posted
One of the clips shows the lady leading the camp talking about how Harry Potter would've been "put to death" if he had been around during the old testament. It's that sort of inability to separate fiction from reality, along with the militarization of a faith that seems to me to be very similar to militarization of Islam, that I find unsettling.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some early Mormons carried the idea of "shaking" and tried to plug it into Mormonism, it had to be strictly supressed.
It was NOT suppressed. It fell out of favor about the same time that the Pentacostals appeared, but it was not "suppressed." Joseph Smith, Brigham Young - all sorts of early church leaders happily participated in it. It was a spiritual gift that was welcomed. The crowd spoke in tongues at the dedication of the Kirtland temple.
Sorry to disagree but Joseph Smith personally discouraged it to a great degree. Or to be more accurate, Joseph Smith believed the gift of tongues was of God, but that if anyone were to speak in tongues the interpretation would be given either by somebody else present or by the man/woman speaking, otherwise they should be told to keep their peace, its all laid out in the New Testament. Convulsions, retching and rolling on the floor were VERY discouraged by Joseph Smith who personally stopped the practice I believe when it started prevailing in Ohio.
quote: We still talk about spiritual gifts. The gift of tongues is interpreted generally as ease of learning a new language to communicate the gospel, but that is NOT the only interpretation and that has not been the interpretation all along.
The ability to pick up a new language is indeed part of the gift of tongues, but the church still acknowledges that one filled with the spirit might speak in tongues (God's language, another language, etc) but again, what they say would make sense and it would be interpreted.
quote: I don't understand it and I have never experienced it, but I've felt the spirit when other people have talked about it and modern day prophets had it happen. I'll put it on the list of things I don't understand but cannot completely discount.
Speaking in Tongues legitimately through the power of God is ALWAYS to the edification of those around you. Babblings do NOTHING and are not of God. Convulsing and Shaking are just universally wrong IMO.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not what you said, though. You said it was suppressed. Maybe you didn't mean to, but thanks for the clarification that you were not saying that all instances of the gift of tongues was suppressed, which is what it sounded like.
Have you wondered why it doesn't happen anymore?
----
Since I have a feeling neither of us know exactly the history of it, I have consulted my source (Matt) who hasn't e-mailed me back yet. I'll post what he says when he does (he has class this afternoon).
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: Perhaps. Although by nature I tend to wax less verbo..., er, enthusiastic when it comes to discussion of ethics, morals, and philosophy.
My point, broadly, would have been that our understanding of the nature of science IS philosophy but that is a nasty can of worms.
quote:Not that I don't have strong views, even closely reasoned views (on those topics) -- but that I feel little inclination to win others over. I do, however, enjoy the search for logical consistency.
And that is exactly what I enjoy about your posts. Clear minds are exceedingly rare.
Still on page 2 of parenting...
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's not what you said, though. You said it was suppressed. Maybe you didn't mean to, but thanks for the clarification that you were not saying that all instances of the gift of tongues was suppressed, which is what it sounded like.
Have you wondered why it doesn't happen anymore?
----
Since I have a feeling neither of us know exactly the history of it, I have consulted my source (Matt) who hasn't e-mailed me back yet. I'll post what he says when he does (he has class this afternoon).
This is what I said, "I had a friend who was told that if you are saved you ought to be able to speak in tongues whenever you so desired, the thought made us both ill. Some early Mormons carried the idea of "shaking" and tried to plug it into Mormonism, it had to be strictly supressed."
Nowhere did Joseph Smith or the New Testemant say, "You should be able to speak in tongues whenever you want to." Certainly it could be said, "Whenever it is required of you, if you have faith , you will be able to speak in whatever tongue is neccesary."
The only concepts I specifically said had to be supressed were, "Babblings and convulsing (shakings)."
---
I think speaking in tongues DOES still happen. There are many instances where people have been impressed to say words they did not know that people around them understood. Missionaries have many stories to that effect
I imagine were I impressed upon to speak in the tongue of angels I would not go around telling people I had had such an experience as it would be sacred to me. (I have not had such an experience, nor know anybody who has).
The ONLY issue I have with tongues is when somebody speaks in an unknown tongue and NO interpretation is offered. It is then that I am HIGHLY suspect of it. I saw many people while I lived in Taiwan who speaking to idols would channel their spirits and say things both coherent and incoherent. The coherent stuff made no sense, it was just babbling, and the incoherent stuff gave me the chills because the tone of voice often sounded very aggressive and angry.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yesterday I noticed a change on the religious commercials played on my radio. It used to encourage us to "believe in God." Now it emphasizes, "Let us show you The One True God".
The culture wars, if won by the Christian right, may break down into very nasty and very disturbing religious wars next. Kids like these, and the leaders who push them to far scare me more than any terrorists.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Yesterday I noticed a change on the religious commercials played on my radio. It used to encourage us to "believe in God." Now it emphasizes, "Let us show you The One True God".
The culture wars, if won by the Christian right, may break down into very nasty and very disturbing religious wars next. Kids like these, and the leaders who push them to far scare me more than any terrorists.
Theres almost 3000 people in New York I would think disagree with that.
But then again there are 168 people in Oklahoma City who might agree with you.
I don't think I really want to work out the total damage caused by Christian extremists and weigh it against other extremists.
At least those kids have access to ALOT more opportunities to see other points of view, and become educated. At least it is to be hoped they do, I imagine some of the more poor among them will get a high school diploma if they are lucky, to say nothing about the inside of a college.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Have you wondered why it doesn't happen anymore?
It does happen, but not in General Conference, not in Sacrament Meeting talks. It has been de-emphasized as a General teaching.
What is viewed as the counterfeit has become 'mainstream' elsewhere. It is not essential for one's salvation, and would now, in most situations, cause more confusion than edification.
I think divine healings would be in the same category. Although while it is taught that healings can and do occur through the Priesthood, there are no grand displays of Healing Services, because today, such are sacred personal affairs.
I believe legitimate, inspired messages in tongues, and divine healing, do occur today all over the world. But you won't be reading about all of them in the Church News, let alone the New York Times.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A film, and even more so, a trailer for a film, is purposefully edited to convey messages or provoke responses. SO we have to take the whole thing with a grain of salt.
"There are two kind of people in the world: People who love Jesus and people who don't."
"We're being trained to be God's army."
I think that to be human is to have choice. The children in this film do not appear to have much of any choice in their actions or opinions. The religions and spiritual leaders I admire most are those who encourage questioning and self-discovery in the search for truth. They have a certain degree of humility and peace about them; they have achieved faith through trial and questioning and frustration and are happy with where they are but do not seek to agressively convince others. They convert and teach by example and when others seek knowledge, and they are so effective.
This film seems to divide people into two groups - the righteous, evangelical, Jesus-loving Christians and everyone else. Like the Aryan race and - everyone else. Or like whites and - everyone else. Or like the Japanese and - everyone else. Or devout Shia Muslims and - everyone else. Or Devout Sunni Muslims and - everyone else. Etc. It's such an icky thing to do that to other people. I don't believe that all Christians are somehow wrong and evil, or that all religious people are wrong and evil, and I object strenously to anyone, Christian or not, who thinks they can think this about me based on one fact.
Anyone who accepts a belief or policy without examining it carefully and who sees fit to sort other people as evil by a certain characteristic without further examining that individual person is a fanatic. And that woman, at least, seems pretty fanatical. And narrow-minded.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's bad enough to try and make a child army, but what makes it worse is bastardizing Christ's teachings to do it.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Matt, in response to my question "Can you tell me anything about the gift of tongues and interpretation of tongues in the restored church?":
quote:Remarkably common - according to Heber Kimball's diary he, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young all spoke in tongues regularly. Ditto for Woodruff's diary; he was, apparently, especially gifted with tongues. At the first conference of the church there were tongues, ecstatic dancing and bodily motion; one guy, apparently, flew through the air.
In Utah Eliza Snow's "spiritual feasts" - conferences of women encouraged by Brigham - regularly featured speaking in tongues, washings and anointings, and women "prophesying" to each other. Zina Huntington Smith etc etc also reports it occurring regularly.
Brigham also spoke in tongues at the Kirtland temple dedication. It's on the program, which is kind of funny.
As president of the church, Heber Grant would tell stories over the pulpit about how he remembered Eliza Snow and his mother speaking in tongues and translating for each other while Heber played on the floor. Zina recounts some of this - you can look at her entry in In Sacred Lonliness for more.
There's not really been any work done on specifically why this phenomenon faded; I suspect it has to do with the regularization and institutionalization of gifts of the spirit - they are now supposed to be channeled through the priesthood heirarchy rather than exercised spontaneously. This happened in the first few decades after statehood - women were no longer allowed to lay hands and bless the sick; dates of ordination for boys were regularized rather than being up to family and local leaders; prayer circles and use of temple clothes outside the temple were forbidden (though it took a letter from Spencer Kimball to end the last - you can still find altar rooms in old stake centers and in some old homes if you look).
quote:I dug up one of Grant's conference talks:
President Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, April 1935, First Day—Morning Meeting pg. 12.
There is no need of believing in these things unless we have them. I was a child playing on the floor in a Relief Society meeting (my mother was president of the Thirteenth ward Relief Society for thirty long years and only resigned because of her hearing having failed) when Eliza R. Snow laid her hands on and blessed by the gift of tongues each of the presidents that happened to be in that meeting, and Zina D. Young gave the interpretation. After doing this she turned to the child (myself) playing upon the floor, and anointed me and gave me a blessing, and Zina D. Young gave the interpretation.
My mother often said to me. "Heber, behave yourself and you will some day be an Apostle."
I laughed and told her I had no ambitions along that line. I said: "Get it out of your head. Every mother thinks that her son will be the President of the United States, or something wonderful. I do not want any Church position, I want to be a business man."
"Never mind," she said, "if you behave yourself you will be an Apostle."
When I was made an Apostle she asked me if I remembered that meeting. I told her I did.
"Do you remember anything that Sister Snow said?" I said: "No, I did not understand her."
"Of course you did not, because she was speaking in an unknown tongue. Did you understand anything that Aunt Zina said?"
"Only one thing, mother, I remember that as she was talking she lifted her hand and said that I would grow to be a big man, and since I have grown tall, I have often thought of that remark of hers."
She said: "She did not say anything of the kind. She said you should grow to be a great big man in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and become an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ."
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: It's bad enough to try and make a child army, but what makes it worse is bastardizing Christ's teachings to do it.
posted
Katharina I only have 2 issues with what you wrote.
1: "At the first conference of the church there were tongues, ecstatic dancing and bodily motion; one guy, apparently, flew through the air." For the entire paragraph, <b> no citation </b> not only that but "Ecstatic dancing and bodily motion does not indicate convulsing neccesarily." Flying through the air is quite questionable to me.
2: "women were no longer allowed to lay hands and bless the sick"
I know Joseph Smith calmed down men who were upset with women who performed this rite and explained that the women were in the right.
(this next bit is based on my memory so CAUTION) I have still heard it said many times that in the absense of a priesthood holder, women are WELL within their rights to bless each other in the name of God or do whatever work they feel impressed to do, that includes healing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB - I didn't know what Katie was using my email for until right now, so for what it's worth, the response she quotes is me answering a question from her and should not be read as an attempted refutation of you.
The information you question in your first point is drawn from Rough Stone Rolling. I haven't read the book in the past year and don't have it on hand to cite, but I believe what I wrote is substantially correct; the part about a man flying through the air had to do with spirit possession.
As to your second point, you're correct: women blessed the sick and afflicted (and pregnant, for that matter; there was a special ritual here that could be called an ordinance) for comfort and healing until the first two decades or so of the twentieth century, when the practice began to be discouraged. However, historically, presence or absence of a man had nothing to do with it. A good article on this is "A Gift Given, A Gift Taken: Washing, Anointing, and Blessing the Sick Among Mormon Women" in _The New Mormon History_, ed. by Michael Quinn; also reprinted in the 25th anniversary Sunstone issue.
I have heard something similar, though I'd guess that your average Mormons would be rather divided on the question.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would still like to hear katherine's response to these:
quote:
quote: It is by definition misanthropic to think that what certainly seems like a fundamental part of human nature is risible and despicable.
Why? Many religions, in fact, preach that things which appear to be fundamental parts of human nature are risible and despicable. You might even argue that one of the primary functions of any society is identifying which primary functions of human nature are going to be considered risible and despicable.
quote:
quote: I saw the trailer. I don't think it's fanaticism. There were no blood sacrifices going on, no calls for actual violence in war. But it still gets called "fanaticism - creepy and narrow regardless of the reason."
What I've learned from this thread is that there are still groups that it is considered okay to mock.
Yes, well? A desire to mock those who are different is also a 'fundamental part of human nature'. Who are you to say that this is a bad thing?
posted
Those questions remind me of a guy I saw last week at George Mason University - he was a street preacher, and as I watched, he called people walking by to repentance, saying things like "We're all sinners," "The Bible says we all must repent," and so forth. Immediately students began to accuse him of bigotry, hatefulness, and so on. Now, what he was doing was injecting himself into the public sphere (though I might note that he held himself to generalities). And it's easy, I think, to throw stones and immediately use de-legitimizing terms like 'bigot' and 'fanatic.'
There's a line, I think. What Jonathan Edwards called "affective religion" and the more charismatic traits of evangelicalism are manifestations of ancient and legitimate religious expression. I'm not sure outright mockery has occurred in this thread, and I'm sure none of us (except maybe KoM) would taunt the religious expressions of, say, Hindus. Further, it's ridiculous to expect religious people to compartmentalize belief out of their participation in the public sphere.
However, once religion (not individual religious belief, but organized religious effort) seeks influence in the public sphere it subjects itself to the laws thereof. That is, it must acknowledge that claims to exclusive truth are insufficient in the struggle for power in a democracy. A religious movement confronted by this has two choices - militarization (as we see in the movie), or limiting its own sense of what the religious experience means. The former, however, is predicated on the latter (though not necessarily vice versa). Movements like bin Laden's Islam and the Religious Right risk seeing the grandeur of the religious message withering to a few lines in a political platform. This, I think, has happened to the Christian Coalition - it's turned God into ethics, and eagerly embraced a politicized definition of itself. A Christianity defined as 'pro-life' and 'anti-gay' seems very arid to me. The religious experience at its fullest is not defined by morality.
In answer to Tom, I don't think being made uneasy by the political mobilization of religion as seen here is necessarily misanthropic - indeed, I'm rather uncomfortable with Jesus Camp myself. However, the implication of your question is that it's okay to find religious expression "risible and dispicable." I'm not sure if you meant to imply that. I'd hope not.
Now, certainly most religious preach some form of self-denial, and of course, this has been part of political theory since at least the Greeks. I'd argue, though (tangenting a bit from the thread here) that in nearly all these areas of thought, what is denied is seen as *unnatural* or detrimental to best potential of human nature. I'd hope (though of course I know this isn't the case) that religious and political arguments to this end would view self-denial in these terms, rather than in mockery.
quote:A desire to mock those who are different is also a 'fundamental part of human nature'. Who are you to say that this is a bad thing?
Mock any gay people recently, KoM?
You're taunting a little bit, I think.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those questions remind me of a guy I saw last week at George Mason University - he was a street preacher, and as I watched, he called people walking by to repentance, saying things like "We're all sinners," "The Bible says we all must repent," and so forth. Immediately students began to accuse him of bigotry, hatefulness, and so on. Now, what he was doing was injecting himself into the public sphere (though I might note that he held himself to generalities). And it's easy, I think, to throw stones and immediately use de-legitimizing terms like 'bigot' and 'fanatic.'
You seem awful quick to judge. My experience with five different street preachers on three different college campuses were that they were each hateful bigots. They also tended to stick around for a bit, returning to preach at the same spot for weeks at a time.
It's possible that this guy didn't yell any hateful or bigoted remarks while you were observing. That doesn't actually mean that the students were baseless in saying what they did.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I have, as it happens; not for being gay, though. I think you must have misunderstood my point, though, which was precisely that being a 'fundamental part of human nature' does not make a trait good.
By the way, I am by no means sure I agree that a religious drive is part of human nature; a lot of people don't have one.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's possible that this guy didn't yell any hateful or bigoted remarks while you were observing.
It's also possible he didn't make any such remarks at all. I have been told I'm a hateful bigot immediately upon the speaker learning I was Catholic. I've seen non-hateful bigot street preachers yelled at and called hateful bigots in situations described.
So even if the GMU observer did reach an inaccurate or even a too-quick judgment - something you can't possibly know from the post - there are several accurate examples in existence. Substitute one of those if you can't accept the example given.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, the implication of your question is that it's okay to find religious expression "risible and dispicable."
My implication is that if it's okay to find ANYTHING "risible and despicable," whether or not that thing is a "fundamental part of human nature" shouldn't be a deciding factor.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seem awful quick to judge. My experience with five different street preachers on three different college campuses were that they were each hateful bigots.
This made me laugh, Squick, because generally your first sentence is attached to somebody passing negative judgment on somebody else. You seem to be using it to castigate me for doing the opposite. Or perhaps you're referring to how I characterized the students?
Anyway, I watched him for an hour or so, and interestingly, he was frequently accused by students who arrived after I did of bigotry for holding positions he had not espoused. Now, it's entirely possible - even likely - that he did hold these positions. However, he had not stated them, and the assumptions of the students indicates two things to me. 1)The bankruptcy of the Religious Right's version of political religion, outlined in my above post, has created unfortunate associations about religion in the public mind. 2)I find modern rhetoric about words like 'bigotry' confusing; sometimes it's justified, but frequently it seems to be applied to somebody who states a belief that a given action is wrong. These people are then fair targets for accusations much like those they are accused of making.
In the second case, I think two things - 1)people have a right to state their beliefs, 2)Their opponents have a right to register disagreement. It seems to me that all of this should be done in an atmosphere of respect. Wishful thinking, perhaps.
quote:which was precisely that being a 'fundamental part of human nature' does not make a trait good.
On that, I'd agree, I think. Though 'good' is a fuzzy word - maybe 'useful' - for what purpose, up to whatever belief system - might be better.
As to the presence of religious impulse - I like Tillich's characterization of it as 'search for meaning' which may or may not be manifest as religion.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: As to the presence of religious impulse - I like Tillich's characterization of it as 'search for meaning' which may or may not be manifest as religion
I'm pretty sure there's more to certain manifestations of the religious impulse than just a "search for meaning," though; consider delusional manias, like the aforementioned "speaking in tongues," convulsions, etc., which certainly aren't limited to any one religious faith (but which, if any one of those religions is correct, should be.) It's rare to see a physicist suddenly start twitching uncontrollably, gripped by a sudden passionate insight into the workings of subatomic particles.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's rare to see a physicist suddenly start twitching uncontrollably, gripped by a sudden passionate insight into the workings of subatomic particles.
Actually, it's not that rare. But uncontrollable twitching is so much a part of daily life for many physicists (particularly those of the mathematical physics persuasion, and particle physicists most especially) that it's hard to tell.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm pretty sure there's more to certain manifestations of the religious impulse than just a "search for meaning," though; consider delusional manias, like the aforementioned "speaking in tongues," convulsions, etc., which certainly aren't limited to any one religious faith (but which, if any one of those religions is correct, should be.) It's rare to see a physicist suddenly start twitching uncontrollably, gripped by a sudden passionate insight into the workings of subatomic particles.
I'm not particularly addressing issues of correctness or particular manifestations. Rather, I'm saying that we are both aware of our own finitude and at some level distressed by it; as Niebuhr says, we are uniquely among animals self-transcendent. We seek, by whatever means, to find meaning in our own lives or in the universe as a whole. The specifics of what physicists or Pentacostals do to resolve this is largely irrelevant.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that I think it's the specifics which worry people. I don't care whether someone's searching for meaning or not, but I DO care if their search for meaning makes me unable to buy beer on a Sunday.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Except that I think it's the specifics which worry people. I don't care whether someone's searching for meaning or not, but I DO care if their search for meaning makes me unable to buy beer on a Sunday.
Kinda like how science brings us miracles like genetically modified germs (suitable for mass destruction) and nuclear weapons, and then says, "Whoops sorry these things could destroy humanity, its not my job to worry about the ramifications of my discoveries!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty much, yeah. Now imagine if "science" also claimed to be an authority on morality, so that scientists not only brought us the bomb but also told us when to use it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:but I DO care if their search for meaning makes me unable to buy beer on a Sunday.
Does people being slain by the Spirit affect your ability to buy beer?
I think the distinction I'm making here is between the legitimacy of personal religious experience and the sort of organized political efforts we see in Jesus Camp. The latter, I believe, isn't particularly religious.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The latter, I believe, isn't particularly religious.
I'm terribly bad at identifying what is genuinely religious and what people claiming to be religious are just saying is religious.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Matt, That you were quick to judge the students was exactly my point. In my experience, the class of people who decide to yell at people from street corners do not tends towards respect and love of others.
Taking a small slice of the interactions between this person and the community and coming to the decision that the students were necessarily unjustly accusing him of bigotry and hatred seems to me to be itself unjustified.
posted
Matt, I usually find what you have to say interesting, though I often disagree with some of the things you say (which is not to say that I don't also agree with much of it).
quote:Further, it's ridiculous to expect religious people to compartmentalize belief out of their participation in the public sphere.
I think this very much depends on the nature of their participation in the public sphere. For example, I truely consider this street preacher and the constellation of Calvinist/Lutheran religions that he comes from to worship an evil deity. If they've got their conceptions of the divine and infernal world more or less correct, they basically, in my opinion, worship Satan. Is it then correct for me to, say, stand outside one of their mega-churches and yell at them that they worship Satan? I don't think so. And yet, from the way I see it, that's a pretty good analog for what this street preacher was doing.
Additionally, I'd be lying if I said I was doing this for their benefit. The only purpose I could really expect to fulfill by doing this would be my own edification. I'd be like KoM or this street preacher, completely ineffective at my stated purpose, but able to make myself feel better and possibly others feel a little worse.
quote:However, once religion (not individual religious belief, but organized religious effort) seeks influence in the public sphere it subjects itself to the laws thereof. That is, it must acknowledge that claims to exclusive truth are insufficient in the struggle for power in a democracy. A religious movement confronted by this has two choices - militarization (as we see in the movie), or limiting its own sense of what the religious experience means.
I disagree with two parts of this. First, in a strictly democratic set up, an organized religious movement need not acknowledge that their claims on truth are insufficient, provided they have the numbers to enforce their will on others. That's the basic situation we see in several cases now where the Christian majority is successfully or at least attempting to force their religion on others.
It is irresponsible and hypocritical behavior from people who would cry bloody murder if someone turned around and tried to do the same to them, but there's nothing that strictly precludes them from doing so, so long as they have the force to push it through.
Second, I disagree that the two options you present accounts for all possible paths here. A third, one which is fundamental to the philosophical background of our country, is to engage in the marketplace of ideas. In the cases we're talking about, it's not attempts to influence the general public that are irresponsible, but rather the use of coercive or compulsive force to do so. Employing persuasive force on an issue that you find extremely important, however, is not merely justifiable but almost a duty for the responsible citizen of a modern democracy.
quote:However, the implication of your question is that it's okay to find religious expression "risible and dispicable." I'm not sure if you meant to imply that. I'd hope not.
I hope you're not trying to imply that finding what people call religious expression risible and dispicable is always wrong. I don't see that because someone calls something thier religion that this necessarily removes it from the sort of judgements we'd apply to the same behavior without this label.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky says: "I don't see that because someone calls something thier religion that this necessarily removes it from the sort of judgements we'd apply to the same behavior without this label."
Excellent. I was trying to think of how to say this.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I saw many people while I lived in Taiwan who speaking to idols would channel their spirits and say things both coherent and incoherent. The coherent stuff made no sense, it was just babbling, and the incoherent stuff gave me the chills because the tone of voice often sounded very aggressive and angry.
Maybe it's my bad English, but I don't understand how coherent stuff can make no sense...? Are you talking about two kinds of incoherent speech, or is something else going on here?
Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping a picture of President Bush
I don't find the general idea hard to believe, but I'd need more than a news organization saying it to treat it as even likely true. I doubt that worshipping is the right term, but it could be entirely correct too.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: From the ABC article:
quote:Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping a picture of President Bush
I don't find the general idea hard to believe, but I'd need more than a news organization saying it to treat it as even likely true. I doubt that worshipping is the right term, but it could be entirely correct too.
I watched the video that article is a transcript of, and what was said was, "Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping to a picture of President Bush" - I think the 'to' (in my mind, meaning 'in accompaniment with') is much more believable, and was what was intended.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattB: BB - I didn't know what Katie was using my email for until right now, so for what it's worth, the response she quotes is me answering a question from her and should not be read as an attempted refutation of you.
The information you question in your first point is drawn from Rough Stone Rolling. I haven't read the book in the past year and don't have it on hand to cite, but I believe what I wrote is substantially correct; the part about a man flying through the air had to do with spirit possession.
I've read the book and its on my bookshelf so I might get around to looking. Pretty sure the instance of the man flying was at priesthood meeting that evening and it was a result of a strong attack by evil spirits, not the holy ghost turning people into David Copperfields.
quote: As to your second point, you're correct: women blessed the sick and afflicted (and pregnant, for that matter; there was a special ritual here that could be called an ordinance) for comfort and healing until the first two decades or so of the twentieth century, when the practice began to be discouraged. However, historically, presence or absence of a man had nothing to do with it. A good article on this is "A Gift Given, A Gift Taken: Washing, Anointing, and Blessing the Sick Among Mormon Women" in _The New Mormon History_, ed. by Michael Quinn; also reprinted in the 25th anniversary Sunstone issue.
I have heard something similar, though I'd guess that your average Mormons would be rather divided on the question.
I could be wrong, and you could be right. Its just in my experience what I wrote was what I was taught, and I've never heard any uniform teaching stating otherwise. I suppose the priesthood manual would have something about it, but your book sounds interesting.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like I should post this as a PSA: Matt probably won't be back to the thread. Nothing personal at all - he is just on a schedule where he has to read a book a day in order to get ready for exams. He said yesterday was really fun, but he shouldn't have spent so much time on it. I'm sure he'll be up for anything and everything after, um, about October 26.
Or, he may come back in and make all the above irrelevant. If he doesn't, though, I thought I should say why.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I feel like I should post this as a PSA: Matt probably won't be back to the thread. Nothing personal at all - he is just on a schedule where he has to read a book a day in order to get ready for exams. He said yesterday was really fun, but he shouldn't have spent so much time on it. I'm sure he'll be up for anything and everything after, um, about October 26.
Or, he may come back in and make all the above irrelevant. If he doesn't, though, I thought I should say why.
posted
This movie is obviously meant to excite people to revulsion. Not surprising if it works sometimes -- some of us are very uncomfortable with displays of emotion, as the reaction to Howard Dean's "yeargh" showed -- but...is this good, trying to stimulate fear of and contempt for other groups? Are we so lacking in prejudice that we need to generate more? I don't think so.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that's a tenable statement Will. Considering, for example, that one of the leaders of the camp they filmed screened the movie and said she was perfectly fine with it, it seems to me more likely that they did, as they claimed to do, a fair job of showing the reality of the camp.
What about it makes you think that it is obviously meant to excite people to revulsion? Have you maybe seen more of the movie than the rest of us?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I had a friend who was told that if you are saved you ought to be able to speak in tongues whenever you so desired, the thought made us both ill. Some early Mormons carried the idea of "shaking" and tried to plug it into Mormonism, it had to be strictly supressed.
I feel particularly aversive towards being 'Posessed by the holy spirit' Why in the world would the spirit possess you and cause you to convulse on the floor and babble incoherently? How is anyone edified by that?
Katharina then said:
quote:It was NOT suppressed. It fell out of favor about the same time that the Pentacostals appeared, but it was not "suppressed." Joseph Smith, Brigham Young - all sorts of early church leaders happily participated in it. It was a spiritual gift that was welcomed. The crowd spoke in tongues at the dedication of the Kirtland temple.
You are both correct and talking past each other. The problem is the difference between speaking in tongues and enthusiasms. They often are active together, but are actually sometimes seen as seperate spiritual gifts.
The speaking in tongues has been covered well. Joseph Smith and many of the early Mormons participated in speakings. That was a highlight of the spiritual gifts given during the "Kirtland Temple Pentacostal" at the time of its dedication. Although perhaps downplayed, they have never been "suppressed" in the Church. It has become rare, but not unheard of even beyond the "missionaries learn quick" theory.
However, "Shaking" and "Possesed by the Spirit" can be a whole different experience. That is when, with or without Glossolalia, the body is said to be taken over by the spirit and convulses or causes erratic movement (disambiguation). It is where the Shakers (an off-shoot of Quakers) get their name.
In the very early days of the LDS Church, there were a number of members who would experience very violent spiritual disambiguation. Levi Hancock described how at least one of them would ". . . jump up from the floor, strike his head against the joist . . . swing some minutes, then fall like he was dead." He would then wake up and tell what spiritual experiences he saw during the enthusiasm.
Joseph Smith heard about this and, when he saw it, condemned the enthusiasm. He then taught that Spiritual experiences would only enlighten and edify. Anything that didn't have the purpose of teaching or bringing new understanding was not of God.(see Rough Stone Rolling pg. 150-152)
"Now God never had any prophets that acted in this way [strange fits]; there was nothing indecorous in the proceeding of the Lord's prophets in any age; neither had the apostles nor prophets in the apostle's day anything of this kind. Paul says, 'Ye may all prophecy, one by one; and if anything be revealed to another let the first hold his peace, for the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets,' but here we find [in the fits] the prophets are subject to the spirit . . . (TPJS pg 209).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
