posted
actually bob, they are building a whole lot of new temples (again, mostly because of church membership growth) and before the temples are dedicated they have public tours inside. so you can totally check out the inside, in fact i think they are building a new one in texas as we speak. i got to tour one of the several smaller temples they were building a few years ago, it was neat. i'm sure you'd find the experience educational and interesting. i also know the church buys a lot of farmland because they grow a lot of food for members that are poor and need some help from the church and also for nonmembers, especially in catastrophe situations. the lds church has a huge welfare program, a perpetual education fund for third world citizens, and an extensive humanitarian aid program. and no, we don't force book of mormons or baptisms in exchange for food or disaster relief i find it interesting to learn about since i am very interested in international humanitarian work myself.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So did you here that Larry Bird said he felt insulted if teams put a Mormon to cover him? What is that?!?!
(Okay, it's quarter past two. Tomorrow morning--morning being a relative term--I'll check and see if that was actually funny or not.)
All anything goes to show is that most of us have some facet of our lives where we belong to a fringe group, and we see legitimate bigotry, and then we become sensitive, and start seeing it everywhere. It might be ethnicity, it might be geoography, it might be religion, it might be based on profession, it might be not belonging to the same faith background as people around us. It must be rare indeed to not be a "minority" in some way. And I'm not, in this post, discounting the existence of bigotry, but we need to convince ourselves believe that the bigots are not the majority, lest we see it everywhere.
Or maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Like I said, it's quarter past two. Closer to two-thirty now.
I still think this thread is a black hole, because it confuses the bejeebus out of me. How do you spell bejebus, anyway?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who are the people who weild this real power?
What power do they hold over you?
Those who can control public perceptions: The media. Liberal or Conservative, and getting a bit sci-fi on ya', those who control the information can control the outcomes. Especially for the ignorant masses.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
thankfully, icarus, i dislike most human beings, so i rarely have the chance to dislike people for secondary characteristics like bigotry or oversensitivity.
posted
Before I came to Hatrack my "knowledge" about Latter Day Saints consisted of the following:
They had like a third testament called the Book of Mormon
They believed God or Jesus or an angel had given a firther revelation in North America
They were very "strict" in their conduct, WRT sexuality and stuff like that
They ran BYU
They had once practiced polygamy
And that's about it. Not a very thorough or educated list, but hardly one filled with the sort of rabid hatred folks seem to fear the popular media is serving up. Which is not to say that it isn't there, but that, like Bob said, that's not the most common perception of LDS.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Geoff -- thanks! That was good stuff. Back when I was still Catholic, I heard a priest saying much the same but in fact that missionaries and priests were now coming TO America from the places that America used to send export its young men to as priests and missionaries. I wonder if the LDS church will experience that kind of odd reversal in coming decades.
Icarus -- it was funny, but for the fact that Larry Bird is LDS.
Porce -- you know, one of the sources of the "survivalist" impression of the LDS church stems from the amount of farm/ranch land it owns. I mean, it's amazing. The ranch in Central Florida is almost as wide as the State!!!
But one of the things I really admire about the LDS is the social welfare program. Feeding people is good.
Occasional -- I think public perception isn't "controlled" by anyone. I have yet to meet a religious person of any denomination who enjoys the press accounts of their church's actions or statements. It always comes off sounding weird, I think. It's not just an LDS thing by any stretch. You should've heard the grousing in the Baptist churches after the press reports about the Southern Baptist Convention. Especially when they have something "juicy" like that "the woman shall graciously serve the man" thing one year.
Anyway, I believe it is also true that "the ignorant" is a weird kind of label. I mean, people who are ignorant of the LDS aren't necessarily just the great unwashed masses. They're just people who haven't experienced any contact with the LDS first hand. They don't know and really don't care one way or the other. Their jokes aren't even of consequence. Changing their opinions of the church would, I think, be fairly easy if it mattered. But it's a really interesting question -- should you? Does it matter?
Would a 2% generally more positive feeling towards the LDS among the majority of people in the US be worth the effort it takes to achieve it? Would you risk further alienating the conservative evangelical Christian ultra-right wing by becoming more visible overall? And what would the result of that be? You gain 2% "good vibes" in the population as a whole, but lose ground in the people who are most vocal and most dangerous?
Anyway, this power thing is interesting too. I submit that no-one has any power. There's no-one in an official capacity who has power over the LDS church or your personal life within it. The media's power is illusory. They can be successfully challenged. Or educated. Or both.
The only real "official" danger is in the area of taxation. The state and local governments could, if they wanted to make life hard for you, remove your tax-exempt status. If they were successful, they could hurt the church financially.
But that doesn't appear to be a widespread concern for the LDS church. If it is happening at all, I'm betting it's fairly isolated.
Not like TX which recently decided that Unitarian Universalist is NOT a religion and so their congregations are no longer tax exempt here in the state.
Sent chills down the spines of a few local pastors no doubt. If the State Attorney can decide whether you are a real religion or not... Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Icarus -- it was funny, but for the fact that Larry Bird is LDS.
I didn't know that!
Then the irony's on you, though, since I'm just paraphrasing what he's getting criticized right now for saying about WHITES (and he's one of those, too!)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Icarus -- it was funny, but for the fact that Larry Bird is LDS.
I think you might have him confused by that other good white guy, Danny Ainge. AFAIK, he (Bird) was a big boozer, and was even in the news for a few bar fights.
posted
I think that if you took a poll of the entire church, asked them to tell you if given celebrities were LDS, and accepted all the "yes" answers you received, the church's membership would grow by several hundred people Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott R. - I totally wrote something extremely flattering about you, and you so for serious dinnit respond. It made Ralphie's heart sad.
Sorry, Ralphie-- I didn't read the second page. Like I told someone else some time ago, in a topic like this that runs several pages, I skim the first page, and then jump to the end.
But let me respond:
quote:And then you have the Scott R.'s who are so awesome that they make one want to run off to Mexico with them after a single post, and not just to get good prices on medical care (if you know what I mean).
Honestly? Do you think you could put up with two strong willed adults (my wife and me), one strong willed child (Junebug) and two toddlers (Super-K and Litebrite) in Mexico? IN JUNE? In our van that doesn't have air conditioning?
If you think you can put up with that-- well, you're definitely a better person than me.
Vacationing with the R's. . . I don't think you're up to it, Ralphie.
But otherwise, you're pretty awesome too.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm wondering if this thread has sufficiently served its original purpose. Discussing how the church relates to the world is always fun, but at the moment I'm more concerned with the dynamics of Hatrack. Is there anything that needs to be said that hasn't been? Has this affected any change? I still like the Nauvoo idea - anything that is basically a dscussion betwen Mormons (e.g., what is the exact purpose of HT/VT?) be moved to there. Can that work? So Hatrack can fulfill its real purpose, as expressed in the charter - making me look smarter.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wish that Hatrack Mormons would remember, that whatever goes on “in the world,” this is Hatrack. Y’all aren’t persecuted here, you’re not hated here, you’re not a minority here. So whether a bunch of evangelical so-called Christians in Utah or wherever else picket or protest or think you have horns and eat babies really isn’t relevant to how we relate to each other here.
I’m getting really sick of getting lumped in with the anti-Mormon idiots every time this topic comes up.
posted
I've always thought it was a pretty fair fight at Hatrack. I've never felt victimized. I can't think of anyone here who comes off as "anti-Mormon." Mostly I just feel inadequate before so many generous, intelligent people, regardless of religious beliefs.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one comes across as anti-Mormon because if an anti-Mormon and a Mormon ever posted in the same thread they'd be instantly annihilated. Considering the number of Mormons on this sight, the anti-Mormons have to lurk for their own safety.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. See, matter and anti-matter destroy each other when they come into contact. I was being ha ha funny.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: before the temples are dedicated they have public tours inside. so you can totally check out the inside,
I toured through the one in northwest Oklahoma City during the public tours, before it was dedicated. Went with LDS friends who explained each room to me. It was very interesting.
posted
Bob, I'm sure that most American denominations could have financial holdings as great as the church if their congregational and other leaders worked for free. (keeping in mind that we rotate ours every five years, as a rule).
This is accomplished also by having an aggressive training program of all eligible men at all time serving in various capacities (thus the need to have tons of jobs for everyone). Also, we are so centralized because the leaders don't get their know how from a doctorate, they get it from manuals and the hierarchy. (edit: Not to put the doctorate system down, just saying that's how LDS get by with this system)
The General Authorities of the Church (the 100 or so senior leaders) are overwhelmingly of "pioneer stock", our word for what you described as folks with five generations of murdered in Nauvoo or whatever. Though we have an occasional minority convert as well. But your observation did serve to help me understand that, as I would like to see more minority converts in high places. So thank you. I realize that the church sells as "American Prosperity" in some parts of the world.
The Utah/quaint argument, when I last saw it, seemed to be about both non mormon view of all mormons, and non Utah mormons about Utah. All I'm saying is that attending BYU doesn't really give one basis to blast all Utah. Of course, my out of Utah experience was in the D.C. Metro area, where former U.S. Cabinet Secretary and future church President Ezra Taft Benson raised his family (not in my congregation, but near by). We also have the Marriott's in the area, and most wards have a large contingent of CIA and other alphabet soup operatives. It's a different flavor than most other out-of-Utah mormon scenes. But like every ward (congregation) I've ever been in, the members reported "a special spirit that I don't get in any other ward (tears of joy)". Sorry. Maybe it's just me, but I've never been in a ward where they don't say that. Gives a whole new meaning to "maybe it's just me."
quote: I still like the Nauvoo idea - anything that is basically a dscussion betwen Mormons (e.g., what is the exact purpose of HT/VT?) be moved to there. Can that work?
I can't tell how serious you are about this, but I'll respond to it as though you are.
I feel uncomfortable with this idea. It would be like saying that if you want to talk about US politics, you have to take the conversation over to Ornery.
But more importantly, it would be a shame if people had to constantly watch themselves "Can I talk about this part of my life? Will the community get mad at me because this topic is taboo?"
There are tons of threads that I don't participate in because they don't interest me. But it's still a good thing that others can.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize Geoff has since apologized, the statement of which I'm going to include in the quotes below. But in order to, I hope, further understanding, I'm going to tear the WORDS apart that he used at the time and show how they affected someone who wasn't LDS (Please believe me that is isn't directed you personally Geoff even though I might be harsh at times.)
First off, the relevant context and quotes:
From Page 2 of this thread
KAMA:
quote:Small digression, cause there is something I don't really understand, though I don't think it needs a separate thread.
Out of curiosity, how many people are there in Utah? Over 2 million? It's like a small country in itself. There are European countries just as small.
When people speak about the Utah culture, how different is it from Poland which - though much bigger - is 90+ % catholic, and yet I don't find it boring or stale. Or take Silesia, the area where I live,which might be comprable in terms of population - very homogenous, with most people from exactly the same backround and upbringing. So where does this feeling about Utah come from?
A Rat Named Dog's Reply:
quote: Kama, I think it comes, in part, from the general disdain that America has for quaint or old-fashioned versions of its own culture. Utahns cultivate a culture of order, family unity, adherence to rules, conformity, etc, that reminds many Americans of the 1950's. Since we all know from watching movies that the 1950's were the worst time ever in history Utah must therefore be an insipid and obnoxious place.
A Rat Named Dog's later clarification:
quote: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
And to be fair here is that "recent explanation he referred to:
quote: ...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.
Now I'm going to try to analyze why I thought it seemed "canned", because I promised an explanation, which can hopefully be applied across a broader context.
First of all, ARND admits, he was skimming, and didn't understand the context of the question asked. It showed in his answer. Yes, we are all guilty of this occasionally, and it isn't always bad. But from the skimming, if you get the impression that people are taking the topic very seriously you owe it to both yourself and others, to take a bit of time to Think about the response.
In the more "flippant" response ARND is telling a non-citizen (Kama) how people in My country react about something. That makes it a bit more personal to Me. Then he makes a sweeping negative stereotype about the entire country's reactions to the 1950s and Mormons, that perpetuates an adversarial stereotype (non-LDS looking at LDS in disdain for their values), which I as a non-LDS believe to be mostly untrue.
To my non-LDS eyes that belief that outsiders in general, if not specific, disdain them, appears to be a normal world view of many if not most LDS on this board. This is what gives it the "canned" flavor of, oh we've heard this before, here we go again... they really think we (the non-lds) are awful don't they? It gives the Appearance of such even if it ISN'T the true Reality of the situation.
I think this goes both ways. At most I think there might be 3% of rabid-anti LDS types in the country probably less. It might be more than the LDS themselves but I doubt it. And the LDS see the vocal people, not the 95% of the people out there going about minding their own business who DON'T have negative perceptions, but ones like Icarus before he came to Hatrack. So once again the Perception of the anti-LDS sentiment in the country to someone who is LDS, is probably not actually the Reality of the situation.
(This point ties in pretty well with ARND's post at the bottom of page 6 on the growth and maturity of the LDS church and Bob's post on pg 7) But it is those Assumptions and Perceptions that get hackles raised. And it leads to feelings of isolation on both "sides" when there shouldn't be sides as Celia so eloquently stated earlier, because we are all on Hatrack together.
It's something that OSC used to request on most of the LDS threads, back when he posted. If its basically an LDS-only discussion, it can and should be held in the LDS-only placed created for that exact purpose. ---
There's a lot of crossover of members between forums. The mods don't want us to link to Nauvoo, but you can say there's a discussion on that topic there.
---
There's a finite amount of space on the front page. Some self-restraint on the part of the biggest bloc has been requested.
posted
Actually, MPH, I seem to recall Kristine Card remarking a while back, on the other side, that one of the hopes for Ornery was that all the political discussions at Hatrack would transfer over there.
Guess it didn't work. Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, when this forum does cycle back to books, food, and film, I tend to think it gets really boring. This place is at its most interesting when it's flying in the face of its mandate. Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that if anything should be dropped it is the "American". We are, after all, a multi-contintent forum and topics are not limited to "America". Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Banna, at no point was I trying to say that every specific American has disdain for quaint versions of American culture. I wasn't trying to insult you. You know the question I thought I was answering, and I don't think it's entirely necessary for me to account for every possible deviation from what I saw as a general trend.
And it wasn't about "non-Mormons" versus "Mormons" either. Reread it, I never made the distinction. American Mormons raised outside of Utah (like myself) have a reaction to Utah culture which is very similar to the reaction of non-Mormons raised outside Utah. We laugh at it and say, "They're still living in the fifties" or "They're still living in the eighties", pointing out decades that are notoriously conservative, and are treated today with contempt by our current mainstream culture.
And maybe that's a common human trend, to look back on former conservative times with disdain one decade, and longing the next. I don't know. But I think it's silly. Every decade has its struggles, its history, its good features, and bad features, and treating a culture with disdain just because it looks old-fashioned is my definition of having a pretty stupid opinion
But it does persist among many Americans. To hear some people talk about America during the 1950s, you'd think we were Germans looking back on the 1940s
Ugh. Anyway. I understand the point you're getting at, and I realized you've been frustrated by a lot of "canned" sounding responses, and mine was a convenient one to use as an example.
But I think it was a bad example. I was just looking at a facet of the Utah culture problem that I thought was interesting. It's not all-encompassing, it's not a point I usually try to make, and it wasn't trying to drive a wedge between Mormons and non-Mormons.
You know, if anything, I'm usually an advocate for abandoning a lot of annoying features of Utah culture, and becoming more connected to the mainstream world. In this instance, I was trying to play for the other side a bit, for the sake of NOT always harping on the same issues. And yet that very response gets called out for being "canned". What can you do, I guess.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff I understand now how and why you wrote it. I tried to make that clear in my post above. I included quoting your own explanations to be as fair to you as I possibly could even though it made the post more unwieldy. But it does have "common" traits with many other posts from LDS posters. Which was why I went ahead and dissected it. Whoever I had picked, would have likely felt the same way, for which I apologize. But in order to make it applicable to real life, I needed a real post. And you've got enough character that I didn't think you wouldn't wilt under the scrutiny.
AJ
Also I do think that bias comes through unconsciously even if you are Trying not to, which that post was an example of.
quote:Honestly? Do you think you could put up with two strong willed adults (my wife and me), one strong willed child (Junebug) and two toddlers (Super-K and Litebrite) in Mexico? IN JUNE? In our van that doesn't have air conditioning?
If you think you can put up with that-- well, you're definitely a better person than me.
Vacationing with the R's. . . I don't think you're up to it, Ralphie.
You're so adorably, intentionally obtuse.
You're right, tho. That air-conditioning thing nails it.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for the record, I'd like to say that before I came to Hatrack, the things I knew about LDS were limited. There was a really hot LDS guy that lived around the corner from me when I was a teenager, but the family didn't really interact with the rest of the neighborhood and eventually left. (Of course, the kids played with us and stuff, but the adults didn't socialize.) I was sad, cause he was really cute. Donny and Marie were LDS and they were cute. Donny is still hot. Yummy. LDS seem to have an obsession with stockpiling food, which always amused me, because my mother is the same way (and, so am I, my mother-in-law always makes fun of how much toilet paper I have in the house.) On any given day, I have enough cereal to feed my son for a year. I can't help it, my mother started it. She had this huge pantry in the basement that was stockpiled. To this day, she has enough food down there to last her and my dad the rest of their lives. LDS seem to have large families. That was based on three families that I knew. The ones that lived in my neighborhood, the Osmond's and a girl that worked with me here in Kansas, who was dropped off my her mother in the biggest van I've ever seen in my life, which was always filled with kids. Oh, and my favorite bit of LDS information - when you see two young men in short-sleeved white shirts, dark pants and a tie, riding bicycles, they are probably LDS missionaries.
I would also like to comment on the "disdain," or "contempt" that "we" seem to have for the 50s. Personally, I wish more of America actually was like it showed in the old movies/TV shows. Unfortunately, even in the 50s, there were problems that were just not discussed and hidden. If everyone could live like the idealized version of the 50s, I think it would be great. There was just too much suppression, repression, and wearing of blinders that lead to exclusion, abuse, use of alcohol/drugs to numb oneself, etc.
I think the idealized version of the 50s would be a great place to live, much like Star Trek TNG. It's too bad that place never really existed. And since it didn't, there can't be any "going back" to it. And, in fact, it can be looked back on with contempt. At least the way it was shown in movies and on TV. Because it never was that way. Why wouldn't you have contempt for something that is so obviously propaganda? (And actually, Pleasantville is probably the most accurate portrait of the 50s I've seen. While it showed the white suburbs only, at least once you actually looked at it, you saw the underlying problems. Has anyone ever seen the documentary Wonderland? To me, that is more like what the 50s were really like. Segregated and repressed. But, it looks really nice on TV. It's the kind of place you long to live in, if only a non-segregated/repressed version of it existed.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
i find it interesting to learn about since i am very interested in international humanitarian work myself.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
(tears of joy)". Sorry. Maybe it's just me, but I've never been in a ward where they don't say that. Gives a whole new meaning to "maybe it's just me."![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
