair; the LDS church seems to do a great deal more good for its members and its communities.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Okay, I'll grant you that. Even I can admit that of all the religions I've come in contact with, the LDS walks the walk more often then not. But let's not sell scientology short. A hundred and thirty odd years ago the Mormons were busy marrying as many women as they could get their hands on and trying to start their own country. They got better. Maybe scientology will, too.
And from a logic and reason standpoint, Xenu and thetans on the one hand, magical disappearing golden plates and ancient North American abrahamic cultures on the other. What a big difference.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Okay, I'll grant you that. Even I can admit that of all the religions I've come in contact with, the LDS walks the walk more often then not. But let's not sell scientology short. A hundred and thirty odd years ago the Mormons were busy marrying as many women as they could get their hands on and trying to start their own country. They got better. Maybe scientology will, too.
And from a logic and reason standpoint, Xenu and thetans on the one hand, magical disappearing golden plates and ancient North American abrahamic cultures on the other. What a big difference.
You're more than stepping over disparagement of other's religious beliefs. Stop please.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I'm sorry, where was I wrong?
The Mormons didn't practice polygamy back then? Or they didn't try to secede and start their own country? Or are you offended that someone compared the Jaredite nation to Xenu, even though there is every bit of evidence for one as for the other?
How would you have worded the above? Or is stating the above verboten on hatrack?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tittles: The part where you call Hubbard and Smith con-men.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
It warms my heart to see you defend Hubbard and Scientology so.
But hey, my mistake. Everyone, both Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard were genuine prophets of god. We should respect their teachings and their followers equally, and in no way, shape, or form did they deceive their followers. Xenu s heaven's dictator, and we'll be finding the ruins of the Jaredites tomorrow, I'm sure.
You have my apologies for my vicious blasphemy, and I pray that it didn't strike you blind. It won't happen again.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The question:
quote:So is it safe to say that even if polygamy were legalized, it would likely still be prohibited by the LDS church, and that the continued prohibition would have widespread approval within the Mormon community?
My answer:
[/quote]Yes.[/quote]
steven's response:
quote:I don't know where you get the self-importance to predict future 'divine revelations', but it's mystifying. I mean, I've heard from at least a couple of Mormons here on Hatrack that they wouldn't mind a return to polygamy. Do you deny that at least some would be happy about that?
You know, I'm getting the distinct feeling that you're trying to assure us that you are all far more mainstream than you really are. I understand that, it's a human impulse to try to fit in. However, a lot of non-Mormons here are pretty aware of the church's history. We're the wrong group to try to this with, I think, OK?
and
quote:I only jumped in when AFR decided he was going to predict the future.
Naw. I just shook the Magic 8 Ball I have on my desk.
The question was "Is it safe to say..." and my answer was yes. Given current trends and practices in the church, and given the legalization of polygamy happening in a world much like ours right now, then yes, it's safe to say that the LDS church would continue to prohibit polygamy and that most of the church would not begin calling for a reversal on that. I think it's a pretty reasonable observation.
I'm wondering if you would have still used up all the ROFLs in the universe had I said no. I'm thinking you wouldn't have, since that seems to square a little better with your view of the church. But I still would have been predicting the future.
P.S. Mormons, trying to fit in? And under the radar, too! Good thing the Mormon History Police are such hawkeyes, right?
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Oh, and the post you quoted wasn't the one that called them ***-men. It's almost like you were annoyed about something else.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I can't call L. Ron Hubbard a con man on this forum? Because it's religious disparagement?
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I think we all know that if you wait a few days (or hours) that you'll be able to call the Prophet Hubbard a ***man just fine. We don't get to call Him that right now because that would open the door to calling Blackblade's prophet a ***man, and god forbid.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Oh, and the post you quoted wasn't the one that called them ***-men. It's almost like you were annoyed about something else.
Yes, that was my mistake.
--------------
Samprimary: Believe what you want. You can't disparage others and their beliefs. There may not be any Scientologists here but there might. I wouldn't let a Christian call you a god-less heathen. Is there somebody trying to establish Hubbard's or Smith's authenticity? No proselyting here for the believers and non-believers.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Oh, and the post you quoted wasn't the one that called them ***-men. It's almost like you were annoyed about something else.
Yes, that was my mistake.
--------------
Samprimary: Believe what you want. You can't disparage others and their beliefs. There may not be any Scientologists here but there might. I wouldn't let a Christian call you a god-less heathen. Is there somebody trying to establish Hubbard's or Smith's authenticity? No proselyting here for the believers and non-believers.
Blackblade, you do realize that the main reason that us agnostics and atheists let you believers off so easy is because we're pretty sure it's just a matter of time until churches are all just empty buildings gathering dust, right?
And this is letting you off easy. I'd be raising holy Hades about you protecting L. Ron Hubbard if I thought Scientology would even exist in 50 or 100 years.
And you can think badly of me, or any other non-believer, if you want. However, as a group of humans, we're probably no more (or less) kind, loving, etc. than believers. It's not like you need a deity to practice the basic virtues. And you know what I think? They're really what matters. Everything else is window dressing, and, at best, only distracts slightly from the practice of the basic virtues.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I think you're being too generous to the human race, Steven. Almost everyone needs a mental crutch in life, and a few thousand years of selection have made it so religion fits that role perfectly. Half of the US believes in Biblical creation in the year 2013. You really think we're going to throw off the burden of religion entirely in the next century? Scientology and all the rest will still be here.
Oh, and atheists don't get offended at being called godless heathens. We laugh. We're mature like that, and we know that words are just words, unlike some people.
You heard the man, Sam. No disparaging the Holy Prophet Hubbard. Hell, you should be thanking him for showing us the Way to avoid Xenu's clutches for all eternity.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I wouldn't let a Christian call you a god-less heathen.
But... I am a godless heathen.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: I think you're being too generous to the human race, Steven. Almost everyone needs a mental crutch in life, and a few thousand years of selection have made it so religion fits that role perfectly. Half of the US believes in Biblical creation in the year 2013. You really think we're going to throw off the burden of religion entirely in the next century? Scientology and all the rest will still be here.
I think it all depends on how long Moore's Law keeps going. People only need religious mental crutches because there's no Grand Unified Theory. Assuming we ever get there, I don't think people will choose Xenu over provable physics.
For that natter, I'm pretty sure that having a Grand Unified Theory would also be 100% correlated with knowing, beyond all doubt, whether there's any such thing as a soul, or anything like it, and its exact nature, assuming it exists. I don't think people would choose Xenu over repeatable scientific proof, at least not most people, and definitely not in the long run.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
If it takes ten years of schooling to truly grasp your theoretical GUT, then I guarantee you that people will still believe that god made the world in seven days and made Adam out of dust. Because that's easier, and who needs to think when there's this lovely book written in the Bronze Age to tell us how and why the universe exists.
How else do you explain so many people thinking evolutionary theory is false?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: I think you're being too generous to the human race, Steven. Almost everyone needs a mental crutch in life, and a few thousand years of selection have made it so religion fits that role perfectly. Half of the US believes in Biblical creation in the year 2013. You really think we're going to throw off the burden of religion entirely in the next century? Scientology and all the rest will still be here.
Oh, and atheists don't get offended at being called godless heathens. We laugh. We're mature like that, and we know that words are just words, unlike some people.
You heard the man, Sam. No disparaging the Holy Prophet Hubbard. Hell, you should be thanking him for showing us the Way to avoid Xenu's clutches for all eternity.
Yeah, because if I won't let you disparage a belief, then I must also be forcing you to adhere to it. It hardly matters if you are willing to be insulted by the religious. These are the rules here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Blackblade, you do realize that the main reason that us agnostics and atheists let you believers off so easy is because we're pretty sure it's just a matter of time until churches are all just empty buildings gathering dust, right?
And this is letting you off easy. I'd be raising holy Hades about you protecting L. Ron Hubbard if I thought Scientology would even exist in 50 or 100 years.
Oh for pity's sake please don't say 'us agnostics and atheists' as though you speak for anyone but yourself. But in any event whatever the hell you mean about letting 'them' off easy, it's still ridiculous to say that the reason it's done is because of foreknowledge. It has as much to do with, you know, there being a whole hell of a lot more of 'them' than 'us', as it does with anything else.
As for this particular member of the very diverse group of people you were failing so badly at lumping together, I am deeply gratified that Hubbard is 'protected' in this way, not least for selfish reasons.
All of this freaking whining. So you can't call Hubbard what you'd like-what I'd like, for that matter. None of you are losing anything by this lack. Well aside from the fact that these ain't your airwaves, so to speak, I would be surprised if any of you were actually very invested in criticizing Scientology anyway.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and for the record, I am very skeptical that 50% or even close to that actually believe what is commonly meant by 'Biblical creation'. Just because they're asked a short question absent context and don't have a bubble to describe what exactly they mean.
How many people does anyone here know that believe the Earth was created in seven 24 hour days less than 10,000 years ago? Is it anywhere even close to 'half of them'?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: If it takes ten years of schooling to truly grasp your theoretical GUT, then I guarantee you that people will still believe that god made the world in seven days and made Adam out of dust. Because that's easier, and who needs to think when there's this lovely book written in the Bronze Age to tell us how and why the universe exists.
How else do you explain so many people thinking evolutionary theory is false?
I assure you, I have a REAL gut. It's not very large, but it grows little by little, the older I get.
But here are my off-the-cuff thoughts on that. First, I would hope that we could cheaply augment human intelligence/knowledge easily at some point, so that anyone could become smart and educated relatively quickly and easily.
Secondly, who knows if the GUT is complex or not? Maybe it's fairly simple, at least in terms of the actual concept. No doubt the math would be insane, but not every concept that has insane math behind it is hard to grasp conceptually.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Question: is anyone discussing a Grand Unified Theory a scientist of any variety, or with any extensive reading or study? If your knowledge of science was skill of engineering, would I go hundreds of miles out of my way to avoid a bridge built by you?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QUOTE] All of this freaking whining. So you can't call Hubbard what you'd like-what I'd like, for that matter. None of you are losing anything by this lack. Well aside from the fact that these ain't your airwaves, so to speak, I would be surprised if any of you were actually very invested in criticizing Scientology anyway.
when are you going to answer my question, dude?
Leaving that alone for the moment, though, first, I'm not whining about Hubbard, because I'm betting that Scientology, or any other religion, won't even exist in 100 years.
Secondly, dude, you do realize that Scientology, because of its tactics, is no longer recognized as a church in many, many countries around the world, right? That's not necessarily true of other New-Agey type of religions. Not because they are too small for governments to bother rescinding their status, but because they don't apply the same type of abusive tactics. The Church of Scientology has lost a lot of lawsuits in a lot of countries, and has been fined a lot of money in a lot of countries. take a look at the wiki:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Question: is anyone discussing a Grand Unified Theory a scientist of any variety, or with any extensive reading or study? If your knowledge of science was skill of engineering, would I go hundreds of miles out of my way to avoid a bridge built by you?
When are you going to answer my question?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
At this point, I'm curious how long you'll continue 'not insulting' me by asking it. I suspect that now that you've really dug in and committed to it, it'll be awhile.
Yes, you're clearly whining.
As for your last paragraph, I know a pretty decent amount about Hubbard. It was either Talk of the Nation or Fresh Air that aired a 45m interview with one of his newer biographers, and it was pretty damn interesting, the anatomy of a 'religion' such as Scientology, along with Hubbard's many, many failures in his life. I still remember the story of one of his first: a sailing voyage he advertised for, I believe it was when he was in his 20s, where nearly everyone abandoned it while it was still abroad. Or the very, very numerous writings he did for Hollywood, or his initially-secret HQ here in Florida.
Anyway, that last paragraph, *that's* how you attack the man without whining. Good on you.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
AFAIC, the Cburch of Scientology should not be covered by Hatrack's TOS. Their legal status in many countries should preclude such. Not that I care.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Hey Blackblade could I post a similar paragraph detailing criticism of His Holy Prophet Smith's life, or would that be disparaging? I wouldn't want to offend the Prophet or his Light-blessed followers, especially the moderator ones.
And yeah, Rakeesh, I would believe that fifty percent of the people I know believe, literally, in biblical creation. You need to slum it more, education wise.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I've been moving, so I haven't been keeping current on my Hatrack, so I skimmed the last page of this thread to see if I wanted to read it all...and I don't.
Yuck!
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Such a shame, I was looking forward to your insightful contributions.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: All of this freaking whining. So you can't call Hubbard what you'd like-what I'd like, for that matter. None of you are losing anything by this lack. Well aside from the fact that these ain't your airwaves, so to speak, I would be surprised if any of you were actually very invested in criticizing Scientology anyway.
You're kidding, right?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, Samprimary, I'm not. In particular of the three you're familiar with how things would shake out if the attacks took that form, and you're familiar with the fact that this ain't the public street corner, and you're familiar with the notion that not being able to say precisely what you want here doesn't mean you're barred from being critical.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Yeah, Sam. No disparaging His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.) This ain't no godless heathen streetcorner.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: No, Samprimary, I'm not. In particular of the three you're familiar with how things would shake out if the attacks took that form,
Yeah, not that I want to provide for an opportunity to give the wrong people the wrong ammunition at this time, but you're quite wrong, on both counts. Never seeing any investment on my part in openly disparaging Scientology takes some very pointed non-seeing of otherwise well-historied stuff.
Being not allowed to criticize l. ron hubbard and disparage scientology is something that I have done, have ample, unbroken interest in doing and would pointedly and purposefully make a point to continue as readily as if I were told I was not allowed to disparage the Westboro Baptist Church's founder and teachings.
But I haven't ever had to do so since the rule has never been enforced against me when I exercised it against either Scientology or the WBC. Barring some rare cases with Scientology (and none with WBC) it has not been exercised against anyone.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Hey Blackblade could I post a similar paragraph detailing criticism of His Holy Prophet Smith's life, or would that be disparaging? I wouldn't want to offend the Prophet or his Light-blessed followers, especially the moderator ones.
You're being intentionally grating, and I don't appreciate it. We have had many discussions about Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, etc. They have run the full gamut of what could be said about them. I don't have any special sympathies for criticisms about Mormonism. If you want to talk about how Polygamy caused familial problems fine. If you want to note that Joseph Smith believed he could fine treasure in the earth, and was hired to do so prior to finding the Book of Mormon, fine.
But you don't get to discuss those topics in such a manner that you are insulting and disparaging those who believe in those things. People here who believe in God *by and large* are very good about not talking about atheism in such a way that they are being insulting. But for some reason I ask atheists not to say something like in essence,
"Mormonism is the most ridiculous of all the major myths we can't get stupid people to let go of."
And suddenly it's like I've got them all under the lash, and Joseph Smith must be referred to as "the Prophet, peace be upon him."
I get that you all think Joseph Smith was nothing more than a con-man, and everybody who believes he was a prophet has crappy reasons for doing so. But if you want to post here, you agree that if a poster has a set of beliefs they hold, you don't get to mock them, or try to persuade them to abandon them.
So far the religious proselyting has been virtually zero, I wish that could be said for a-religious proselyting.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well to be fair we've basically got Tittles and Steven doing it right now, and in the past there have been a a couple here and there who behaved very similarly from the other side of the question.
Of course, you could simply ban the obvious troll who has repeatedly over months gone out of his way to be a jackass and who has now repeatedly and knowingly violated some explicit rules in the past day or so.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: For that natter, I'm pretty sure that having a Grand Unified Theory would also be 100% correlated with knowing, beyond all doubt, whether there's any such thing as a soul, or anything like it, and its exact nature, assuming it exists.
How, for goodness sake, do you think this makes any sense?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: I think you're being too generous to the human race, Steven. Almost everyone needs a mental crutch in life, and a few thousand years of selection have made it so religion fits that role perfectly. Half of the US believes in Biblical creation in the year 2013. You really think we're going to throw off the burden of religion entirely in the next century? Scientology and all the rest will still be here.
I think it all depends on how long Moore's Law keeps going. People only need religious mental crutches because there's no Grand Unified Theory. Assuming we ever get there, I don't think people will choose Xenu over provable physics.
For that natter, I'm pretty sure that having a Grand Unified Theory would also be 100% correlated with knowing, beyond all doubt, whether there's any such thing as a soul, or anything like it, and its exact nature, assuming it exists. I don't think people would choose Xenu over repeatable scientific proof, at least not most people, and definitely not in the long run.
Ah, he's read a book. And he thinks he knows something about the unified field theory. How, exactly, do you presume it would disprove the existence of a soul?
Einstein was closer than most anyone, and he certainly believed in God. I'm glad you're more intelligent than he. Are you the one who'll figure it out? Make sure you're wearing your tin-foil hat, so that the G-Men don't come after you.
And as a working electrical engineer, I'd really like you to explain what the smeg Moore's law has to do with the UFT. . . .
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Einstein was closer than most anyone, and he certainly believed in God.
Um... no. Einstein had a sense of wonder about the universe, a spiritual reverence even, which he sometimes expressed in terms of "God" but he didn't believe in God in the sense that most people mean when they use the term.
Some select quotes:
quote:I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
quote:I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
quote:I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.
All of that aside, it's fallacious to argue an opinion based on who else holds it. Brilliant people often believe stupid things.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Just because his belief was not aligned with a mainstream religion doesn't mean he was an atheist.
"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things."
According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein was more inclined to denigrate disbelievers than the faithful. Einstein said in correspondence, "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear the music of the spheres." Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."
quote:Originally posted by MattP: [QUOTE]All of that aside, it's fallacious to argue an opinion based on who else holds it. Brilliant people often believe stupid things.
My comment only refers to the fact that Einstein wasn't a raving atheist, and I'd infer that he knew far more about UFT than Steven.
Hawking has gone on record to say that he believes UFT would show how the universe could spontaneously generate. I'd be interested to see how this could be correlated to determination of the existence of a human soul.
[ April 15, 2013, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Aros ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Just because his belief was not aligned with a mainstream religion doesn't mean he was an atheist.
I didn't say he was an atheist. I said that he didn't "believe in God" in a way that most people would understand that expression. Claims about his religiosity are usually used these days to put him on a side of the culture war that he likely wouldn't have put himself so I when I spot a contextless claim like "Einstein believed in God" I try to point out that, at best, "it's complicated" describes his religious views.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You said quite a bit more than 'Einstein wasn't a raving atheist'. In fact you directly claimed he believed in a capital 'G' God, which is at best an incomplete statement.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Keesh - You're cute when you're trying to get someone silenced. But, sorry, I'm just me, not a troll. And while I may not be able to read with my fingertips, or cross rivers at shallow points, I can create five or six backup screennames for a website that can ONLY ban screennames. So...take a chillpill. If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it. It's pretty simple, and most children can pull it off. Besides, I contest that I have broken any rules.
Blackblade, be fair. I never said believers in His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him) had the MOST ridiculous religion. But it's good to know you're willing to allow a secular criticism of HHPoG,PbuH that doesn't mock the believers. I might look into that. Does it count if something the HHPoG,PbuH did or said might make His followers look extra...hmm...willing to suspend their disbelief? I can't really help that.
eta - Capitalizing a lower case "his." No blasphemy on MY hatrack!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Keesh - You're cute when you're trying to get someone silenced. But, sorry, I'm just me, not a troll. And while I may not be able to read with my fingertips, or cross rivers at shallow points, I can create five or six backup screennames for a website that can ONLY ban screennames. So...take a chillpill. If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it. It's pretty simple, and most children can pull it off. Besides, I contest that I have broken any rules.
Blackblade, be fair. I never said believers in His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him) had the MOST ridiculous religion. But it's good to know you're willing to allow a secular criticism of HHPoG,PbuH that doesn't mock the believers. I might look into that. Does it count if something the HHPoG,PbuH did or said might make His followers look extra...hmm...willing to suspend their disbelief? I can't really help that.
eta - Capitalizing a lower case "his." No blasphemy on MY hatrack!
Ok, while most of this is transparent BS, I'm curious: in what way do you think you haven't broken the 'no mocking religions or religious people for their beliefs' rule?
I mean since you're not a troll or anything, there must be a reason, right? But thank you for making it clear that even if you were banned, you would ignore it. This'll all be useful later on down the line when people less familiar with you make the mistake of treating you like an actual poster and someone worth talking to.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Well, I honestly didn't know that it was verboten to refer to any of the Prophets as ***men. I mean, the entire planet believes that except for the Mormons and Scientologists, and I didn't understand this board's very special rules regarding such. But I've been super careful to be respectful to the Prophets of God ever since. So really, the question is, why do you think I'm mocking?
And I manage to have conversations with people. Just not with you. But in the future, when you do bring this oh so damning conversation up, just please don't show my children. I couldn't bear the shame of them seeing me lose an internet popularity contest.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Blackblade, be fair. I never said believers in His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him) had the MOST ridiculous religion. But it's good to know you're willing to allow a secular criticism of HHPoG,PbuH that doesn't mock the believers. I might look into that. Does it count if something the HHPoG,PbuH did or said might make His followers look extra...hmm...willing to suspend their disbelief? I can't really help that.
I never said I was quoting you, I'm saying that sentiment is expressed continually here, and it shouldn't be.
As for "I can't really help that". Well, yes you can. You actually choose the things you talk about and whether something ought to be said. It's not like you are a some machine that just spits things out, and hopes for the best.
You can't control that people will take issue with things you say that you feel need to be said. But you are not being asked to not say controversial things, just disrespectful ones.
I don't know what motivates you, but I post here because I want to learn, share, and enjoy that process. It's why I don't try to piss off other people because that's antithetical to those objectives. You have to ask yourself why you are here. If it's to get your jollies by making others look stupid, or get them mad at you, then inevitably you will violate the TOS at some point.
I would ask you to answer that question for yourself, and then decided if sticking around or leaving in peace furthers that objective.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Well, I honestly didn't know that it was verboten to refer to any of the Prophets as ***men. I mean, the entire planet believes that except for the Mormons and Scientologists
No, the majority of the planet doesn't even know about Mormonism or Scientology.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Right. But what I'm trying to nail down here is what the moderator of this board feels is "disrespectful" to his Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.) Is merely stating the facts of the Holy Prophet's life allowed? If we do similar to the South Park episode, and just kind of go line by line of what people said happened, and then sit back and say "And so, this is what these people believe." And to other people, it makes them look, at best, naive? See, what I meant was I can't help how an honest recounting of His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him) looks to other people.
See, I don't think that would be disrespectful, but you've been rather protective over your Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.) And you're the mod. So if something like that isn't allowed, just say so, and we can all be that much closer to never, ever disrespecting your God.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Well, I honestly didn't know that it was verboten to refer to any of the Prophets as ***men. I mean, the entire planet believes that except for the Mormons and Scientologists
No, the majority of the planet doesn't even know about Mormonism or Scientology.
Okay, you got me on the technicality. Although I doubt the MAJORITY of the world's population hasn't even heard of the two religions. God bless missionaries, right?
But let's adjust it, then. Everyone who hears the stories of the Holy Prophets of God (Peace be upon Them) either converts, or thinks that they're ***men.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him)
You realize you're the only person on the planet that uses this terminology, right? You realize that doing so exposes your ignorance, right? Or are you one of those, "If I'm sarcastic it means I'm right!" people?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And I manage to have conversations with people. Just not with you. But in the future, when you do bring this oh so damning conversation up, just please don't show my children. I couldn't bear the shame of them seeing me lose an internet popularity contest.
Very few here, and even less with those who don't already agree with you.
As for a popularity contest, I'm having difficulty deciding if you mean that ironically because you're obviously competing as the 'cool outside badass' contender, or if don't realize how transparently hypocritical this is and actually believe you don't care about message board popularity.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I'm just covering my bases. I wouldn't want to upset Blackblade by being disrespectful.
eta - Responding to Boris.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Right. But what I'm trying to nail down here is what the moderator of this board feels is "disrespectful" to his Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.) Is merely stating the facts of the Holy Prophet's life allowed? If we do similar to the South Park episode, and just kind of go line by line of what people said happened, and then sit back and say "And so, this is what these people believe." And to other people, it makes them look, at best, naive? See, what I meant was I can't help how an honest recounting of His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him) looks to other people.
See, I don't think that would be disrespectful, but you've been rather protective over your Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.) And you're the mod. So if something like that isn't allowed, just say so, and we can all be that much closer to never, ever disrespecting your God.
Seems to me what you're doing is trying to find out just how close to the edge you can get. Which adds nothing to any sort of discussion. Are you trying to be devastatingly ironic right now? You're coming off more as antisocial. I get the impression you aren't being genuine at all.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
We can't disparage religion now? I'm pretty sure we've always been able to do that.
Lisa, are you seeing this? Where is this invisible line? How do we keep from crossing it?
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I am absolutely genuine in that I do not wish to be banned, and in order to do so I have to avoid offending the moderator's God and Holy Prophet. So yeah, I'm asking where the line is at. If I were to post something as outlined in your quoted text, would that be an offense against His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.)
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
You seriously have to have someone tell you where the line is?
ETA: Here. A primer in speaking about God and His Holy Prophet in Mormon terms.
You can refer to the Prophet as Joseph Smith, if you mean the founder of the church. You can refer to God as God.
There you go.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Yep. I didn't think referring to His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him) as a ***man was a breach of the forum rules. Honestly, I didn't.
So now I'm curious how far that goes. If, as said above, I were to recount His Holy Prophet's life as seen by historians and critics instead of His followers, would that be an offense against our moderator's policies?
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Aros gets it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Forget the rules for a minute. If you're sitting in BlackBlade's living room, face-to-face, would you be comfortable calling Joseph Smith a con-man. If you did and BlackBlade took understandable umbrage at that characterization, would you pivot to "His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him)" and not expect him to to take that as snide condescension?
I don't know what your intent is here, but you are coming off as purposely belligerent.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Yep. I didn't think referring to His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him) as a ***man was a breach of the forum rules. Honestly, I didn't.
So now I'm curious how far that goes. If, as said above, I were to recount His Holy Prophet's life as seen by historians and critics instead of His followers, would that be an offense against our moderator's policies?
1. Refer to my primer above. 2. I don't believe so. Many have already.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Thanks, AFR, but I feel I'm in a safe place right now with how I refer to His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.)
There are shocking and blasphemous rumors that the Holy Prophet was ***victed of certain crimes in New York before His Glorious Revelation. Could we refer to them, or to the stories of His Holy Prophet changing up the transcription? I would hate to offend anyone.
eta - Thanks for the input, AFR. Now I just need to hear from our mod. It's his God we can't offend, after all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I am absolutely genuine in that I do not wish to be banned, and in order to do so I have to avoid offending the moderator's God and Holy Prophet. So yeah, I'm asking where the line is at. If I were to post something as outlined in your quoted text, would that be an offense against His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.)
Yeah, you're lying. And I very much doubt you're actually tricking anyone into believing you're sincere about this. Courtesy isn't the same thing as belief.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Your point about Joseph Smith aside, I think I'm done conversing with you for the time being.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Tittles, "Holy Prophet" is not a title commonly used to refer to the LDS prophet, and his official title is used only in some specific formal settings. If you are interested in having a sincere conversation you should probably just refer to him as "Joseph Smith". "The prophet" is neutral but gets confusing when discussing historical figures as there have been several individuals with that title and it may be unclear who you are referring to. Similarly, "His Glorious Revelation" seems, again, designed to demean and annoy.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I am absolutely genuine in that I do not wish to be banned, and in order to do so I have to avoid offending the moderator's God and Holy Prophet. So yeah, I'm asking where the line is at. If I were to post something as outlined in your quoted text, would that be an offense against His Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.)
Yeah, you're lying. And I very much doubt you're actually tricking anyone into believing you're sincere about this. Courtesy isn't the same thing as belief.
Interesting. What do you claim I'm lying about?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I honestly don't care about his word choice. He can assign everyone a single letter variable as long as he's actually discussing in earnest. I have no interest in conversing with a crank, however.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I would indeed refer to him as a ***man, and the umbrage would be in no way understandable. But if he had the ability to throw me off the island, like he does here, I might well decide to be super duper respectful, just in case.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I disagree that I am "rather protective". But that's neither here nor there.
This has nothing to do with being respectful to Joseph Smith or anybody else (now dead). It has to do with being respectful to me and others who have strong beliefs on a topic. I wouldn't walk into your living room and start discussing how ostentatious and gaudy everything looks. I wouldn't comment on the state of your teeth, or make light of the fact you not only ignore but deny the existence of the being that created you.
I can't possibly tell you exactly when you are or are not being disrespectful. Without context it's just not possible. But I can tell the difference between what you have been/are still doing, and somebody who wants to objectively talk about something.
As for honest recounting? What does that even mean? Honest in that you believe what you are relaying is as close to the truth as possible? Honest in that the people who left the records you are pulling from gave an accurate accounting?
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Blackblade - The beings who created me were my mother, my father, and supposedly the better part of a bottle of whiskey. I can back up my claim. Can you back up yours?
As for honest recounting, I mean historical sources that don't include people talking about voices they hear in their head. (They threw my sister in a crazyhouse for that. Born in the wrong century, eh?)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Blackblade - The beings who created me were my mother, my father, and supposedly the better part of a bottle of whiskey. I can back up my claim. Can you back up yours?
As for honest recounting, I mean historical sources that don't include people talking about voices they hear in their head. (They threw my sister in a crazyhouse for that. Born in the wrong century, eh?)
Do you have documentation for who created your parents, all the way back to the earth being formed? What about the creation of the universe?
And as for historical sources. Oh, So you accept as gospel (no pun intended) the words of anybody who didn't hear a voice in their head. Perhaps you should go read studies of how reliable people are at recounting events period, not just the ones who say a voice spoke to them. I think your trust will be affected.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Oh, so now I have to account for the creation of the universe, and not just myself? Well that's a mighty far distance to drag those goalposts. But as I recall, your own theory has an origin problem, doesn't it? Unless you can tell me who created your god? At least the scientific theories have support beyond "Just pray, and a voice in your head will tell you it's true."
Yes, I generally accept historical documents and sources over the accounts of people who hear voices. I'm comfortable with that. For example, I believe that the United States declared independence in 1776. I believe this due to historical documents and accounts. Through corroboration from the histories of other countries. If we were asked to believe that that was the date due to magical vanishing golden plates, or people hearing voices, I would not call that an honest recounting.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Shifting goal posts? You said the beings who created you were your parents, so it stands to reason if we go down that road we should find an end to the matter.
Who created my God? Why his creator of course. My faith believes God transcended his humanity to become God. Progress and the gospel will eventually help all who so wish to do the same.
There is no true beginning. That's my belief anyway.
As for the Declaration of Independence. Great, you believe in a document that is with us today. Do you believe the ideas in it are correct? Because that's as least as important as whether the original document is still with us.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I believe most of the ideas in the Declaration are still valid, yes. I'm not sure what your point was, though. My point was that we could look upon a certain date as the date of independence, and be as close to sure on it as is reasonably possible. We can do that because there is historical documentation for it, from reliable sources, unlike some other claims that I don't dare name for fear of offending His followers.
Funny, there are scientific theories that claim that the universe doesn't have a real beginning or end. Or that it's cyclical. I would say that such theories are no less silly then your own, but again, most all of them have something to back them up.
What does your theory have to back it up again? Praying, right? That's it?
But hey, I'll admit, no one has the Proven Answer. At least I can admit that, however. And if you were to stand in my living room and mock my lack of belief in a creator, I would just laugh in your face. Because at least I'm comfortable enough in my beliefs not to get my precious little feelings hurt because someone dared to mock my Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.)
If your god is god, and all powerful and seeing and blah blah blah, do you really think he cares what a little punk like me says down here? If he doesn't, why do you?
I suggest you have a little faith.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Really? I'll admit that most of the ones I talk to online are in a Mom's group, but they are pretty staunchly and very nearly universally opposed. It's one of the biggest problems I have with the church.
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: It's also worth noting that most Mormons you talk to on here and in most online communities that I've seen are usually pro-gay marriage.
I haven't seen any poll numbers on how many Mormons are for or against gay marriage. There could be a strong echo chamber effect happening online but you would be surprised at how many people don't follow the general consensus.
Also somewhat interesting, most people I know that are Mormon and against gay marriage (and profess the opinion publicly for me to observe) live outside Utah.
Unfortunately this is all anecdotal so I guess pretty much useless.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
How about you at least *try* not to be a complete douchebag when you discuss peoples' beliefs? I don't care what you think about my beliefs. What bugs me is that you're acting like a typical schoolyard bully in your taunting and sarcasm. While I wouldn't expect that you would have a similar reaction to disparaging comments about your beliefs, I imagine there most certainly *are* aspects of your identity, persona, or life that you would certainly respond to with the exact same attitude. You need to realize that most people with religious beliefs have built much of their personal identity around those beliefs. If you think it's stupid for them to do so, fine. But mocking people for doing so is just straight rude, and pretty much against the ToC here. So maybe stop being a jerk.
"Funny, there are scientific theories that claim that the universe doesn't have a real beginning or end. Or that it's cyclical. I would say that such theories are no less silly then your own, but again, most all of them have something to back them up."
Actually, when you look at most of them, the only thing they really have to back them up is "A scientist said so". Which is only slightly more tangible than praying about it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But hey, I'll admit, no one has the Proven Answer. At least I can admit that, however. And if you were to stand in my living room and mock my lack of belief in a creator, I would just laugh in your face. Because at least I'm comfortable enough in my beliefs not to get my precious little feelings hurt because someone dared to mock my Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.)
Yeah, yours is certainly the behavior of someone who is comfortable in his beliefs.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:But hey, I'll admit, no one has the Proven Answer. At least I can admit that, however. And if you were to stand in my living room and mock my lack of belief in a creator, I would just laugh in your face. Because at least I'm comfortable enough in my beliefs not to get my precious little feelings hurt because someone dared to mock my Holy Prophet of God (Peace be upon Him.)
Yeah, yours is certainly the behavior of someone who is comfortable in his beliefs.
I've got me my very own Stonewolf. How cute.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Should I be honored or offended? I can't quite tell.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Actually, when you look at most of them, the only thing they really have to back them up is "A scientist said so". Which is only slightly more tangible than praying about it.
Yeah, name any of these theories about the universe and it will be demonstrably more than "a scientist said so."
It's kind of fascinating that that's what it gets traduced down to for you, though.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by steven: For that natter, I'm pretty sure that having a Grand Unified Theory would also be 100% correlated with knowing, beyond all doubt, whether there's any such thing as a soul, or anything like it, and its exact nature, assuming it exists.
How, for goodness sake, do you think this makes any sense?
Assuming the existence of a computer fast enough to do all the calculations, any G.U.T. should be able to predict, with 100% accuracy, any physical interaction in the Universe, even things as complex and unpredictable as human behavior and emotions. We're ultimately just made of the same particles that non-living things are, even our brains. Therefore, we are subject to the same laws of physics as anything else.
Therefore, if a particular G.U.T. can't predict everything with 100% accuracy, there are only two possibilities:
1. souls exist, and interact with the physical world (including and ESPECIALLY human brains) in (at least sometimes) ultimately unpredictable ways
2. You don't really have a G.U.T..
So far as I can tell, those are the only two possibilities.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What do you think a soul is, exactly? Why do you think that being made of the same particles that non-living things are made of and being subject to the laws of physics means that we have no souls?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What do you think a soul is, exactly?
If souls exist, then they, by my definition, would be anything that is not predictable using a G.U.T.. For the purposes of this thread, I'll define G.U.T. as "a theory that successfully explains the contradictions between quantum theory and relativity, and is mathematically and experimentally provable."
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why do you think that being made of the same particles that non-living things are made of and being subject to the laws of physics means that we have no souls?
If something is mathematically predictable 100% of the time, then it isn't really supernatural, by definition, right? And the very essence of the definition of a soul includes "being supernatural, i.e., not subject to natural laws".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would define a soul as "an individual consciousness which persists and remains self-aware even in the absence of a physical substrate."
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I would define a soul as "an individual consciousness which persists and remains self-aware even in the absence of a physical substrate."
Anything that exists "in the absence of a physical substrate" is, by definition, supernatural. However, I will concede that "soul" would, in most people's understanding, be a subset of "the supernatural".
So my point stands. A provable G.U.T. is 100% correlated with proof of the supernatural, or proof of the non-existence of the supernatural...again, assuming sufficient computer speed to do the modelling.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, no. A Grand Unified Theory doesn't need to address the question of souls at all.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What do you think a soul is, exactly?
If souls exist, then they, by my definition, would be anything that is not predictable using a G.U.T..
I suppose that, using that definition your premise makes sense. But it isn't the usual definition and I don't think it is a very good one.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, no. A Grand Unified Theory doesn't need to address the question of souls at all.
Sure, but we both know it will be a topic of interest, as soon as a proven G.U.T. comes about, if one ever does.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
How would a the theory even address the question? The next step after creating a theory of everything isn't to actually predict everything. It's to spend some cash on a bigger particle accelerator and check and see if maybe the numbers line up with a decent confidence interval to the results we get using some protons. How would one even try to check for the occurrence of a soul? We're still trying, and failing I might add, to truly understand and predict systems bigger than a proton and an electron. How does the existence of souls even factor into this?
Hobbes Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: How would a the theory even address the question? The next step after creating a theory of everything isn't to actually predict everything. It's to spend some cash on a bigger particle accelerator and check and see if maybe the numbers line up with a decent confidence interval to the results we get using some protons. How would one even try to check for the occurrence of a soul? We're still trying, and failing I might add, to truly understand and predict systems bigger than a proton and an electron. How does the existence of souls even factor into this?
Hobbes
I answered all this already, did I not, Tom?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Those are serious, specific questions, Hobbes, and thus have no place in this scientific question.
...wait.
Anyway, clearly the answer to my question is, "I wouldn't cross your bridge even if there were trolls and crocodiles underneath the other one." It's bizarre. You're speaking so earnestly about the idea that within a century or so, science will be able to definitively prove something isn't there because it will be able to detect every single thing that is there, and there will be no doubt remaining on the latter point, so case closed.
So the reason, according to you, that you're 'not bothered' by religion is because within a century or so science will have answered all of the questions about reality and thus eliminated any possible religious wiggle room. And you say this in apparent earnest respect for science. Are you capable of recognizing the contradiction in this?
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
Article from Mother Jones indicating that the LDS church has quietly dropped official opposition, or at least isn't interested continuing the fight. From the article:
quote: In the five years since the LDS church sent busloads of the faithful to California to canvass neighborhoods, and contributed more than $20 million via its members to support the initiative, it has all but dropped the rope in the public policy tug of war over marriage equality. The change stems from an even more remarkable if somewhat invisible transformation happening within the church, prompted by the ugly fight over Prop. 8 and the ensuing backlash from the flock.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That was interesting. I knew all of those things in isolation, but it was nice to see it unified in a single article.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Those are serious, specific questions, Hobbes, and thus have no place in this scientific question.
...wait.
Anyway, clearly the answer to my question is, "I wouldn't cross your bridge even if there were trolls and crocodiles underneath the other one." It's bizarre. You're speaking so earnestly about the idea that within a century or so, science will be able to definitively prove something isn't there because it will be able to detect every single thing that is there, and there will be no doubt remaining on the latter point, so case closed.
So the reason, according to you, that you're 'not bothered' by religion is because within a century or so science will have answered all of the questions about reality and thus eliminated any possible religious wiggle room. And you say this in apparent earnest respect for science. Are you capable of recognizing the contradiction in this?
I was posting from my iPhone at work, in between tasks, so be cool. I shouldn't have to repeat myself anyway. This is Hatrack. I admit, my posts on the subject have been very short, though.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: How would a the theory even address the question? The next step after creating a theory of everything isn't to actually predict everything. It's to spend some cash on a bigger particle accelerator and check and see if maybe the numbers line up with a decent confidence interval to the results we get using some protons. How would one even try to check for the occurrence of a soul? We're still trying, and failing I might add, to truly understand and predict systems bigger than a proton and an electron. How does the existence of souls even factor into this?
Hobbes
Several times in this thread I've mentioned the need for experimental verification.
And when you've got a working G.U.T., pretty much by definition, you're not having many problems predicting the behavior of subatomic particles. Unless, of course, something supernatural and therefore unpredictable, is interfering.
Posted by cloark (Member # 12400) on :
steven:
quote:Assuming the existence of a computer fast enough to do all the calculations, any G.U.T. should be able to predict, with 100% accuracy, any physical interaction in the Universe
We all know that any GUT will have pi in there somewhere. But in order to get 100% accuracy, you're going to have to enter pi into the computer with perfect accuracy. Once you have pi calculated completely, I'm sure we can get started on the rest of the calculations.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by cloark: steven:
quote:Assuming the existence of a computer fast enough to do all the calculations, any G.U.T. should be able to predict, with 100% accuracy, any physical interaction in the Universe
We all know that any GUT will have pi in there somewhere. But in order to get 100% accuracy, you're going to have to enter pi into the computer with perfect accuracy. Once you have pi calculated completely, I'm sure we can get started on the rest of the calculations.
There's room for rounding to the nearest significant digit, no matter what the calculation. Do you not know about significant digits?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You seem to not understand either the concept of 100% accuracy or of rounding...possibly both.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You seem to not understand either the concept of 100% accuracy or of rounding...possibly both.
No, I assure you, I have a basic grasp of both concepts. However, I'm guessing that cloark doesn't. Anybody who tries to prove the limitations of computer modelling by invoking the irrationality of pi certainly doesn't.
Posted by cloark (Member # 12400) on :
Steven, what does 100% accuracy mean if you can't tell me the exact value of something to any number of significant digits I ask?
I'm well versed in the concepts of accuracy, rounding and the uncertanty principle, which is yet another thing that will doom your 100% accuracy.
While we're at it, chaos theory also dooms your quest, since problems this complicated are very likely to include non-linear differential equations in which very small differences far after the decimal point may have have very significant effects to the solution of problems.
Furthermore, many of these math problems are likely to include factors that have no closed formed solution (and have been proven to be unsolvable). These equations can ONLY be calculated as approximations.
In light of all of this, I have to ask: What do you mean by 100% accuracy?
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Sadly, I know many. Probably not half the people I know, but certainly not a very small percentage. It baffles me because some of these people are extremely intelligent, yet manage to put blinders on where creation is concerned.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, and for the record, I am very skeptical that 50% or even close to that actually believe what is commonly meant by 'Biblical creation'. Just because they're asked a short question absent context and don't have a bubble to describe what exactly they mean.
How many people does anyone here know that believe the Earth was created in seven 24 hour days less than 10,000 years ago? Is it anywhere even close to 'half of them'?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by cloark: Steven, what does 100% accuracy mean if you can't tell me the exact value of something to any number of significant digits I ask?
I'm well versed in the concepts of accuracy, rounding and the uncertanty principle, which is yet another thing that will doom your 100% accuracy.
While we're at it, chaos theory also dooms your quest, since problems this complicated are very likely to include non-linear differential equations in which very small differences far after the decimal point may have have very significant effects to the solution of problems.
Furthermore, many of these math problems are likely to include factors that have no closed formed solution (and have been proven to be unsolvable). These equations can ONLY be calculated as approximations.
In light of all of this, I have to ask: What do you mean by 100% accuracy?
I alluded to this in an earlier post, but not exactly clearly. I am hypothesizing that, when you can predict human behavior, thoughts, and emotions with 100% success, using math, then you know, for sure, if there are "souls" or not. In order to predict human behavior perfectly, I would imagine you'd have to have an experimentally verifiable G.U.T.. I could be wrong, though.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Souls are often postulated as things that have no detectable effect on anything that can be objectively measured, so just finding no observable effects might not be convincing.
I do think if human behavior can eventually be simulated or replicated by machine to a degree that is sufficiently recognizable as human, it would start to seem less necessary that a soul exists for those people who believe in dualism because they think it's the only explanation for subjective experience (particularly the experience of will).
Although, I suppose, they might just decide that souls opportunistically occupy suitable vessels, sort of like OSC's auia thing.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Souls are often postulated as things that have no detectable effect on anything that can be objectively measured, so just finding no observable effects might not be convincing.
I do think if human behavior can eventually be simulated or replicated by machine to a degree that is sufficiently recognizable as human, it would start to seem less necessary that a soul exists for those people who believe in dualism because they think it's the only explanation for subjective experience (particularly the experience of will).
Although, I suppose, they might just decide that souls opportunistically occupy suitable vessels, sort of like OSC's auia thing.
Well, that was a good post.
I'm kind of hoping the more intellectual religious apologists come out of the woodwork and try to argue me point by point, though. I want to win this the hard way.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Your connection of GUT to disproving the existence of souls still makes no sense, steven.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Just to simplify: Being able to predict all predictable effects doesn't mean that you can predict everything, when your theory predicts that some effects are not predictable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Even if you could predict everything, how does that disprove souls? Are you confusing souls with free will?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
From what I can tell, under Steven's definition a in order for a soul to be a soul, it must be supernatural. So if we were to predict everything there would be nothing supernatural going on because we would understand everything. Therefore that would prove souls do not exist.
Also if we were to discover the existence of a soul and come to understand it the soul would cease to be a soul because it is not supernatural now that we understand what it is.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Well suppose that a soul is just a hot-swappable backup of consciousness which observes matter in a way that cannot be detected. I don't see how you could disprove that and yet it would still allow for an afterlife that included continuity of consciousness.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
Continuity of Consciousness -- that's a good name for a band.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
To kmbboots--How could there be a difference between a soul and free will? I assume the two are identical.
To scifibum--I am not talking about being able to predict everything, in terms of electron position, etc. and other such quantum weirdness. I'm talking about being able to predict human behavior.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
And you think that would be easier for a Grand Unified Theory to do than predict electron and positron behavior?
Hobbes Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Then why are you connecting it to a unified field theory? Neurons can already be studied and modeled without reconciling quantum mechanics and general relativity, don't you think?
MattP has offered a good hypothesis that can't be disproven, unfortunately. It would be a violation of the uncertainty principle, I think, but that really wouldn't be surprising for anything which is posited to exist somehow separately from the observable universe.
Edit: Ahem. I'm talking about the "observer effect", and yes, I did make this mistake described in the wikipedia article about the uncertainty principle:
quote:Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused[4][5] with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Quantum effects appear to probably affect neuron behavior. Here's a link from Discover magazine:
Supposition: with a UFT and a computer of sufficient sophistication, I could develop a predictive model to predict the outcome of human behavior. Said model would include all relevant variables and predict behavior with a high level (perfect?) of accuracy.
Steven's argument: abnormalities in the prediction model would indicate the presence of a soul. Lack of abnormalities would indicate that no "supernatural elements" are present -- thus no soul exists.
Refutation: he's an idiot. Show me one article anywhere (other than some bizarre conspiracy theory website). No scientist worth their salt would believe that such a complex predictive model could be built outside of a Douglas Adams novel. Furthermore, if a system included all relevant variables, it would also include a soul, as it would be unable to differentiate. If souls exist, they are not "supernatural" -- regardless of their composition, they are a part of the universe and subject to some of the laws of physics. A true UFT would include them.
Outcomes: - No predictive ability. Can blame it on countless variables or non-linear equations. - Highly correlated predictive ability: can argue that a soul inhibited perfect correlation. OR could argue that lack of a soul caused a high correlation. - Perfect correlated predictive ability: can argue that no supernatural elements are present OR could argue that a soul is not supernatural and its contribution to the predictive model is already part of the data.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Quantum effects appear to probably affect neuron behavior. Here's a link from Discover magazine:
Oh, and Discover is pretty quack science to begin with. They'll publish a lot of fringe authors whose views aren't really reflective of the scientific community. I didn't bother to read the article -- Steven's already proven his credentials.
Scientific American is pretty much the only semi-reputable pop journal.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Aros, I like the way you calmly and logically refute Steven's argument. Starting that argument with the name calling ("he's and idiot")weakens what ever you say afterword. Many readers will read just that part of your argument and write you off as just another inarticulate hot head who has nothing better to add to the debate than cheap insults.
Basically, Steven argues that if we had a computer that could, based on all information except the soul, predict the future completely accurately, then there is no soul.
Aros response is, such a computer can not be made, and if it were made, weeding out the influence of the soul from all other starting data is impossible, and if it were possible any differences between prediction and results would most likely be blamed on other factors.
I agree.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: To kmbboots--How could there be a difference between a soul and free will? I assume the two are identical.
That isn't a good assumption.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Aros, I like the way you calmly and logically refute Steven's argument. Starting that argument with the name calling ("he's and idiot")weakens what ever you say afterword. Many readers will read just that part of your argument and write you off as just another inarticulate hot head who has nothing better to add to the debate than cheap insults.
I'm not really here to hone my debate skills. I'm pretty much just in it for the laughs at what some other people believe.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Yeah, Mauve. Those people obviously need to work on their reading comprehension skills.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by steven: To kmbboots--How could there be a difference between a soul and free will? I assume the two are identical.
That isn't a good assumption.
Is there any reasoning for that conclusion?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Since you made the soul claims first-and repeatedly-what's your reasoning on the nature of souls and how they might be detected and measured?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Since you made the soul claims first-and repeatedly-what's your reasoning on the nature of souls and how they might be detected and measured?
I don't think they exist. That is, of course, a guess. That's not to say that ESP and other such phenomena don't happen, I think they might. I just think that anything like that would be explainable by a sufficiently good G.U.T.. Again, it's just a guess.
The only thing that would convince me that souls exist is if every phenomenon in the Universe is 100% predictable except the behavior of sentient (or near sentient) beings. Especially if behavior became less predictable the more intelligent the creature became, then I would be convinced.
And to be clear, let me say that I am defining a soul as some part of the self that has memory, awareness, and intelligence, but does not depend on anything detectable and/or physical to exist.
I am also saying that I don't think that free will exists. The only thing that would change my mind is if the behavior of sentient beings is the only thing in the Universe that cannot be perfectly predicted.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Article from Mother Jones indicating that the LDS church has quietly dropped official opposition, or at least isn't interested continuing the fight. From the article:
quote: In the five years since the LDS church sent busloads of the faithful to California to canvass neighborhoods, and contributed more than $20 million via its members to support the initiative, it has all but dropped the rope in the public policy tug of war over marriage equality. The change stems from an even more remarkable if somewhat invisible transformation happening within the church, prompted by the ugly fight over Prop. 8 and the ensuing backlash from the flock.
Serious question, and apologies if it has been covered already: How can the Mormon Church change tact on an issue this large, when they are led by a prophet who makes important decisions like this through prayer and direct consultation with God?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Article from Mother Jones indicating that the LDS church has quietly dropped official opposition, or at least isn't interested continuing the fight. From the article:
quote: In the five years since the LDS church sent busloads of the faithful to California to canvass neighborhoods, and contributed more than $20 million via its members to support the initiative, it has all but dropped the rope in the public policy tug of war over marriage equality. The change stems from an even more remarkable if somewhat invisible transformation happening within the church, prompted by the ugly fight over Prop. 8 and the ensuing backlash from the flock.
Serious question, and apologies if it has been covered already: How can the Mormon Church change tact on an issue this large, when they are led by a prophet who makes important decisions like this through prayer and direct consultation with God?
Hmm. My initial answer is, as Mother Jones points out, the church hasn't change its stance on gay marriage or marriage in general. It has, however, dramatically changed its PR approach and is attempting, with apologies for its missteps, to establish better relations with LGBT communities, as outlined by the article.
A change in doctrine, like one that would actually change the church's stance on SSM, would be directed by the prophet.
Also, I do believe President Monson was directing the church's actions in 2008 and is continuing to shape its actions now in regard to LGBT issues in his role as president of the church and prophet.
However, how the church carries out what it considers to be directives from the prophet is going to be very human sometimes. I thought the church's involvement in Prop 8 was way too heavy-handed to begin with, and then got carried away quickly by overzealous members. That, and many actions before and after, were not handled well.
The directives do appear to be in conflict if you see the church as interested only in its PR image--or even in its membership count. Yes, the church is correcting its strategy in part to salvage its image internally and externally. But also because church leaders do genuinely want to bring people to Christ rather than drive them away. The church tends to think in longer terms and I think you'll see its overall actions tend to reflect that, with fine-tuning sometimes coming later. I for one believe we haven't seen the whole story unfold yet.
Let me say here that I am thrilled to see the church leaders changing tack. I hope the church can continue to some degree to help heal hurts that it has caused and to be a support, rather than a hindrance, to the LGBT community.
Kudos to Mother Jones for showing how the church leadership is willing to admit its mistakes and apologize, alongside the expose on money trails and legal filings.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Since you made the soul claims first-and repeatedly-what's your reasoning on the nature of souls and how they might be detected and measured?
I don't think they exist. That is, of course, a guess. That's not to say that ESP and other such phenomena don't happen, I think they might. I just think that anything like that would be explainable by a sufficiently good G.U.T.. Again, it's just a guess.
The only thing that would convince me that souls exist is if every phenomenon in the Universe is 100% predictable except the behavior of sentient (or near sentient) beings. Especially if behavior became less predictable the more intelligent the creature became, then I would be convinced.
And to be clear, let me say that I am defining a soul as some part of the self that has memory, awareness, and intelligence, but does not depend on anything detectable and/or physical to exist.
I am also saying that I don't think that free will exists. The only thing that would change my mind is if the behavior of sentient beings is the only thing in the Universe that cannot be perfectly predicted.
Even then, would you be convinced that a soul exists?
If we could model everything in the universe except for sentient thought / choice, one could certainly make the argument that intelligence (as a pure analytical ability) can imagine more unique, genuine options for an organism, rather than those generated by instinct.
Can we predict mistakes? Cognitive dissonance? Can we predict actions predicated by emotions? One could easily rationalize that true intelligence cannot be predicted by any model due to the vast quantity of cogent options available to perform any number of actions for any number of reasons. Or in the case of insanity and genius, for no reason whatsoever. What makes a human stop in the middle of the street and look up at the sky? What makes them admire a sun?
I'd argue that a soul is only one of many possible conclusions one could draw from your scenario. You don't believe in free will? Isn't it scientifically more plausible than a soul?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Reading the Mother Jones article, I'm struck that not only does the LDS church owe gay people and their supporters a big apology, but also a pretty big debt of gratitude.
I wasn't really aware that it was an accepted practice among LDS households to throw your teenagers out of the house if they are gay. I can't imagine how you can justify that, especially if you are supposed to value family extremely highly, have a direct line to God, and a built in spiritual immorality detector. I mean, how do you pray to God about that and not have him respond "What the %$& is wrong with you? No, of course you don't do that." But LDS were doing it anyway.
Based on outside pressure, the LDS church is going to start working on that. Because the pro-gay people exposed and made people understand how bad this practice was, the LDS is (hopefully) going to stop being so immoral on this.
I'd made the point before that outside disapproval and correctly identifying bigotry is an important part of changing anti-gay bigots like these parents. Doesn't this make that abundantly clear, and, for the LDS, make you want to thank pro-gay people for helping remove a blot on the soul of your church/community?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
And to be clear, let me say that I am defining a soul as some part of the self that has memory, awareness, and intelligence, but does not depend on anything detectable and/or physical to exist.
A baby has a soul but does not have memory. What about someone in a coma? Some animals have memory and intelligence. Do animals have souls? Only some of them? They have free will - at least my cat does!
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Reading the Mother Jones article, I'm struck that not only does the LDS church owe gay people and their supporters a big apology, but also a pretty big debt of gratitude.
I wasn't really aware that it was an accepted practice among LDS households to throw your teenagers out of the house if they are gay. I can't imagine how you can justify that, especially if you are supposed to value family extremely highly, have a direct line to God, and a built in spiritual immorality detector. I mean, how do you pray to God about that and not have him respond "What the %$& is wrong with you? No, of course you don't do that." But LDS were doing it anyway.
Based on outside pressure, the LDS church is going to start working on that. Because the pro-gay people exposed and made people understand how bad this practice was, the LDS is (hopefully) going to stop being so immoral on this.
I'd made the point before that outside disapproval and correctly identifying bigotry is an important part of changing anti-gay bigots like these parents. Doesn't this make that abundantly clear, and, for the LDS, make you want to thank pro-gay people for helping remove a blot on the soul of your church/community?
Huh? Accepted practice? Wrong. Holy crap.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
err...yeah, accepted practice:
quote:It also has long been common practice for Mormon parents to kick LGBT adolescents out of their homes because of their sexual orientation. (When Matt Lawrence, the church pollster's son, broke with his family over Prop. 8, he told stories about his family's efforts to "straighten me out" by sending him to live with homophobic cousins in Utah.) Utah foster parents, too, generally won't take in LGBT children. That's one reason why heavily Mormon Utah has so many homeless LGBT kids on the streets.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
MrSquicky, I think there has been quite a significant shift in the LDS church in the commonplace views of what it means to be gay. Specifically the shift is from viewing homosexuality as a deviant sort of rebellion to viewing it as a more innate sexual orientation.
I don't find it surprising that, in the (previously more prevalent) view that being openly gay equated to openly defying the doctrines of the church, some families would respond by shunning or imposing other extreme consequences. They viewed being "out" as an act of extreme rebellion. Authority does not respond to rebellion with acceptance. (I actually think that for some gay members of the church it felt like rebellion as well, which I think sometimes had harmful side effects.)
It's been really important for the church to acknowledge sexual orientation as something real, rather than an expression of either compliance or rebellion (or a weakness for temptation). Shunning simply doesn't make sense in that case.
Although there's still a rather significant gray area, I think, in that openly embracing "sin" (which gay sex still is, according to the LDS church) is still likely to lead to some degree of exclusion. It's not going to be easy for the average gay LDS without a lot more change.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
It happens, sure. However, it's not accepted officially or unofficially (you're the one who added "accepted", BTW), it's not as common as that passage makes it sound, and it's certainly not a practice. Mother Jones was going a little overboard there, and you're amplifying it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
afr, I balked at that phrasing too. But while I can't say that I've ever heard of the church hierarchy espousing such a thing, it is indeed a common story. Lots of gay family members have gotten shunned.
The other side of the story is that it's probably rarely a stark "I'm gay." "Okay, move out" type of interchange. The rebellion dynamic most likely existed. (Although my sympathies lie with those who were "rebelling" because conformity required them to deny their own feelings.) And it's probably misleading to suggest that the church taught members to follow this course of action.
"Accepted practice" doesn't sit entirely right with me, but I can't deny that it happened a lot, which is I think a genuine downside of how the church has talked about and understood homosexuality in the past.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's not accepted unofficially? How is that possible? Do you think that people didn't know that massive numbers of kids were getting thrown out of their houses for being gay?
If you read more into it, there is plenty of evidence that there was social approval and even advocacy for the practice. It certainly didn't seem to be something regarded as shameful.
---
I wasn't saying that it was explicitly condoned by the Church leadership, but you know, people hammered away at them for over a decade to do something about this widespread and conspicuous problem and nothing happened until after the Prop 8 backlash. So, yeah, that sounds an awful lot like accepting it to me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Yeah, outside some bishops and stake presidents instructing parents of gay children to "isolate their gay children from the others" for fear of straight kids becoming gay that is still a very far cry from the church officially telling parents to openly exile their gay children.
The church did not do nearly a good enough job stopping parents from doing that of their own volition, but to say it was a "common practice" along with say hosting wedding receptions in chapels is very misleading.
Today, they have spoken out strongly against such treatment.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Yeah, outside some bishops and stake presidents instructing parents of gay children to "isolate their gay children from the others" for fear of straight kids becoming gay that is still a very far cry from the church officially telling parents to openly exile their gay children.
The church did not do nearly a good enough job stopping parents from doing that of their own volition, but to say it was a "common practice" along with say hosting wedding receptions in chapels is very misleading.
Today, they have spoken out strongly against such treatment.
I'm not sure that this speaks against it being accepted. People were obviously doing this in large numbers. Despite people pleading with them to do something, the LDS leadership not only "did not do nearly a good enough job stopping parents from doing that of their own volition", they sat back and let it happen, or, you know, accepted it.
It's a good thing that they are doing something about it now, but, to my point, it took the Prop 8 backlash to get them to do anything. As such, it seems to me that you owe the pro-gay people a debt of gratitude.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:The other side of the story is that it's probably rarely a stark "I'm gay." "Okay, move out" type of interchange. The rebellion dynamic most likely existed. (Although my sympathies lie with those who were "rebelling" because conformity required them to deny their own feelings.) And it's probably misleading to suggest that the church taught members to follow this course of action.
This. I'm sure in most cases, the circumstasnces of the child being thrown out were a lot more complicated than "I'm gay." "Well, then, get out." Yes, misunderstanding and homophobia on the parents' part would lead to increased tension in the home. A change of behavior on the child's part might go against established family rules, leading to more confrontations. At some point the parents or the child might get fed up with an unlivable situation, and the child is told to leave or chooses to. It's a terrible thing when it happens for any reason and harmful for all involved.
Afterwards, both parents and child might choose to explain with something like "He decided he was gay, and that's not a lifestyle we can condone at home" on the parents' part, or "I told them I was gay, and they kicked me out" on the child's part. Both stories may get sympathy and support from peers. But often, the family's struggles aren't ever broadcast to friends and neighbors, and it's hard to tell what happened when the child leaves. The child might say it's because he came out, but there's a whole range of circumstances that outsiders won't know. In some cases the parents may very well have tried as hard as they could to show love and understanding.
While that doesn't excuse the parents' response or behavior in many cases, to say that each case was caused by blatant homophobia and both accepted and advocated by other church members is silly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Today, they have spoken out strongly against such treatment.
I don't doubt your sincerity, but as for myself I'm not going to give them credit for 'strongly speaking out' when it comes at the tail end of a massive PR and legal butt-kicking. Good for them for (finally) having unequivocal official opposition to this sort of behavior, but I find myself unable to forget that they're supposed to be well *ahead* of the curve, not behind it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Today, they have spoken out strongly against such treatment.
I don't doubt your sincerity, but as for myself I'm not going to give them credit for 'strongly speaking out' when it comes at the tail end of a massive PR and legal butt-kicking. Good for them for (finally) having unequivocal official opposition to this sort of behavior, but I find myself unable to forget that they're supposed to be well *ahead* of the curve, not behind it.
Well that's nice. So now it's not enough that an institution seeks to make amends and do what's right. The fact they weren't ahead of some perceived curve necessitates our not actually forgiving them ever ever ever.
As for political pressure, the church is actually an extremely reasonable body. Some Jews raised concerns about proxy baptism, the church agreed to limit work for the dead to people who are documented ancestors of Mormons. When that rule was broken, people were barred from using church genealogy services. There was no political motivation for the change.
As for why the church is making the changes it is now. I am not convinced it's purely political. But I am not privy to the discussions going on at the top. I do know that members of the church are making persuasive arguments to their leaders and that rises up. I also know that gay members of the church are setting good examples of faithfulness, and that softens hearts more than anything else.
We know how to stick to our guns, we've done it numerous times in the face of worse than political pressure, but we also know we can make mistakes, and seek to correct them when they are made known.
edit: Look I get that you feel like the church is just doing what it needs to to stay relevant. But if that's true, where is the political pressure in the other direction? Why isn't the leadership of the church at least leaning towards the political sensibilities of those in Utah?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Look I get that you feel like the church is just doing what it needs to to stay relevant. But if that's true, where is the political pressure in the other direction? Why isn't the leadership of the church at least leaning towards the political sensibilities of those in Utah?
It's a tough balancing act, especially today where there is such a sharp divide between the two sides of this issue. What we're seeing right now is a slow movement in the same direction as the culture in general, but lagging behind because of the large base of conservative membership and leadership. It's pretty much exactly where I'd expect the Church to be given current demographics.
It's also unlikely for the Church to lose much membership in Utah given how tied up Church, family, and social networks are here. Where the Church has a relevancy risk is outside the state where alternative social and religious frameworks are more abundant.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Today, they have spoken out strongly against such treatment.
I don't doubt your sincerity, but as for myself I'm not going to give them credit for 'strongly speaking out' when it comes at the tail end of a massive PR and legal butt-kicking. Good for them for (finally) having unequivocal official opposition to this sort of behavior, but I find myself unable to forget that they're supposed to be well *ahead* of the curve, not behind it.
Well that's nice. So now it's not enough that an institution seeks to make amends and do what's right. The fact they weren't ahead of some perceived curve necessitates our not actually forgiving them ever ever ever.
Don't be disingenuous. His point is that coming in behind the curve is a sign that it takes *being* behind the curve to make you act. That is, the tail end of the PR butt-kicking previous mentioned was what made the church say anything- not the fact that it was right to do so. And if you only act when you *are* behind the curve, it indicates that you aren't actually doing what is right *because* it is right, but because you *have* to.
And he's right not to trust actions that are so motivated. And neither should you. And it surprises me that you do.
quote: edit: Look I get that you feel like the church is just doing what it needs to to stay relevant. But if that's true, where is the political pressure in the other direction? Why isn't the leadership of the church at least leaning towards the political sensibilities of those in Utah?
Come now. The 3 million residents of Utah, who are decreasingly identifying themselves as Mormons, constitute a small part of the political and economic aspirations of the church.
And where are the political pressures in the other direction is the question you're asking? How did we get here in the first place?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro:
quote:Don't be disingenuous. His point is that coming in behind the curve is a sign that it takes *being* behind the curve to make you act.
That's a fundamental mechanism for change, realizing that you are falling behind, and making adjustments to catch up. As for staying ahead of the curve, the youngest Apostle was born in 1952, the oldest 1922. The average age of the current apostles is 77. As far as being ahead of the curve, they have all had successful careers in their vocations, none of them are divorced, criminal activity, or ethics violations. None of them have been the cause of controversy in the church. They've all successfully raised children, they are all very kind men. I'd say that's way ahead of the curve in many respects.
Politically sure, they can't all be called progressives, but I'd be very surprised if I did not hold views that were backwards at that age.
quote:Come now. The 3 million residents of Utah, who are decreasingly identifying themselves as Mormons, constitute a small part of the political and economic aspirations of the church.
And where are the political pressures in the other direction is the question you're asking? How did we get here in the first place?
Get where? Sure on gay marriage we appear way too conservative, but on immigration the church has been outspokenly for kindness to illegal immigrants, including amnesty, and having good efficient immigration laws. They don't discuss abortion or gun rights, isolationism, terrorism, entitlements, big government, etc. Just never. In the past topics of that nature have been routinely addressed, but not today.
I haven't seen publications, blog posts, or anything of that nature about the brethren betraying values because of their recent adjustment in attitude to gay marriage. I've seen numerous liberal Mormons write passionately about that topic. Not one Conservative one.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
MrSquicky:
I used to volunteer at a shelter/school called Resource Inc. (I have no idea who thought that would be a sensible name) for homeless children and teenagers who had no where else to go. An appallingly large percentage of those children had been kicked out of their Mormon homes for "rebellion" of some sort, mostly homosexuality. They weren't the only kids there, but they were the only ones from middle class backgrounds - a lot of the other kids had parents in jail, or killed by gang violence, or had been passed from foster home to foster home until the ball got dropped at some point. The Mormons were the only people who abandoned their own children like that - even the IFB people and Evangelicals (who I've discussed in another thread) would send their unwanted children to special camps or boarding schools instead of just kicking them out on the street.
And honestly, that's the big problem with the LDS church, and something that makes it hard for me to participate in these threads and remain civil, due to the large number of broken people I know who have had their lives destroyed by their Mormon families. (see my other posts in this thread) Mormonism is a religion that, in practice, considers caring for one's own children to be secondary to making sure that one isn't "corrupted" by having children who won't or can't follow it's teachings.
And I really wish people like BlackBlade, who are (understandably) so eager to defend and support their Church against all criticism, or at least equivocate it's misdeeds and say "but it does more good than bad!", could just stop and put themselves in the shoes of a 17 year old living on the streets of Indianapolis, prostituting himself to make enough money to get by. Or a brilliant 16 year old girl with a photographic memory who read the Bible in 2 days when it was the only reading material in her jail cell, and spoke like a dictionary, who could by all rights be getting ready for college but instead is just trying to stay out of Juvie and get enough food to feed herself. Or a Marine who has to live a complete lie every time he visits his family, because he's so terrified that if they find out who he really is, they'll disown him. I wish they could see how cowardly and disingenuous their Church appears, and how it has looked for the entirety of it's existence, with things like having the Almighty suddenly "change his mind" about allowing blacks to be priests once it would no longer be controversial in any way.
It's easy to write these sorts of things off as statistical anomalies or "Mormons are humans too, and prone to sin" (somehow "sinning" in this regard ridiculously more than other people in their society) or say "well, the Church doesn't officially condone this", because it keeps you from coming to the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong and broken about the LDS Church, that it's teachings destroy families and ruin lives, and that it's creates family and community environments that squelch integrity, kindness, mercy and tolerance, and promote dishonesty, hypocrisy and forces those who wish to be accepted to live dishonorable and compromised lives.
I realize this post will probably be removed, and I don't have the heart or the patience to get involved in this thread again. But if you read this before that happens: it's OK to be outraged and appalled by these sorts of things, because they are outrageous and appalling. Any civilized human ought to have the same reaction. Also, read this short story. It sums up my views on the morality of this situation pretty well - there's simply nothing good the Church does that can ameliorate or whitewash this abominable practice.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I wasn't really aware that it was an accepted practice among LDS households to throw your teenagers out of the house if they are gay. I can't imagine how you can justify that, especially if you are supposed to value family extremely highly, have a direct line to God, and a built in spiritual immorality detector. I mean, how do you pray to God about that and not have him respond "What the %$& is wrong with you? No, of course you don't do that." But LDS were doing it anyway.
In Utah in 2011 (the latest official report I could find), 29% of homeless youth identify as LGBT, which may be a bit higher than the national average, but seems in the same ball park. Nationwide, the LGBT youth homeless rate is highly disproportionate to the overall percentage of youth who identify as LGBT (around 3%).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It's easy to write these sorts of things off as statistical anomalies
Okay, this post is going to be pretty candid.
I've mentioned before that my understanding of the LDS church comes primarily from two groups who had about equal time in my life for a while and who describe it through their own experiences: people actively in the church, and people who are no longer part of the church and are otherwise kind and gentle souls who were actively and agonizingly screwed over by LDS culture.
For some, it was because they were gay. And yes, the experience of growing up gay in a mormon household is an overwhelmingly wretched and terrifying thing. One that often requires remaining closeted as a matter of practical necessity; mormon society is horrible to outed or openly gay kids — mormons should not even pretend otherwise or claim that this isn't really the case; it's insulting.
For others, their criminal deviant trespass against their peers could be as simple as being a child in a single-parent family, for which they would be constantly tortured and maligned. Or it could have been one of a hundred little things here and there; there's so many ways this ends up happening, too — a smorgasboard of little things which make you not the 'right kind' of mormon. A deviance, a way in which you are different or have stepped out of line. Universally among all of them, they're apostates because their lives were made miserable by acts endemic to mormon culture.
Does this turn me into anti-LDS in general? Does it become my full judgment of the church? No; these are tendencies we're talking about that are fairly pronounced in any conservative culture, hardly some unique habit of a bizarre and fairly recent offshoot of Christianity. I also contrast it against the ideal and recognize in all fairness what the LDS claims in terms of whether or not it officially supports this behavior. What ends up being concerning is the straightforward and automatic erasure of these experiences, which are reflexively produced by the faithful whenever the subject comes up. I practically only ever hear "That's not how we really are" and how unfair it is to include these people's stories in painting a picture of what mormon culture often is in practice. It is their expectation, whether they realize it or not, that to not be allowed to engage in this erasure is persecution of some form. To be confronted with this criticism is troubling, something which they ought to shield themselves from, to keep it censored out.
(This place's legacy rules could serve as an example of that; I've read all of the administrative rulings and clarifications on the subject of blaspheming, and I can tell you straightforwardly that the law of the land dictates that this post is expressly improper and I know I am absolutely not allowed to make it. On most specifically Mormon boards, it would be erased quite matter of factly even where analogous criticism of other religious culture would absolutely get a pass.)
The complex that is generated around this expectation towards erasure is supremely fascinating but also — once you come to understand the kindness for which mormons wish to be known — profoundly disappointing. It hinders or superficializes progress towards the ideals that it claims for itself.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Sam: You put it far more calmly, eloquently, and rationally than I did, and I want to say I appreciate your post a lot.
For Mormons who feel I'm attacking your Church (due to the intensity of my post): please understand that I'm not attacking your religion itself, nor to I not understand or appreciate all the good that is done because of the organizational structure in place. As Sam said, the things I'm attacking are present in quite a few other conservative communities (religious or otherwise), including one I'm nominally part of, and the conservative community I'm actively part of (the U.S. military) is chock full of all sorts of problems of it's own. The thing I'm so opposed to is that Mormons seem to be universally predisposed to deny, equivocate, downplay, or evade anything negative that occurs due to their church's teaching, which means any discussion being had about those things is almost entirely about them trying to weasel out of the Church or the associated culture and teachings being in any way responsible.
This is incredibly disheartening to see, especially when this sort of dishonesty is coming from forum members I otherwise hold a lot of respect for. It's also disheartening because I know this sort of "erasure" as Sam puts it is the biggest thing impeding progress being made.
The organization I belong to used to discriminate against gays. Me, and many other straight service members wrote our commanding officers, our congressmen, wore purple shirts, marched in parades, and loudly and vocally spoke out against this injustice and in the defense of those who were damaged because of it. We put our careers and reputations in danger rather than be passively compliant with it. And we got the law changed. I remember once meeting a Marine who told me "it's not that big of a deal - they only use DADT to get rid of the gays that they have other reasons for getting rid of now" and feeling incredibly disgusted by his moral cowardice. And yet this sort of attitude is the norm among Mormons - even those who support a more liberal attitude towards homosexuality.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That's a fundamental mechanism for change, realizing that you are falling behind, and making adjustments to catch up. As for staying ahead of the curve, the youngest Apostle was born in 1952, the oldest 1922. The average age of the current apostles is 77. As far as being ahead of the curve, they have all had successful careers in their vocations, none of them are divorced, criminal activity, or ethics violations. None of them have been the cause of controversy in the church. They've all successfully raised children, they are all very kind men. I'd say that's way ahead of the curve in many respects.
And yet they are behind it in this one. How ready you are to make character arguments in favor of these people- again, I don't get why.
quote: Sure on gay marriage we appear way too conservative, but on immigration the church has been outspokenly for kindness to illegal immigrants, including amnesty, and having good efficient immigration laws. They don't discuss abortion or gun rights, isolationism, terrorism, entitlements, big government, etc. Just never. In the past topics of that nature have been routinely addressed, but not today.
Don't give me that, please. Of course they discuss these things. They are not in the public limelight for doing so- but the church has teachings and things to say about all of these things. And while I am sanguine that it is not a unified, solitary message about any of them, don't act like LDS leaders don't have opinions or express them freely.
My point is that the church does, as a church, what is politically expedient for it to do. In this case, change its approach to homosexuals and gay rights (a little). You telling me they are nice to illegals is little comfort, really. Even less so given that you obviously think of these two political issues as equivalent in some way.
quote: The complex that is generated around this expectation towards erasure is supremely fascinating but also — once you come to understand the kindness for which mormons wish to be known — profoundly disappointing. It hinders or superficializes progress towards the ideals that it claims for itself.
this.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:mormon society is horrible to outed or openly gay kids — mormons should not even pretend otherwise or claim that this isn't really the case; it's insulting.
Who has given the insult? I haven't seen anybody say it hasn't been very trying and extremely difficult for gay people in LDS households. Only that things are getting much better, and in fact you can already see videos and blogs posts by gay Mormons who come out to their family, and experience a wellspring of support. Look for it.
quote:For others, their criminal deviant trespass against their peers could be as simple as being a child in a single-parent family, for which they would be constantly tortured and maligned. Or it could have been one of a hundred little things here and there; there's so many ways this ends up happening, too — a smorgasboard of little things which make you not the 'right kind' of mormon. A deviance, a way in which you are different or have stepped out of line. Universally among all of them, they're apostates because their lives were made miserable by acts endemic to mormon culture.
This is not endemic to Mormonism, this is endemic to humanity in general. People in clubs that require obedience to guidelines often see those guidelines as a means until themselves, be they "only formal attire on this cruise line!" to "no eating pork!"
Mormons do run the risk of being same way the Pharisees were to Jesus. Self-righteous, and so caught up in rigidly defining morality that they miss the forest for the trees. I have met plenty of Mormons who are the best specimens of humanity I have ever met.
quote:What ends up being concerning is the straightforward and automatic erasure of these experiences
What do you mean? Do you mean Mormons want to act like this part of their history never happened?
quote:I practically only ever hear "That's not how we really are" and how unfair it is to include these people's stories in painting a picture of what mormon culture often is in practice
Who has ever used that phrase? Honestly who? And if they have, it's a weak defense. I prefer "That's not how we should be were we practicing our religion to the fullest."
There's nothing wrong with using experiences to illustrate a point, we all do it. Where we go wrong is to act like even a handful of experiences is somehow informative of the entire group.
I'd really need to better understand what you mean by erasure.
---------
Orincoro:
quote:And yet they are behind it in this one. How ready you are to make character arguments in favor of these people- again, I don't get why.
We are all freaking light years behind where we could be. We don't even move forward all the time.
A person who is ahead of where you are often looks like they are going the wrong way, even backwards.
quote:Don't give me that, please. Of course they discuss these things. They are not in the public limelight for doing so- but the church has teachings and things to say about all of these things. And while I am sanguine that it is not a unified, solitary message about any of them, don't act like LDS leaders don't have opinions or express them freely.
No, they really don't. I haven't heard one sermon on the correct size of government, or guns, the word 'abortion' hasn't been used in Conference since 2001.
Yes, the church discusses politics, but there isn't a coherent conservative message in it all.
quote:My point is that the church does, as a church, what is politically expedient for it to do.
Well that's a loaded term. We believe in being subject to the laws of the land, so doing what is politically expedient is something we are obligated to do hence no longer practicing polygamy. It does not mean we believe things because they are popular. If the church does do things for that reason alone, it's doing it for the wrong ones.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I wasn't really aware that it was an accepted practice among LDS households to throw your teenagers out of the house if they are gay. I can't imagine how you can justify that, especially if you are supposed to value family extremely highly, have a direct line to God, and a built in spiritual immorality detector. I mean, how do you pray to God about that and not have him respond "What the %$& is wrong with you? No, of course you don't do that." But LDS were doing it anyway.
In Utah in 2011 (the latest official report I could find), 29% of homeless youth identify as LGBT, which may be a bit higher than the national average, but seems in the same ball park. Nationwide, the LGBT youth homeless rate is highly disproportionate to the overall percentage of youth who identify as LGBT (around 3%).
A few factors to consider...
Most homeless youth come from extreme poverty, single parent families, or are orphans. In these situations, sexual orientation has little influence on whether or not they are homeless.
Homosexuality isn't the only reason kids are being put on the street by the their Mormon parents. Other forms of "rebellion" factor into it as well.
That being said...
The last time I was involved in that sort of work was in 2009 when I was still in college. A friend of mine who works as a councilor at a homeless shelter in Chicago specifically designed for LGBT youths (his job is mostly to help them deal with boundaries and establishing healthy relationships - they are frequently preyed on in normal shelters) told me that 43% of the children at his shelter are from Mormon households. In Chicago, not Utah. That was in 2012, I don't know if it's changed in a year. Compare that to Mormons being roughly 2% of the US population.
He's done a lot more formal research on the issue than I have, I can e-mail him and see if he wants to contribute to this discussion or not. He and I talked about it for about an hour last time I saw him - several of the employees at the shelter are LDS and have their own opinions on the matter as well.
Posted by cloark (Member # 12400) on :
quote:Homeless and LGBT officials said the number of homeless Utah youths is estimated at about 1,000, of which about 300 to 400 are LGBT. Out of those LGBT homeless youths, about 150 to 200 are believed to come from Mormon homes.
According to a report produced by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life 58% of Utahns self identified as "Mormon". (Utah wiki article)
One short coming of these statistics is probably distinguishing between LGBT teens that are homeless with their families, from those who have been thrown out.
quote:43% of the children at his shelter are from Mormon households. In Chicago, not Utah. That was in 2012, I don't know if it's changed in a year. Compare that to Mormons being roughly 2% of the US population.
Mormons only make up 0.4% of the population in Illinois. It seems very strange that Mormons would be proportionally represented among homeless LGBT youth in Utah and 100 times over represented in Chicago.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: The last time I was involved in that sort of work was in 2009 when I was still in college. A friend of mine who works as a councilor at a homeless shelter in Chicago specifically designed for LGBT youths (his job is mostly to help them deal with boundaries and establishing healthy relationships - they are frequently preyed on in normal shelters) told me that 43% of the children at his shelter are from Mormon households. In Chicago, not Utah. That was in 2012, I don't know if it's changed in a year. Compare that to Mormons being roughly 2% of the US population.
He's done a lot more formal research on the issue than I have, I can e-mail him and see if he wants to contribute to this discussion or not. He and I talked about it for about an hour last time I saw him - several of the employees at the shelter are LDS and have their own opinions on the matter as well.
I'm quite confident the percentage of homeless gay youth in Utah who are LDS is well above 43%, considering the state.
I would love it if your friend who works at the shelter in Chicago would share some input in this discussion! I hope he will.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
So much anecdotal evidence. Even when statistics are give, there are people who're "quite confident" that the statistics are wrong.
Here's mine. I was raised in a small town Mormon community on the border of Idaho and Utah. I had NEVER heard of anyone being kicked out of their home for any reason related to church / morality (and it would have gotten out, had it happened -- people gossip).
I moved to California and met my (ex) wife. I was appalled at how many people in their large Catholic family had been kicked out of the family and disowned. I remember thinking that a loving family would NEVER do that.
Sure, there's anecdotal evidence that can demonize Mormons. But I'll eat my hat if it isn't as bad (or worse) for Catholics and some of the Southern Protestant religions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So...wait. I'm not sure if you're trying to be ironic here. If you are, my bad for missing it but you started with a shot at those touting anecdotal evidence and you concluded by doing exactly that yourself.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So...wait. I'm not sure if you're trying to be ironic here. If you are, my bad for missing it but you started with a shot at those touting anecdotal evidence and you concluded by doing exactly that yourself.
I'm not sure if irony is the best word for it but I think he's pointing out that these anecdotes as a basis for judgement are useless by providing an anecdote that completely contradicts the previously provided ones.
"I'll see your anecdote and raise it one anecdote."
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I was raised in a small town Mormon community on the border of Idaho and Utah. I had NEVER heard of anyone being kicked out of their home for any reason related to church / morality...
Why would anyone in THAT location and community be stupid enough to reveal their homosexuality?
Did you even know of anyone who was openly gay and Mormon? Somehow, I'm betting NOT.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I was raised in a small town Mormon community on the border of Idaho and Utah. I had NEVER heard of anyone being kicked out of their home for any reason related to church / morality...
Why would anyone in THAT location and community be stupid enough to reveal their homosexuality?
Did you even know of anyone who was openly gay and Mormon? Somehow, I'm betting NOT.
There was no one openly gay until about 1998. Since then, it really hasn't been that big of a deal. There are quite a few people in the community who are "out". It's a bit of a novelty, like black people, but it doesn't seem to be much a point for discrimination. I haven't ever really seen discrimination in rural Utah. People who are different are usually treated better, as everyone rushes not to step on each others' toes or hurt someone's feelings.
Most LDS women that I know are either in favor or somewhat supportive of homosexual marriage. LDS men are skewed -- most of the younger men are in support and most older men are against.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So...wait. I'm not sure if you're trying to be ironic here. If you are, my bad for missing it but you started with a shot at those touting anecdotal evidence and you concluded by doing exactly that yourself.
My point being that every argument here is unbased and unqualified. I'm not really certain why Mormons are being demonized. Based on my time growing up in Utah and traveling with the military, LDS folks are usually MUCH more understanding that most of the more conservative Christian faiths.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: So much anecdotal evidence. Even when statistics are give, there are people who're "quite confident" that the statistics are wrong.
The Utah study I linked only listed the rate of homeless youth who are gay, but did not mention whether they were LDS. Since it was in Utah, I surmised the percentage who were LDS would be higher than the 43% Dogbreath mentioned in Chicago.
From the SL Tribune article cloark linked, there's a lot of wiggle room of uncertainty for the percentage of gay youth who are LDS, ranging from 37% to 67%. So it's very likely the percentage is higher than 43%, (especially considering that 58% of Utahns Identify as LDS).
Posted by cloark (Member # 12400) on :
The claim that has been made is that it is common practice for LDS families to throw LGBT children out of the house, and that this has happened in large numbers.
If Dogbreath's source is correct, and if it holds for the population of Chicago in general, it would be appalling that 0.4% of the population (the LDS in Illinois) could be generating 43% of the homeless LGBT teens. (To be clear the 43% figure has nothing to do with Utah and shouldn't be compared to roughly 50% number calculated from the SL Tribune article.)
On the other hand, if the numbers from the SL Tribune are accurate, then LDS LGBT teens don't seem to have a higher homelessness rate than the population (of Utah) in general, which would imply that the LDS are no better or worse in this regard.
I suppose it is possible that LDS in Utah are averagely accepting of their LGBT teens, and the LDS in Chicago are much, much, much less tolerant. Another option would be for one (or both) of these data points to be incorrect.
p.s. I can't refer to Dogbreath without feeling like I'm tossing around insults on the playground during recess. It's weird.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Cloark: Chicago, much like Toronto, ends up drawing and keeping many homeless persons from the midwest - who after being kicked out of their homes tend to flee (or get pulled in via hitch hiking) to large cities. There are a number of reasons why this happens, but a large proportion of the homeless in Chicago didn't start being homeless there. So that 43% is *not* a good indication of the state of Illinois, just the midwest in general.
Second, as I mentioned earlier, it's a church run shelter with several LDS employees - it's obviously a more friendly and familiar environment for LDS teens and that skews the numbers upwards as well.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think the first thing I'd do as a homeless teenager is try to think of somewhere to go and then go there.
(OK, first I'd cry and mope a lot.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: There was no one openly gay until about 1998. Since then, it really hasn't been that big of a deal. There are quite a few people in the community who are "out". It's a bit of a novelty, like black people,
.. what
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: There was no one openly gay until about 1998. Since then, it really hasn't been that big of a deal. There are quite a few people in the community who are "out". It's a bit of a novelty, like black people,
.. what
Utah is called "The Wonder Bread" state because honestly black people are kind of a novelty. Especially in the 70's/80's/and most of the 90's. Today I'd still there are not very many. Brown people we've got aplenty, but there just isn't much of an African American community.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: ]There was no one openly gay until about 1998.
Do you mean no one of your acquaintance? Because in the rest of the world there were lots of openly gay people long before that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think perhaps Samprimary's 'what?' remark might not have been so much for the black people (although that qualifier did fall on the ear a bit oddly), but for the 'no one openly gay until about 1998'.
That's kind of like a big old sign to me of something. I'm not sure what it might be, but I can tell you what it's not: a sign of how much people avoid stepping on toes and how little discrimination there is.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am just amazed that that particular combination of words was actually written by a person and now exists anywhere ever. It deserves a sideways glance at dead least.
BUT ANYWAY
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:mormon society is horrible to outed or openly gay kids — mormons should not even pretend otherwise or claim that this isn't really the case; it's insulting.
Who has given the insult?
Any LDS member who has claimed, to my face or otherwise, that mormon community has treated gays with kindness and respect and should not be judged negatively for "isolated horror stories" that are "clearly unrepresentative."
quote:What do you mean? Do you mean Mormons want to act like this part of their history never happened?
"Want to act?" Or "believe?"
"Never happened?" Or "is much better than some would have you think?"
Let's explain what the kind of erasure I'm talking about is.
Whether we are talking a concerted effort on an organized level, or any end product among the rank and file faithful, the effect is the same and is equally present.
It is a tendency to ignore, remove, falsify, minimize, or reexplain the actual experiences and personal testimony of people who experienced the truth of what it is to be gay and living in a Mormon family and community.
When the personal experience is nonconducive to a positive portrayal of mormonism, it is minimized and disregarded and caveats are invented for it when and if it is ever discussed within mormon communities*. When the personal experience is conducive to a positive portrayal of mormonism, it is amplified, given disproportionate attention, and widely pointed to as what people should be looking at if they want the 'real story' about gays and the mormon church.
This happens so profoundly and strongly that I would like to believe that any LDS member can accept that this is a real process that actually happens, whether concerted and purposeful or not. Yet so many are legitimately unaware of or unwilling to accept that yes, this is a thing. The end result is I have well more than one story of being present when an actual person who actually lived the experience of being gay in a mormon family will tell the truth about what happened to them, and an LDS member will respond with a product and a continuation of that erasure: "I'm very sorry that happened to you, but we're not really like that / that's not how it usually happens / i'm sure the resources were available for / you could have found support with / i seriously doubt your stake president actually said that to you / i don't believe that they would actually come to your house and tell your parents that or yell at you / there must have been some other issue at the school / put on honor code probation for being gay, no, no that probably wasn't the real reason why / are you sure those were mormon kids who kicked you until you lost two teeth, that doesn't sound like / what do you mean 'ordered' into conversion therapy, we don't / if your stake actually did that you should have just been able to report them and / etc etc"
*most frequently 'they're ex-mormon members with a bone to pick so they are being overwhelmingly negative and attacking our faith and' or 'their issue was much larger than just being homosexual, there were obviously many other incompatibilities with the church and'
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: There was no one openly gay until about 1998. Since then, it really hasn't been that big of a deal. There are quite a few people in the community who are "out". It's a bit of a novelty, like black people,
.. what
You expect that people don't speak openly about their "quirks" in Utah??
Regarding gays: I think it was when Ellen DeGeneres came out. Nobody ever talked about the gay subject. We were in a town where gossip spread like wildfire, and no one ever mentioned homosexuals. Then all of a sudden it was "trendy", girls were kissing at high school dances, and a number of people around town identified themselves.
Is it strange that television was such a contributing factor? In a rural community? I don't think so. Roseanne, Ellen, Married with Children -- these really shaped the way people thought. I'd reckon that Modern Family has done more for the gay marriage cause than anything else in our society. It changed the minds of my mother and two sisters.
Re: black people. Yeah. So? We'd get black families move into town every so often. The kids would instantly be the most popular kids at school. The family would be flooded with missionaries and welcome baskets. Everybody would be tripping over themselves to prove how not-racist they were. And the family would always get creeped out and leave by the end of the school year. Only one kid ever stayed -- they had him on the news quite a few times for his accomplishments in track and field. . . .
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: [People who are different are usually treated better, as everyone rushes not to step on each others' toes or hurt someone's feelings.
"Patronizing," is the expression you are looking for. Which is what people do when they are uncomfortable with someone, but know that it is not acceptable for them to express it, and possibly a failing to have those feelings at all.
What it is not, is honest. Honesty, while painful, would probably be preferred in the end over this kind of behavior. But in order to be honest, and to be seen in the light you would like to be seen in, you would actually have to accept these people. Because you don't, you patronize. That is not surprising, nor is it uncommon- so don't feel that I'm making a deep dig here. It's just the way things are, and a legacy of a church that deeply wants and strives for mainstream appeal, but doesn't have the knack for the acceptance that it wants to build a public image around. It isn't the first, and won't be the last organization to be in such a position.
quote: Regarding gays: I think it was when Ellen DeGeneres came out. Nobody ever talked about the gay subject. We were in a town where gossip spread like wildfire, and no one ever mentioned homosexuals. Then all of a sudden it was "trendy", girls were kissing at high school dances, and a number of people around town identified themselves.
When people talk disparagingly (or as you do, whether you intend to or not), dismissively, about homosexuality being "trendy," and "newfangled," it betrays a sort of naiveté that would be charming if it weren't insidious.
People were always gay. And girls always wanted to kiss each other at dances, even if they weren't gay. It's something in humor nature that enjoys the titillation of gender transgression (in the case of girls kissing each other, or boys making gay jokes and playing "grab ass"), and it didn't start in the 90s. The public acceptance of these facts accelerated in the 90s, in America; that's all. In the sense that enlightened views of human sexuality are now "trendy," you are right.
In the sense that what people choose to do in expressing themselves sexually is tied to trends, it is in how openly they pursue their interests, and in how society is expected or required to react; not in what defines those interests.
I can assure you, as a straight male, no amount of popular culture ever inspired me to "get with the trend" and try out some trendy homosexual acts. Just not going to happen. I am very comfortable with that fact, and the gay people I know are generally very comfortable with the fact that I am not gay. This is what we call acceptance and understanding. It is that we recognize that people do what they are, and that we accept what they do and who they are when it has no bearing on us- and this acceptance is an acknowledgement that who they are, and what they do, is not a threat to who we are, and what we do.
quote:Re: black people. Yeah. So? We'd get black families move into town every so often. The kids would instantly be the most popular kids at school. The family would be flooded with missionaries and welcome baskets. Everybody would be tripping over themselves to prove how not-racist they were. And the family would always get creeped out and leave by the end of the school year. Only one kid ever stayed -- they had him on the news quite a few times for his accomplishments in track and field. . . .
But clearly you don't resent that young man or his local fame, because it wasn't *his fault* that because he was black, he was put on a pedestal in front of the whole community. And of course, you remember this not because of jealous feelings, but out of sympathy for the poor young man and the patronizing, sacharine treatment from the locals, who would never have recognized his accomplishments in sports were he not black, and did blacks not receive such special attention from the community. This is not at all fraught with your own personal insecurities.
quote: I moved to California and met my (ex) wife. I was appalled at how many people in their large Catholic family had been kicked out of the family and disowned. I remember thinking that a loving family would NEVER do that.
And it never occurred to you that you had known families that *would* do that, and that those children would probably move to California?.
[ April 25, 2013, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Re: black people. Yeah. So? We'd get black families move into town every so often. The kids would instantly be the most popular kids at school. The family would be flooded with missionaries and welcome baskets. Everybody would be tripping over themselves to prove how not-racist they were. And the family would always get creeped out and leave by the end of the school year. Only one kid ever stayed -- they had him on the news quite a few times for his accomplishments in track and field. . . .
Oh, OK, you're trolling.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: There was no one openly gay until about 1998. Since then, it really hasn't been that big of a deal. There are quite a few people in the community who are "out". It's a bit of a novelty, like black people,
.. what
You expect that people don't speak openly about their "quirks" in Utah??
Regarding gays: I think it was when Ellen DeGeneres came out. Nobody ever talked about the gay subject. We were in a town where gossip spread like wildfire, and no one ever mentioned homosexuals. Then all of a sudden it was "trendy", girls were kissing at high school dances, and a number of people around town identified themselves.
Is it strange that television was such a contributing factor? In a rural community? I don't think so. Roseanne, Ellen, Married with Children -- these really shaped the way people thought. I'd reckon that Modern Family has done more for the gay marriage cause than anything else in our society. It changed the minds of my mother and two sisters.
Re: black people. Yeah. So? We'd get black families move into town every so often. The kids would instantly be the most popular kids at school. The family would be flooded with missionaries and welcome baskets. Everybody would be tripping over themselves to prove how not-racist they were. And the family would always get creeped out and leave by the end of the school year. Only one kid ever stayed -- they had him on the news quite a few times for his accomplishments in track and field. . . .
.. wow
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sam: Thanks for the explanation.
quote:Any LDS member who has claimed, to my face or otherwise, that mormon community has treated gays with kindness and respect and should not be judged negatively for "isolated horror stories" that are "clearly unrepresentative."
No doubt this happens, but who here is invoking such a defense?
quote:most frequently 'they're ex-mormon members with a bone to pick so they are being overwhelmingly negative and attacking our faith and' or 'their issue was much larger than just being homosexual, there were obviously many other incompatibilities with the church and'
I'd never just discount a person's accounts of what happened to them in the church that lead to their leaving. But it's not super unusual for people who do feel guilty about things they were doing that may have contributed to their leaving the church to instead focus on all the bad people in the church who chased them away, rather than owning up to their own behavior.
edit: Not saying this is the case with any of your friends/acquaintances only that the Mormons who were "dismissing" these ex-mormon's experiences are not necessarily completely wrong.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, I'm still not sure about whether or not this is intended to be ironic. There are so many cue-phrases and what would ordinarily be considered multiple examples of a faux pas that I'm suspicious.
Either that, or soon Aros will begin telling us stories about respected Jamaican neighbors.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'd never just discount a person's accounts of what happened to them in the church that lead to their leaving. But it's not super unusual for people who do feel guilty about things they were doing that may have contributed to their leaving the church to instead focus on all the bad people in the church who chased them away, rather than owning up to their own behavior.
If one was to actually use this as a way of critically reinterpreting a person's account of being gay in a mormon family/community, it would act as an elegant combo that merges the expected examples of "there was probably something else up besides them being gay that caused the problems" and "they just have a bone to pick with the church"
And what would 'owning up to their own behavior' even mean, in that context? Own up to being gay?
I mean I get that yes there are certainly accounts which fit what you are talking about but for the most part this seems like a pitch-perfect, well learned and well internalized mechanism for discounting negative testimony of ex-mormons. Like, almost mechanically so.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'd never just discount a person's accounts of what happened to them in the church that lead to their leaving. But it's not super unusual for people who do feel guilty about things they were doing that may have contributed to their leaving the church to instead focus on all the bad people in the church who chased them away, rather than owning up to their own behavior.
I believe you, BlackBlade.
The trouble is that the second sentence is in fact a sort of boilerplate discounting of many/most accounts of people's reasons for having a bone to pick or even leaving the church.
Anyway, the reason I don't find stories such as Dogbreath's difficult to believe at all is because, all my life in varied levels of study and reading, I don't tend to find that when a centralized organization that believes its rules come from a source that's difficult to question or even literally a higher power...when such an organization spends generations telling its believers that there is something fundamentally, hopelessly* wrong with a certain group of people there are two things that can almost always be relied upon: one, that group will be treated quite poorly by the organization; two, well-meaning members of that organization will be among the very last to see it.
*So long as they remain members of that group.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
An account of that nature is often accompanied with an observation that puts an LDS member on the defensive, to where it’s not really about the wronged person anymore but about the church in general. The LDS member is left to explain how the church really isn’t this thoroughly corrupt organization that sneers at oppressed classes. Cue all the defensive responses and perhaps the apparent forgetting of the individual at the heart of the matter.
Lest you think I’m saying that excuses any rightly placed blame, I just mean that that’s a natural response when something you’re partial to gets criticized. I think Samp listed every single ham-handed response possible for an LDS member to make when a story of a gay person’s terrible treatment by LDS faithful is told. They don’t all get used at once, every time. But any one of them can be a weak excuse—and contribute to erasing the real problem. Of course it’s not right to just try to weasel out of the responsibility. It should be a call to action, whether you are personally involved or not. But many LDS members really have had no such experience themselves or have had experiences with much different outcomes. Their first reaction may honestly be incredulity and protests that no, the church isn’t in fact bad, and that doesn’t sound like something LDS members would do.
I’ve been made to feel plenty of times that I’m at fault for some individual’s plight simply because I’m a member of the church and sympathetic to its cause. I honestly don’t know how to respond to that other than to take it to heart and strive to do better. I’m not going to renounce my membership just as a good faith gesture. Others have, and that’s their choice. For my part, I can promise to take a good hard look at why this is happening in LDS culture and what I can do to help change it. Thanks to many who have kept hammering at this issue, I am definitely more aware that this is a real problem among my fellow LDS members and can adjust how I think and react to similar situations so that I am not ignoring the needs of an individual just to salvage my church’s image. And (hopefully) I’ll continue to be open to learning.
But I still believe my church is basically good with doctrines and practices that are by and large a benefit rather than a detriment to its members.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I mean I get that yes there are certainly accounts which fit what you are talking about but for the most part this seems like a pitch-perfect, well learned and well internalized mechanism for discounting negative testimony of ex-mormons. Like, almost mechanically so.
That a plausible line of argument can be misused in such a dishonest way does not actually change whether or not the principle is a correct one. It only means we should exercise caution when it is used.
People are notoriously bad at recounting how something went down. They can only recount the stuff their brains happen to hold onto, which generally speaking even if you get past our propensity to remember only the stuff that makes us look good and others look bad, is still woefully incomplete because it's only one person's perspective.
That mean boss who was always out to get you in reality heard you say something spiteful about him when you thought he wasn't around, and felt like you were the one who started the ugly relationship.
A gay person, who in the midst of all their turmoil and introspection forgets how they frequently questioned the church to parents in front of their siblings, instead of discretely in private. Or remembers how God didn't comfort them, but conveniently forgets they weren't saying their prayers or reading the scriptures at that time, two major avenues God uses to communicate with us. How, many straight teenagers get kicked out of their home or run away because they started hating their parents, and being gay was only part of the problem.
We both know there's nothing inherently good about placing excess trust in a victim's version of events. It may be the best version we're going to get, or even essentially true, but it's not actually "the truth".
I have friends who are out of the church now, I have friends who aren't always sure why they are still in the church. I have friends who are firmly in the church who no longer associate with me because they think I'm too shaky. I also have friends who are firmly in the church who feel I help their faith. I've seen the whole gamut of experiences and all of them have good people in them. But we are all still people, with all the flaws and foibles that come with it.
--------
Rakeesh: I don't find Dogbreath's stories difficult to believe at all. I find them entirely plausible, they feel true to me. Or at least they match things I know to be true.
One of the hardest things about being in a religion where you believe in constantly improving is that you are going to encounter good people who just don't want that. Eventually you will be uncomfortable around each other not because you think ill of them, but because you no longer share fundamental values necessary for friendship. It's hard for me to describe, but have you ever seen Basketball Diaries with Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Wahlberg?
Essentially they are four friends who love to play basketball, get into trouble, and do drugs. Their drug use affects their performance on the court and they are threatened with suspension from the team, three of them as a sort of "screw you" to authority quit the team and school. When they look to their fourth friend he just stands silently off to the side and won't join them in their quitting the team. He stays in school, and goes on to live an average decent life, while the rest of them deal with the struggles of addiction and lost opportunities. It's a very good movie. The point is, the friend's refusal to quit the team/school is seen as a betrayal to their brotherhood. But the friend was doing nothing wrong. He just wasn't heading in the same direction.
In my own life there have been people who were very friendly, but they just didn't want to talk about the things I'm passionate about, they didn't share my values, so we parted ways. Nothing ugly about it. We all do that.
The problem is that sometimes that end result is inevitable, but religious people hasten to it with being judgmental and unfeeling, while the person on the way out feels that those still in the religion are ignorant, stupid, and betraying them personally by not feeling the way they do.
The only way to conclude that everybody who leaves Mormonism does so for good reasons is to conclude the entire religion is not actually making people into better people. If that's true, every true person should eventually max out on it, and realize it's holding them back and leave. That's not my experience in the religion, I find people who truly understand the gospel, and seek to apply it properly, while they will screw up and often, will still see net improvement, and turn into people worth emulating.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Wow. Reactions are interesting. As far as I see it, it's all rather simple.
Most of the LDS folk I knew weren't particularly judgmental. Homosexuals may have been hiding in fear of being "tormented", but most people were of a different mind. It was more, "would you look at that -- world's changing every day" type attitude.
Perhaps attitudes in small town Utah were naive. Fact of the matter is simple, though. You all seem to think that people were condescending or patronizing; and it may have appeared that way. Most of us just felt that we had a sense of community. That people might have had a hard time of it, being different. That they might have felt picked on other places. But that they deserved to feel a part of things, to feel included. If a friend is going through a hard time, you give them attention, help them out. I don't see how it was different.
And yes, there are girls (especially in high school) who go all pseudo-gay to make a statement or to tease the boys. I'm not sure why we have raise some flag pole. Oh wait, Orincoro keeps a soapbox in most threads, if they go on long enough.
It's a strange world where people mistake love for hate and condescension. But maybe that's why so many people are off-put by the Mormon faith. Maybe they just aren't used to friendly inclusion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Aros, why do you think that homosexuals would have been "hiding in fear" in your town more than in others if there was no more to fear there? If it was such a loving accepting place, why were people more afraid to come out than they were in other places?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Most of the LDS folk I knew weren't particularly judgmental. Homosexuals may have been hiding in fear of being "tormented", but most people were of a different mind. It was more, "would you look at that -- world's changing every day" type attitude.
Goodness, yes, this is certainly the common story homosexuals have about being open in a conservative religious and political community...wait. They weren't open. Why on Earth would that be? In such an environment of 'friendly inclusion'? Or was the example of Degeneres such a huge wellspring? In any event, how on Earth would you know? You said there weren't any you knew of prior. Even within the anecdotal examples you were just scorning, this fails to serve as a prop for your point.
Oh, and please do by all means, tell us more about *Orincoro's* mounting of the soapbox.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Most of the LDS folk I knew weren't particularly judgmental. Homosexuals may have been hiding in fear of being "tormented", but most people were of a different mind. It was more, "would you look at that -- world's changing every day" type attitude.
Your own apprehension of homosexuality and its place in society is indicative of this *not* being the case where you are from. But that comes along with the lack of awareness you are exhibiting.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Let me make sure I have Aros' town (according to Aros) straight
- There were no people who were openly gay until about 1998 - These gay people ultimately had no reason to hide being gay - Then Ellen Degeneres made gay trendy, and girls started being trensdbians - Being gay then spontaneously just wasn't a big deal, bam, just like that - Gay people just became a novelty, like being black or a girl being "pseudo-gay" to tease boys - Black people being a novelty made them all leave - One black person stayed and is on tv for being athletic or something - Something of this experience testifies to how Modern Family probably did more for the gays than any other discrete element of things advancing gay rights
i just
i don't even
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Where do you get that I'm apprehensive?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Sam,
I'm plainly oversimplifying and using mild hyperbole to indicate that it's an inclusive, non-judgmental community. That I never really knew hatred or bigotry until I joined the military.
Yes, it was a simple, naive attitude. It is still a simple, naive town.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because if you didn't know it, as a part of the 'simple, naive' community, it wasn't there I suppose the reasoning goes?
Where were the gay people in that community prior to 1998? Why was it they were so careful to remain in the closet, if the community was so inclusive and friendly? Or is it just that the cultural shift was so abrupt and meteoric?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I'm not certain. I was a teenager at the time, so I probably wasn't privy to everything. And as such, I'd assume my impressions didn't necessarily represent those of the whole community.
There was a marked cultural shift about that time, however.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am considerably older than you are. I also grew up in a small town. I knew gay people before I know about sex.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not certain. I was a teenager at the time, so I probably wasn't privy to everything. And as such, I'd assume my impressions didn't necessarily represent those of the whole community.
And yet you don't make this assumption when it comes to the attitude of the community towards the (soon to immigrate?) homosexuals...why?
Yes, there was a marked cultural shift. From what, exactly, is the question? 'Friendly inclusion' with respect to openly homosexual people? Piffle. Why was the cultural shift even necessary if that was already the status quo? How would it even be called a cultural shift?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Rakeesh,
Are you saying that there wasn't a cultural shift in the late nineties, largely in part to gay storylines on television (Roseanne) and several prominent celebrities coming out, Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen among them?
Perhaps it was only I that was naive. There had never really been a dialogue at school or in my community prior to this. Maybe it was just the fact that it coincided with my latter teenage years.
Are you arguing that the media hasn't been one of the largest factors in the cultural shift toward acceptance of homosexual behavior within our culture? Or that there isn't a shifting level of acceptance? Or that my community wasn't friendly? I'm not really certain, as I seem to be the only one putting myself "out there", so to speak.
It's easy for everyone else to argue that everyone is evil and holier than thou.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Evil? And anyway, you've certainly been holier than thou yourself, so that complaint is about as reasonable as your dig at Orincoro for soapboxing. This is a topic about which people feel strongly, and such things are there for pretty much all of us. You could save yourself some time by stopping the pretense of being above it.
No, I'm not saying there wasn't a cultural shift. I'm saying there was a cultural shift, but since that shift has been one to the current status quo where it is swiftly (in terms of such changes) becoming, not has already become, taboo to object to someone being gay my original question still stands: what was the starting point of this cultural shift?
Right now in polite society it is almost at the point where intolerance of homosexuality is a no-no. It's certainly not there yet. So if it required a serious cultural shift to get to this point...well. At this point it's a question I've asked at least four times.
Another question I've asked at least once: how would you know your community wasn't friendly towards homosexuals? According to you, no one was willing to be openly homosexual in your community prior to this cultural shift! So either there were literally no homosexuals in your community prior to then, or there were and they weren't open for some reason. What line can be drawn from 'friendly and inclusive' towards 'homosexuals present but none openly gay' that makes sense?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I haven't followed this discussion closely, but if you're wondering about the shift in public attitudes toward homosexuality, it's been tracked for years by the General Social Survey. This chart from a post at MonkeyCage is about comparing attitudes toward sexual taboos over time. The post itself is focused on the increase in disapproval of adultery, but I think the trend in attitudes toward homosexuality is more interesting. It experienced a slight upward trend from 1970-1990, peaking with appr. 75% of the population saying homosexuality is immoral. It then hits a significant inflection point and begins rapidly going down, until in 2010 only about 45% of the population believe it's immoral.
When I first saw this I speculated on what could have caused the change. The best I could come up with was the emergence of the red ribbon campaign for AIDS awareness (which began in 1991), particularly its embrace by prominent celebrities.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Where do you get that I'm apprehensive?
Apprehension means understanding. As in to apprehend. To catch the meaning of something.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am considerably older than you are. I also grew up in a small town. I knew gay people before I know about sex.
I also knew gay people and knew about gay people before I knew about the birds and the bees. We had dinner at the house of some old friends of my father, and my parents explained that they were two women who liked each other, which was the way some people are. Very un-traumatic and non-revolutionary for a 5 year old to grasp. In fact I only remember because it was one of them that turned me on Star Wars and lent me the films. Looking back, it wasn't really material for a 5 year old, but it was the 80s.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Evil? And anyway, you've certainly been holier than thou yourself, so that complaint is about as reasonable as your dig at Orincoro for soapboxing. This is a topic about which people feel strongly, and such things are there for pretty much all of us. You could save yourself some time by stopping the pretense of being above it.
Who has time for pretense?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I'll admit that at times I'm effuse, but my fundamental premise still stands -- based on my worldview in rural Utah, as a teenager, I would have been truly shocked if a gay youth had been sent from their home for being gay. It's not a norm in Mormon communities. And based on personal experience, I'd infer that it would be more likely to occur in a Catholic or Baptist community.
Conversely, based on the doctrine of the church, I would find it highly likely for a scared kid to be afraid of the reaction they might elicit from parents or peers. Scared enough that they might runaway from home voluntarily (as I did at one time). But I think that scared kids do a lot of stupid things, Mormon or otherwise.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: It then hits a significant inflection point and begins rapidly going down, until in 2010 only about 45% of the population believe it's immoral.
::slight quibble::
45% of the population *say* that they believe it to be immoral.
As we can surmise that the percentage shift is due to a number of factors like demographic shift, cultural change, population replacement rate, etc, we can also surmise that some number of respondents will simply answer any such survey in the way that they perceive to be most socially acceptable, even if those responses are given anonymously.
I forget what you call this, but there is a well established effect on certain types of polling and survey data which pushes a significant number of respondents toward the socially acceptable answer.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I'll admit that at times I'm effuse, but my fundamental premise still stands -- based on my worldview in rural Utah, as a teenager, I would have been truly shocked if a gay youth had been sent from their home for being gay. It's not a norm in Mormon communities. And based on personal experience, I'd infer that it would be more likely to occur in a Catholic or Baptist community.
Your fundamental premise appears to be that according to your admittedly naive understanding of your community, something which you never personally observed is not a norm in your society. Because you say so.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I'll admit that at times I'm effuse, but my fundamental premise still stands -- based on my worldview in rural Utah, as a teenager, I would have been truly shocked if a gay youth had been sent from their home for being gay. It's not a norm in Mormon communities. And based on personal experience, I'd infer that it would be more likely to occur in a Catholic or Baptist community.
Your fundamental premise appears to be that according to your admittedly naive understanding of your community, something which you never personally observed is not a norm in your society. Because you say so.
- I admitted that both myself and my community were somewhat naive, or sheltered, compared to the larger culture of Western society. I didn't claim that my understanding of my community of naive. - Observing a dearth of something is still observation. If I've never witnessed a car flying, and someone claimed that Mormon's flew flying cars, I'd say that I have a pretty good point to disagree with them. - Because I say so? Certainly, because I say so. Most of this discussion is based on anecdotal evidence and hearsay. Even when scant statistical data is used, it isn't enough to hold up to even minimal scrutiny.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Where do you get that I'm apprehensive?
Apprehension means understanding. As in to apprehend. To catch the meaning of something.
It can, in some cases. In the quoted usage, however, the primary definition of fearful or anxious was implied.
Are we going to start playing "you're a bigot, not me, and I'm more liberally sophisticated than you, because. . . ."?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: It then hits a significant inflection point and begins rapidly going down, until in 2010 only about 45% of the population believe it's immoral.
::slight quibble::
45% of the population *say* that they believe it to be immoral.
As we can surmise that the percentage shift is due to a number of factors like demographic shift, cultural change, population replacement rate, etc, we can also surmise that some number of respondents will simply answer any such survey in the way that they perceive to be most socially acceptable, even if those responses are given anonymously.
I forget what you call this, but there is a well established effect on certain types of polling and survey data which pushes a significant number of respondents toward the socially acceptable answer.
I'm less interested in the absolute values, though, and more interested in the trends, particularly the fairly significant change point around 1990. And even if the effect is due in part to social desirability bias, it's still interesting to wonder why the perception of social acceptability would change so abruptly.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
@BlackBlade
In reference to your latest post (I don't have time to quote or address it all): yes, the situation is always more complicated than it looks. Of the handful of stories I shared (and many more I can think of) there is far, far more to each person and each story than the one line explanation I give. People are complex creatures.
What gets me, though, is that in *all* cases the victims - whether or not their story is completely accurate - are just that. Victims. Their parents were in the place of authority and trust, and it was their (the parents) responsibility to care for and provide for the child in question, to be the more mature individual in the relationship, and to provide a safe and understanding environment for the child to grow up in. And the damage being done to the victims is also real - it's hard to grasp just how damaging being homeless for any amount of time is to anyone, let alone a child. On top of the emotional and psychological damage of privation and loneliness, they get taken advantage of sexually, they get beat up pretty constantly, a lot of times it sets them back so far educationally that they never recover, and God forbid they get arrested or get a police record. If they ever get off the street again. Abandoning a child like that is pretty much destroying, or at least doing a lot of damage, to their life. However much the victim incited his parents against him or rebelled, there is simply no excuse, no ameliorating factor, that makes it any better. Even if the kid is physically violent, he'd be better off in a boarding school or even juvenile detention than homeless. And there are *plenty* of social services and options for troubled teens - I've volunteered with quite a few of them.
For most of my life, due to who I am and choices I've made, I've found myself in places where I associate with or work to help the rejects and outcasts of our society. It's been a major theme in all the posts I've made here since 2009 when I was still working with the Wheeler Mission through the present. And one thing I've found is that those doing the outcasting, the marginalizing, the bullying and discriminating - by which I mean, those who by fate or gifting find themselves in places of power and respect socially - always have some justification for what they do. "Someone needed to put her in her place", "come on man, we're just messing with you! You need to grow a thicker skin", "I try to be kind, but he's just... weird. I think he likes the attention", "He was rebelling against us and leading our other children into rebellion", "she'll thank us for it one day"... and on and on and on. What doesn't change is that *they're* the ones with the power, authority, and ability to hurt, and therefore *they're* the ones with the responsibility for how they misuse that power.
FWIW, all the stories I mentioned are true. There are several hundred stories of that nature I could tell, if I took the time to write them down. (There are several hundred more that, regretfully, I have forgot. The memories of them are nothing more than a face here, a name here, a few words here...) The majority are not from LDS families. I simply mention LDS because, well, that's what this thread is about. And because of the uniqueness of the fact that money was never an issue in any of the stories involving LDS that I recall. (Money is almost always the deciding factor)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Where do you get that I'm apprehensive?
Apprehension means understanding. As in to apprehend. To catch the meaning of something.
It can, in some cases. In the quoted usage, however, the primary definition of fearful or anxious was implied.
No, it was not. Trust me- I would be the one making the implications. Had I said "apprehension about," then it would have meant fear. But I wrote, "apprehension of," which means your ability to understand or to gather understanding of something. Trust me. I wrote it. I know what the implication was.
quote: Are we going to start playing "you're a bigot, not me, and I'm more liberally sophisticated than you, because. . . ."?
I passed on making light of the fact that you lept to the idea that I was calling you fearful even when I wasn't- but now you've pressed upon me with your insecurity to the point where I am forced to point it out to you.
I have no need for you to know the extent of my sophistication. If it is not evident in how I communicate, then attempting to impress it upon you in explicit terms would have the opposite effect from the one desired. But you are clearly very interested in proving that you can keep up; and that ought to be enough for you to apprehend (get it?), that you are not succeeding.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
I'm less interested in the absolute values, though, and more interested in the trends, particularly the fairly significant change point around 1990. And even if the effect is due in part to social desirability bias, it's still interesting to wonder why the perception of social acceptability would change so abruptly.
Even accounting for bias, the answers are clearly evidence of an abrupt change. I think those who haven't -excuse the expression- gotten religion in regards to homosexuality in acceptable society would say that the tail wags the dog; that the media pushes our desire to be accepted to the point that the numbers shift this dramatically. My experience with marketing theory and working in the media tells me that it is very, very hard to convince people to do something they wouldn't normally do anyway. Most of advertising and opinionated fiction is convincing someone that you have something in common- not that they are wrong.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Orincoro -- really? Because your persuasive, intelligent argument was. . . .
There's a grumpy old troll. Living under the BRIIIIDDDDGGGGEE. A grumpy old troll . . . living under the BRIIIIIIIDDDDDDDGGGGGEE.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Thank you for proving my point.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
No wait . . . I'm waiting for you to be persuasive or intelligent or something other than the nerd glaring over the rim of his glasses. Seriously. I'm certain you'll posit an argument any second.
Or maybe I'm just apprehensive of your astounding intelligence. Gives me the willies just thinking about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You guys are really bad at sick burns. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
is it already time for this again
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
smilies in the Universe for my response to your post.![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)