posted
no bev he's technically right. Transparent means clearly able to see through like clear glass or even colored glass. Opaque transmits light but is blurry to see through.
Or am I just so vapid if I were made of fog I would be transparent?
quote:Ela: Huh. I think I'm just as "bad" about that as I ever was. Perhaps you don't feel that way about me as much now because I have been posting less.
It is nice to know how others view me though. I am sorry if I have been annoying. I freely admit that I am a fairly proselyting-minded individual. I like to discuss faith and religion when others are willing. Sometimes no one wants to "play" so I shut up.
I hope me saying that doesn't make anyone even more uncomfortable about me. I do not wish to overwhelm anyone, but I enjoy very much having civil, respectful discussions about my and other's religious beliefs. (Couldn't get that at Nauvoo.com, now, could I?) I am not so much out to convince as to seek understanding and understand in turn. At least that is how I see myself. I have no idea if that is how I come across.
Edit: Oh, but I never assumed this was a "Mormon" site. Only that there was a higher population of LDS here than in the general population. I felt comfortable enough talking about my religious beliefs that I bring them up frequently. That's just the way I am.
Well, okay, maybe you are as "bad" as you always were, and just aren't posting as much.
Your remarks in this thread, though, led me to believe that you are at least aware of why too frequent religious references might be problematic for some people. People here have generally tended to bring up religion casually, as part of a conversation, and not constantly, unless it's a specifically religious thread. At least until recently.
Hence Richard Berg not knowing what religion I am, even though I have made no secret of it. But I don't know what religion he is either. Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
translucent, actually. edit: okay duh i missed that whole conversation somehow. i feel like someone is swapping all the posts around in this thread.
posted
What the crap. I'm away for a few hours, and suddenly, my last post, along with all my intentions behind it, have been derided, and then the conversation has moved on without giving me a chance to respond! Must you all talk so much?
First of all, it took me a couple of posts from saxon to figure out exactly what he thought was offensive about my post. I was trying to make the point that in America, certain cultural features are considered "quaint" and therefore pathetic and undesirable, and that is why, in my opinion, most people treat Utah Mormon culture with contempt.
When I brought up the representation of the 1950's in film, I wasn't trying to allege that there is some kind of liberal bias or conspiracy going on to warp our perceptions of the past, or of Mormon culture in particular. I was trying to use it as an example of how Americans in general view "quaint" cultures. Those movies aren't designed to insidiously alter our perceptions. On the contrary, they resonate with people because that's the way they already feel. I guess I didn't make that clear enough.
Americans look at modest clothing, polite teenagers, decorous speech, business suits, and other such features of Mormon culture as dorky, out-of-fashion, and even scary things that people should know better than to get involved with. I don't think I'm really that far off the mark in my description here, am I? I mean, I have the same reactions, and I was raised with the stuff. We're all affected to one degree or another by cultural bias, and we can't help that. All we can do is be aware of it and compensate for any inappropriate reactions.
Now, as I said above, my comments were about "most people". Ie, your average American. Most people in this country have never been to Utah, deal very rarely with the Mormon church, and know very little about the true behaviors of Mormon communities. Thus they react to us and to Utah on a very superficial, unconscious level, and many of the issues we've been discussing here don't come into play. I believed that the question I was answering was about the common perception of Utah and Mormon culture by Americans that don't live there and don't know anything about it, and I thought my answer was appropriate.
And it certainly wasn't "canned" as someone alleged. It's not a question I've ever been asked before, so I made up the answer that seemed to make the most sense to me at the time. I'm sorry it came across to some as antagonistic. It certainly wasn't meant to be.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stand corrected again, I guess I got it right to begin with. This is why I wasn't a physics major...
AJ
(on the termonology stuff I mean, ARND I will think about your post and post a serious response as I have time, which may be tomorrow)
The "canned" bit was directed very generally to the LDS posters in general, but your post seemed specifically "canned" which is why I used it as an example. I'll have to analyze why I thought this now that I know you didn't think it was. (And now that I've managed to confuse even myself I'm going home from work!)
quote:Americans look at modest clothing, polite teenagers, decorous speech, business suits, and other such features of Mormon culture as dorky, out-of-fashion, and even scary things that people should know better than to get involved with
American teenagers, you mean? I've never met anyone who dislikes Utah because it's "quaint". I, personally, dislike it because of how difficult it is to get a decent margarita.
Now, if you're equating "quaint" with "ultra-conservative", then I might agree.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think that you are correct in saying that we all affected by a cultural bias. I didn't understand that that was what you meant by your comment about small-town America in the movies.
Here's the sequence of events that I saw:
First, one or more people mentioned that they didn't really like living in Utah because of the homogeneity. Looking back I can only see one such reference to "Utah Mormons," and that was made by beverly.
Then, Kama pointed out that Poland is at least as religiously homogeneous as Utah, but that she didn't think it was boring, so what made people think that about Utah?
Finally, you responded to Kama. Now, given the context that I had understood from the rest of the thread, I interpreted your post as rather disdainful of people who found Utah culture to be "stale or boring," especially given the graemlin you chose to put in the last sentence. Actually, re-reading your post, it still reads that way to me even after you having explained what you meant. The difference is that you were talking about people who had never been there and had made up their minds anyway--in which case they may well be deserving of disdain--whereas I thought you were talking about the people in this thread who held that opinion. Can you see why I thought it was a little inappropriate?
In any case, I misunderstood and I apologize. I suppose what I'm curious about now is whether Kama was asking about the "average American" or people who have actually experienced it.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Occasional wrote on the first page: From my limited experience, Tom D. has caused a lot more people to pack up and leave than the number of Mormons who happen to be here has. Just a personal observation.
Well, I have to say that TomD. has made it more comfortable for me to stay. He offers a viewpoint that is at a different end of the religious spectrum from the LDS religion - and I am far closer to his viewpoint than the LDS one. I thoroughly enjoy his posts.
quote:beverly wrote on the second page: But seriously, I think Visiting Teachers (female version of Home Teachers) would probably try to understand where someone is coming from before "giving up". I think a lot of Home Teachers would too, but girls are a little better at verbal communication.
This is part of what is offputting (to me) about the LDS church as a "bloc" - what I perceive as blatant sexism. Why are there female and male versions of the same job? Why do you think girls are a little better at verbal communication (a large portion of men are lawyers - are you saying those male lawyers don't have great verbal skills?)? I think there is implicit acceptance of conservative gender roles even though gender is merely a social construct (this is separating sex (the biological differences between men and women) from gender - which is a social role).
And yes, other religions do this as well. Which doesn't mean it isn't wrong. But I don't think they recruit as aggressively either.
----
Hmmm, I had the above reactions to two posts, but other than that, I've enjoyed the posts in this thread. They were pretty interesting and varied. There have been a large number of people posting in a short period of time - not just a back and forth attack between 3 or 4 people.
I also found it hard to find a decent drink in Utah. Particularly, a Tanq 'n tonic. Well the part of Utah that isn't Moab, anyway. They all wanted you to join some "club" or they only had beer. OTOH, I bet they have far fewer alcohol related deaths. to drink.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In response to the issue of "canned" responses:
I put quite a bit of thought into every post I write having to do with my religion and beliefs. I really do consider my feelings about the issue at hand, and I respond very carefully. The fact that my stance, my adherence to my beliefs, and the source material I use doesn't change much from post to post might make me sound "canned." But in that sense, many of the posts on the other side of the debate sound "canned" to me because nobody's budging much and everybody pretty much brings up the same points over and over again.
And hey, even though I very seldomly get replies to my posts, I learn a lot by composing them. It's a good chance to really sort out my thoughts and feelings on different subjects.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, from personal experience, my home teachers (such as they were ) have far outshone my visiting teachers. The visiting teachers have been generally nonexistant, or more interested in...I don't know - things that were not me. My home teachers have been good, and one was spectacular. He put up with a lot of crap that I gave him, and was concerned with my spiritual wellbeing. He was great - all the way up until the day he called off the home teacher - home teachee relationship in what can only be described as a jealous huff. It was hilarious.
Tip: If you accidentally blow him off to talk to a friend, don't tell him why.
posted
My experience is along the lines of Katharina's re: home vs. visiting teachers. Although I was recently assigned a visiting teacher with whom I actually have something in common, so things are going along well there.
quote:Why are there female and male versions of the same job?
Becaise home teaching and visiting teaching AREN'T the same job, in my experience. I tend to discuss relationship issues more with my VT, and doctrine issues with the HT, although this is not an absolute division, it's just a trend. My new VT and I talk about doctrine a lot, and about the difference between doctrine and culture.
[ June 10, 2004, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just wanted to say that I agree with this post of Ralphie's.
quote:I'm fairly religious, myself, and in a religion that practices similar methods, so this is no slam on being theologically inclined. However, at a place like Hatrack, it just isn't necessary to come in with a badge and flash it at everyone. As conversations organically happen, so will the expression of your ideals and your identity.
I think this was basically what I was trying to say in my response to beverly, above.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is part of what is offputting (to me) about the LDS church as a "bloc" - what I perceive as blatant sexism. Why are there female and male versions of the same job? Why do you think girls are a little better at verbal communication (a large portion of men are lawyers - are you saying those male lawyers don't have great verbal skills?)? I think there is implicit acceptance of conservative gender roles even though gender is merely a social construct (this is separating sex (the biological differences between men and women) from gender - which is a social role).
Considering that one of the major purposes of Home/Visiting Teaching is to help inactive members start returning to church and help family members who don't belong to the church learn more and become interested, you might want to start at "I don't like the church's recruitment policies" with everyone else. Once you get past that, then you can start talking about how dividing up that particular responsibility between men and women is sexist.
Edit: Sorry, I'm grumpy, I'm going home.
[ June 09, 2004, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
JNSB, sorry I should have said that girls tend to be stronger in verbal skills. It is a biological fact. I wasn't trying to be sexist.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last I heard we hadn't proved anything about verbal skills being biologically linked. Could you point me to an authoritative journal article?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, I feel compelled to say something to you:
The reason the things in which you're interested generally draw very little discussion is that you only rarely post when you haven't already made your mind up about a subject and feel like lecturing us "little people." You don't actually expect DISCUSSION; you expect us to play the peasant in your Socratic dialogue. IMO, your wording in particular sucks the life out of a lot of your more interesting comments; you tend to speak in a very precise, stultifying way that does not invite further comment.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
saxon, in your defense, I had been in and out of skimming this thread up to that point, and didn't fully understand the larger context of the question when I answered it. And honestly, your bad reaction made me think more closely about what I was saying. My more recent explanation is, in fact, what I think about the matter. My earlier comments were more careless and flippant. Sorry I ticked you off Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Squicky... I thought your post was insightful.
Geoff: I've been puzzling over something for awhile, I think your latest posts have helped crystalize it for me. When I see the LDS folks on this board become defensive, it almost always turns out to be a misunderstanding. No great surprise, really, that's often the case with any rapid defensive reaction by any human. But there's a part of it that really has a particular flavor among LDS members -- circling the wagons.
It's familial, I think.
Here's what I mean:
In my mother's family, the members are allowed to criticize each other directly and passively. Things are said to and about each other that would crumble masonry and bend steel if unleashed against something as flimsy as a building. But let some outsider say exactly the same thing and that person better be able to run fast. Really really fast.
But there's another side to it too. All that "inside the family" versus "outside the family" stuff means that you've practiced responses to a whole raft of criticisms. And, in fact, are ready to respond with any of a large set of prepared defenses to any perceived attack. I've said it a bunch of times now...I understand why...it makes perfect sense...but it's still something less than wholly positive.
There's a lack, I think, of outside perspective going on here. There's an assumption that the responses you've learned are all that needs to be said. That no outsider could ever have an original thought about something related to the inside of your group. So, if someone says something that sounds even the least bit negative, all you've got to do is select the appropriate rejoinder and you'll melt their objections away.
Well, frankly, it's an assumption that really doesn't work in a discussion format. And that's what the problem is for it at Hatrack. You think I said "persecution complex" so you pull out the standard defenses and go for it.
Other people pay closer attention and maybe get what I was trying to convey.
And despite the fact that I told you how I viewed my observations as NOT criticisms at all, you felt the need to tell me how they'd missed the mark and there was far more "telling" stuff posted in this thread. Again, seeing criticism where there was none stated or implied.
I don't feel critical towards LDS members or the LDS church. Not in the least.
But here's the thing: I can usually listen to what another person says and judge whether it has a kernel of truth in it. And maybe use that to my benefit. Many LDS members do not seem to have that capacity when it comes to any statement about their religion made by anyone from the outside. And that, to me, is the hallmark of an insular group not yet grown into its own status in the world. The fact that the LDS church is a major world religion (grown to be at least numbered in the top 5 in the US and maybe the top 10 in the world) seems not to have sunk in yet.
It means there are some special vulnerabilities for you all in the future. For example, people already are joining your church because it is powerful. But I bet that's not even recognized explicitly in your proselytizing. I could be wrong, of course, I don't know that much about how the church does its work. So forgive me if this is so far off base. But I'm guessing that this is a growing problem or at least a somewhat uncertain cultural shift within your family (the LDS family). I mean, there are the 5th generation folks whose family stories include the murders and flight from Nauvoo. And then there are some of the new folks attracted to a church that can flex a significant amount of muscle in certain quarters of the globe. Do those new people really understand the mindset of the LDS cultural traditions? Are they sufficiently in tune to the persecution of the past and mindful of it as a 5th generation person would be? Or are they a new breed of LDS member? One that sees the church as a force to be reckoned with and eager to flex that muscle?
I see your church and family as in a major transition period. Again, I could be wrong. But you look a lot more like the Catholic Church at its rising heights than you do a 150 year young (give or take) splinter group fighting for identity and acceptance.
Your land purchases and building program are probably second to none in the US. Again, I could be wrong, but I don't see any other denominations doing the kinds of things you are. Lots of reasons for that, but two obvious ones are massive growth and boatloads of money.
That does something to the psyche too.
But, forget I said anything. I really really really am not criticising. I'm telling you what it looks like from the outside from a perspective of one who is curious and admires much about what LDS members do individually and what the LDS church does collectively.
And before you do it once again, you don't have to explain or justify it to me. OF COURSE it's understandable. I never once said ANY LDS person or policy was irrational. I bet there's even a good reason for wearing suits despite how dorky that seems to the rest of America.
posted
Oh, and Icarus, there's wrinkle to the scoffing at Celebration that you didn't address. It's not simply the purposeful mimicking of a rosey-tinted vision of a past America. It's the insistence that it is a TRUE reflection and that this created fantasy is in any way a "return" to anything that ever existed.
And it's funny that the hallmark era has become "the 1950's." In truth, Walt Disney was look backward to a time like the 1890's through 1910 or 20. He was looking at "small town" America. And that's the image he wanted to bring to his park -- created in the horribly awry era in which he dreamed it -- the 1950's.
Celebration is a cool town in its own right. I actually really like it there. I would like it more if people simply said: we bought here because there's a good chance that people won't turn it into a frequin' trailer park like they do every other subdivision in Central Florida.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
eh, besides reactivation home-teaching and visiting-teaching has a lot to do with community building. it forces people out of their comfort zones and into the lives of others. it also helps to monitor families in the way of temporal welfare and spiritual concerns.
bob, interesting point of view. i would just like to introduce the following thought: the more kids that spring up or move in within a growing population, the more schools that need to be built. that could be one aspect of the land-buying/building construction.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I don't agree with your judgment of Celebration. Guess you've been reading too much Mark Pino. I don't believe people who move here are wearing rosy-tinted glasses or trying to live in a fantasy world. The architecture is modeled after the 1940s, true, but in many other ways, the community is cutting edge. The design of the town is based on New Urbanism. and there are some pretty high-tech elements of our infrastructure (some of which worked better than others, admittedly.) My beliefs about what is being attempted and what has been accomplished here is not that it's a return to anything, but that it's an attempt to mix the best of the past with the best of today. It's only an attempt to create ones reality insofar as everybody attempts to create their reality, and everybody attempts to live in the best neighborhood that they can afford.
I don't really know that very many people who move here think that they're returning to an earlier time, so I think what you are refuting is perhaps an implication from the original advertising, or a straw-man created by the same people who say that all of us who move here are naïve and racist. (Kind of like that song by Chumba-Wumba, who never visited our town, but simply wrote it based on a story they saw on the BBC.)
How many other residents of Celebration do you know, upon which to base your claim that most Celebration residents believe that what has been created here is a true recreation of a better time?
(Sorry. I am touchy about this. Defensive, even. I have read far too many statements about what a bunch of freak idiots we all are. Google "celebration florida" sometime and you'll see what I mean. And so when I read a post by someone I consider a very close friend that seems to have bought uncritically into that stereotype . . . )
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's an assumption that the responses you've learned are all that needs to be said. That no outsider could ever have an original thought about something related to the inside of your group. So, if someone says something that sounds even the least bit negative, all you've got to do is select the appropriate rejoinder and you'll melt their objections away.
I think you're underestimating us, Bob. I've had experience with two kinds of critics of the Church. There are those who really are mindlessly parroting what they've been told. While some Mormons go after these folks with canned responses to their canned questions, in truth, these critics aren't worth answering directly — the things they parrot aren't their real concerns. Their real concern is that they are afraid of anything strange and foreign, and what they really need is to be shown that Mormons are friendly, normal, human people.
I don't see that type here at Hatrack. Or when I do, they don't last very long People at Hatrack typically come from very interesting intellectual backgrounds that they have shaped on their own through a wide variety of different experiences. They don't parrot other people's opinions, nor do they come up with typical concerns. So when there are questions, answering them is a fun and interesting challenge. I know that people here expect more of me than just an answer. They expect a good, well-thought-out answer, and that I try to provide.
But there are limits to how varied my responses to the same questions can get. I mean, if the same question is asked twice, more than likely, I will answer in similar ways. Unless the Church changes dramatically between the two questions, the facts that I'm drawing from are basically the same, and unless I go through a major shift in my life between the two questions, my perspective is likely to be just about the same.
Now, there have been Mormons here who have understood their own beliefs less than your average Hatracker is expected to, or who have adhered more closely to the typical party line than you might expect, and those Mormons' answers might sound a bit more rehearsed. But I hope that most of us here have managed to earn enough of your respect that you don't think we're just mindlessly parroting practiced responses to you. I certainly don't feel like I am, and when you speak as though my responses, in particular, are practiced, canned, rehearsed, or whatever word you wish to use ... well, it's insulting. And I'm wondering if you really mean it that way.
As far as disrespect for outsiders' opinions go, you have to admit, most outsiders to our or any faith are pretty ignorant of the internal circumstances of that faith. I recognize that it's possible for a well-informed outsider to have a useful opinion, and even the most ignorant, closedminded outsider can teach members of a faith a lot about themselves just by their immediate, uninformed reactions ...
... but seriously, I don't feel like I'm in a position to analyze the way that Sikhs, Buddhists, Baha'i, or Muslims behave in their communities. And even looking at Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelicals, with whom I have much more of a common ground, I still feel like I'm a decently-informed outsider who might have an interesting perspective, but certainly doesn't know enough to tell them definitively what's wrong with their churches. And I wouldn't be surprised if they got offended if I tried.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everyone, just forget I used the term "verbal skills" at all. While I feel there is strong evidence for the case that women's and men's brains tend to work differently because of the differences in hormones I am not interested in derailing this thread to discuss it.
*sigh* My point was that in my experience women are more interested in knowing details about people's lives then men are. I didn't mean to insinuate that men have poor verbal skills and make sucky lawyers. Though I did joke about the stereotypes.
But maybe this had nothing to do with the situation Shan experienced.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus...let us not forget the lady who came to the school board meeting that one fateful day to explain how people in Celebration really love their children (and by implication, other people who don't live in Celebration don't).
There is an element in that town that bought into the myth.
The fact that the town is better than the original hype is due to the many fine people who live there and make it a community.
You've got nothing to be defensive about. For crying out loud! There's not a community in a 90 mile radius that's outperforming Celebration in terms of return on investment. Nothing even comes close!
That's got to be a sore spot for the rest of Central Florida. That, to a certain extent, the people who said "it's a better place to live than where you live" were actually right.
Ugh!
Fine Celebration is perfect.
I was wrong.
I'm going to sleep.
When I awaken, the fluff threads will be ready to welcome me back.
Why, oh why, did I come into this thread again? All I seem to be able to do is touch sore spots with people.
posted
Bob, we've tried and tried to teach you the difference between good touch and bad touch. *heavy sigh*
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But here's the thing: I can usually listen to what another person says and judge whether it has a kernel of truth in it. And maybe use that to my benefit. Many LDS members do not seem to have that capacity when it comes to any statement about their religion made by anyone from the outside. And that, to me, is the hallmark of an insular group not yet grown into its own status in the world. The fact that the LDS church is a major world religion (grown to be at least numbered in the top 5 in the US and maybe the top 10 in the world) seems not to have sunk in yet.
And the fact that Mormons are still treated as if they were a splinter group that often gets called a cult at this stage is a Hallmark to me that we haven't gotten the respect the allows for non-measured responses to questions. I want you to do something.
Consider it a social test. Ask any one of your neighbors what they think of "Mormons" and the "Mormon" Church and listen to their reactions. I would, if I were a betting person, give good money if they didn't say rude, nasty, bigoted responses from more than half of the respondents. They can't be Mormon of course.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that lady is an idiot, but idiots abound everywhere.
quote: Fine Celebration is perfect.
I was wrong.
I'm going to sleep.
Shit Bob. Celebration is not perfect. And nobody who lives here is. And I wasn't so much angry as venting. Sorry if I've got you mad at me now. All I really want to say is that we are no different in our imperfection than anyone else is. The simplistic/naïve/gullible/retrograde charge is just one that I'm touchy about, because I believe it's often unfairly applied. And so that's why Geoff's description of why he felt Utahns get a bad rap struck a chord with me, because I could definitely identify with what he was saying. And so, from that perspective, your post seemed to come in and say that those perpetrating that stereotype were right! It's like if I said, yeah, I love Utah, but I would love it better if it didn't have this backward, insular, holier-than-thou attitude. And don't get me started on the polygamy!
At least you didn't mention The Truman Show, Pleasantville, or The Stepford Wives.
Please don't leave the serious threads. You more than anyone else create middle ground and understanding here. I'm the one who's not accomplishing anything here except to muddy the waters.
posted
Geoff, I've obviously become irritating to you. Once again.
I'm not being deliberately insulting. But, for my poor ability to communicate I am truly sorry.
Could we maybe discuss the following? I'd be interested.
Do you think the LDS is in transition with the growth it has experienced and the new membership demographics? If so, what changes do you see?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ouch. I certainly didn't read that post of Ralphie's and think, "That applies to me."
You know, when I quoted Ralphie, I didn't have the thought, "I am quoting this because it applies to beverly." I think it may have applied to you when you first came to the forum, though. As I said earlier, I don't see you doing so much religious referencing in every post as you did initially.
The reason I posted what Ralphie said was that it rings true to me about the way Hatrack has been, and the way I would hope it to continues to be.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The changes because of growth have been about finding good leaders in local areas. Because, as you noticed, there isn't that insular culture build-up that has been talked so much about in this thread. And, because leadership is self-taught most of the time in the LDS Church and not "scholasticised," (couldn't think of a better term) then it can become a challenge to find qualified leaders. Other "growth" challenges are from dealing with cultures outside of the U.S. where education and literacy are not primary.
I guess you could sum up the LDS problems with "a first world Church discovering the third world problems."
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Consider it a social test. Ask any one of your neighbors what they think of "Mormons" and the "Mormon" Church and listen to their reactions. I would, if I were a betting person, give good money if they didn't say rude, nasty, bigoted responses from more than half of the respondents. They can't be Mormon of course.
I've actually done that sort of thing, informally of course. There are actually three types of responses from non-LDS that I've received:
1) Total ignorance: Mormons who? Don't they have six wives each? I have a hard enough time with one wife (ha ha ha). That sort of stuff. These are the people who, when you ask them, do not know a single LDS member, or don't know that they know one.
Certainly the vast majority of Americans. They think about the LDS once or twice a year when there's a sensational story in the press about some guy who does something wacky in or around Utah.
2) Fairly knowledgable it seems: "Well, it's a tough call. I'm not sure if they are Christian in the same way as mainstream Protestants are. They have some beliefs I find a little troubling. But they are very nice people and I think they do good work. Anyway, I don't really give it a lot of thought."
Certainly a minority view, but probably about 10-20% of the people I've ever talked to about it. They aren't really all that worried about it. It's not a subject of discussion in their lives. If they have LDS friends, it's sort of by mutual agreement that they just don't discuss the finer points of religion.
3) The Mormon-obsessed: These are the folks that will pull out a pamphlet from their church explaining how Mormons are in league with Satan and how we should be actively working to stamp them out.
In general, you find these folks in conservative Christian evangelical churches. But not as much in the general congregation so much as just kind of "mixed in." Unless the pastor is rabidly anti-Mormon, and then you get sort of a small knot of folks who really get lathered up.
If you are talking most of the US, I'd say this type of person constitutes less than 1% of the population. By far outnumbered, at any rate, by the folks who are just plain ignorant and don't care. But also outnumbered significantly by the folks who do know something and are favorably disposed toward the LDS. Or at least tolerant and not ignorant.
UNLESS...
You happen to ask Evangelical Christians in Utah and Idaho. For some reason, there's just a major concentration of LDS-antipathy among the groups working in and around Salt Lake and other areas where the density of LDS is highest. Maybe it's a self-selection thing, that these people go there to fight the war they see brewing. Or maybe it's sour grapes because they think their lack of success is due to LDS-dominance in the area. Or maybe they've been abused by some LDS. I doubt that last, but there's a possibility that any or all of those explanations might be at play.
But I can see where if someone was an LDS member living in Utah or Idaho (and maybe a few other places), where it would look like all of the rest of Christianity was out to destroy your church. Certainly there in those places it's a problem.
But the rest of the country? Sure, there's ignorance, but not much in the way of malicious intent. Just a persistence of off-color humor about polygamy, mostly, sprinkled with a few informed folks who don't have any problems, and a small number of off-kilter zealots.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
You're part of a religion that proselytizes. You're not going to be popular. Until the day you stop proselytizing, that's just the way it's going to be.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:the more kids that spring up or move in within a growing population, the more schools that need to be built. that could be one aspect of the land-buying/building construction.
It doesn't really explain places like Deseret Ranch or some of the large temple-building projects. But no worries. Again, I didn't mean anything negative by it. I think Salt Lake City is one of the most beautiful cities in the country. And the temple complex there is really amazing. I loved my tour!!! It was so cool. All that water moving around. And the meeting space is a-mazing. Beautiful.
I would've loved to see the inside of the temple. I bet it's spectacular.
I would've tried to sneak in, but I was afraid of bursting into flames. Or being forced to watch a videotape.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Man oh man! You are one of my dearest friends and it killed me to think that I had insulted your home. Ive accepted your hospitality and then dissed your town??!!!
No, it's not you owes the apology, my friend. I've been posting without reviewing. In my rush to type it before I loose my choo-choo of thought, I forgot to make sure everything was said clearly and in just the way I wanted it said. Had I taken the time to read before hitting the "Add Reply" button the last few times, I'm sure I would've said far less and made fewer people upset.
And since my real purpose was to have a dialog, I sort of spoiled my own fun, now didn't I?
Fool of a Bob!
Oh well, I can over-react with the best of them.
Descartes had it all wrong. The proof of one's existence isn't one's own thoughts. It is the power to irritate others. I stink, therefore I am.
Or maybe, being an irritant is just a by-product of existing.
In which case, we're back to discussing good touches and bad touches and how to rub a kitty.
Don't you just love it when things come full circle?
PS: Geoff, that stuff above about not thinking before I post goes doubly for my posts in response to you!
I apologize. I should've just asked the questions I was interested in instead of coming off like I knew something about the answers already. I should not have presumed to "teach" you all about your own religion.
I got a little carried away because I actually have thought about this stuff and I wanted to try out my theories. I could've handling it far better. I was just excited to see a thread that seemed to welcome some reflection on how the LDS relates to the rest of the world...
Again, I'm sorry for handling it so poorly.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
At least that sounds hopeful to me. The fact that people are ignorant not so much, but that they don't have the kind of hate I have heard so much in my life.
Still, too much mainstream news and media I have heard about the Church still makes me feel back in the 1800's. I mean, the LA Times called Salt Lake the U.S. equivalant of the Taliban. A popular author, Krauker, wrote the nastiest and most innaccurate information about Mormons available and basically lumped us all together as dangerous zeolots (to be fair he said all religious people were dangerous, and used the Mormon faith as a prime example). Magazines such as Time and Newsweek still question the sincerity of our faith and get even the most basic beliefs wrong -- often following the anti-Mormon evangilical montras mixed in with the athiest religion hating perceptions. It seems to go on and on forever. If the Conservatives don't bash Mormons for being too religiously unorthodox, the liberals bash us for being too conservative and religious.
I want to believe that there is relative respect. However, I have witnessed too much bigotry from those in real power to be completely comforted.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think the LDS is in transition with the growth it has experienced and the new membership demographics? If so, what changes do you see?
Personally, I'm kind of amused at the creative statistics I used to see at the beginning of my mission, proclaiming that "if current trends continue" there would be about a zillion Mormons by the year 2090.
We've grown really fast over the past fifty years (with a membership increase of about 1000%), due mostly to the fact that we've steadily been opening up new mission fields in that time — first South America and East Asia, then Russia and the Eastern Bloc, then Africa. When the Church is introduced to a new area, it starts growning very slowly, then hits a sort of adolescent growth spurt, then slacks off again once a majority of the citizenry has had a chance to form an opinion of the Mormons, for good or ill.
Our problem right now is the fact that we've run out of new mission fields. All the remaining closed countries have very dominant state religions that aren't going to make room for us anytime soon. Barring some miracle, we're going to need to get used to fewer converts per year. The leadership of the Church is already gearing up for that, issuing instructions that local leaders should be more picky about the young men they send on missions. We don't need as many misisonaries anymore. We just need better ones, to help the converts that we do get to really understand the doctrine, find a place within the Church, and remain active for the rest of their lives.
That will be the first shift, in my estimation — activity, fellowship, and retention will become more important to the missionary program than initial conversion, the excitement about high baptism numbers will fade, and the community will become more stable.
I think it may take another generation for the second shift to sink in — the realization that the Church is now a worldwide entity, with more than half of its membership living outside the United States. At the moment, we are still very centered on America — Utah in particular — and many of the cultural rules and considerations are extremely America-centric. The folk-doctrine prohibiting R-rated movies, for instance. The MPAA only operates in America. What are the citizens of other nations supposed to do to judge their own national film industry? Think for themselves? What an idea ...
I think in the next generation, membership in the Church will involve Mormons in a worldwide culture that transcends national boundaries. I suspect that this will be a compromise. Foreign Mormon communities will probably become somewhat more American, since that is where their faith and culture was founded and nurtured ... but I think that American Mormons will also become far more aware of the cultures brought in by foreign converts, particularly as the leadership of the Church begins to fill with non-American authorities.
So as our attention shifts a little towards strengthening our communities from within, rather than being totally focused on bringing in new members from the outside world, and as our own internal culture is shaken up by our shifting demographics, I think you'll see that we become much more fun to deal with
Back to the creative statistics I mentioned at the top of this post ... we often forget that we were never meant to be the majority. In Utah, that seems like the natural order of things to a lot of people. But from what I've seen, the Church works far better as a minority culture, where there is a clear contrast between our practices and those of the surrounding society. I think we were meant to thrive on our differences and remain continually aware of who we are, while taking part in our communities and being a force for good. Not for the good of the Church in the sense of bringing in lots of new members. But for the good of society by learning from our own strong values, treating people well, and preserving a unique way of life that might otherwise be lost.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Mack![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
