On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:23:40 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The church is pretty active in local politics and lawmaking.  I've been
>> here in Utah for about 15 years now and the influence is very apparent.
>> Maybe it's not so obvious from the inside looking out, but from the
>> outside looking in, it's really obvious.
> 
> Well, I never lived in Utah, so it could be that the areas I've lived in
> were ones where the LDS Church simply didn't have enough influence to do
> things like that.
> 
>  From what I've seen of members who come from Utah, I don't think I
> would like living there, anyway.

It is kinda unusual here, yeah, there's little doubt about that.  I've 
lived in Minnesota and Florida as well, and the influence of the dominant 
religion is very very apparent.

>> Let's ask the women in the church who are in leadership roles what they
>> think, shall we?
>> 
>> Oh, wait, there aren't any.  It's asserted that leadership in the
>> church is for males only.
> 
> Well, you can't blame them for being consistent.  Extension of the
> Priesthood to women would require divine revelation.  If and when it
> comes, then it will be accepted.  Until God says so, however, the LDS
> Church is going to keep doing things the same way, unapologetically.

See, and I just find it far, far too convenient that the revelations on 
blacks in the priesthood came right at the end of the civil rights 
movement.  That doesn't sound like divine revelation to me, that sounds 
like "we'd better do this or we'll fall afoul of the new laws".

> The persecutions that members suffered during the early 19th century
> have created an inherited culture of martyrdom, you might say.  Members
> are constantly regaled with stories of individuals who stood by their
> beliefs, despite threats (or acts of) extreme violence.

That's true of most religions - ones that are perceived well and ones 
that aren't.

> Can you blame them, after all that, for sticking with what they believe,
> whether or not it's popular?

Depends on the belief.  I can't respect those who continue to stand by 
this idea of intelligent design as a scientific approach to explaining 
the world given the massive amount of evidence that it's simply not the 
case - any more than I can respect those who still believe the world is 
flat and the moon landings were faked.

>>>> It's also highly ironic that the Church's historic "marriage" is
>>>> polygamistic (still practiced by some sects,
>>> Still practiced by excommunicated members.  There are no "sects" of
>>> the LDS Church practicing polygamy... whenever anyone is discovered
>>> practicing it, they are excommunicated immediately.
>> 
>> I stand corrected, but that also ignores the history of the Church and
>> what was "traditional" from the church's point of view.  How many wives
>> did Joseph Smith have again?
> 
> The stance on polygamy is quite clear.  It was practiced because God
> allowed it to be.  It was halted because God commanded it to be. There's
> nothing else to it.

Well, there again, it's awfully convenient that God decided it was no 
longer allowed to be practiced when the laws of man made it illegal in 
the state of Utah.  That also doesn't sound like divine revelation, but 
more of an "oh crap, we're going to run afoul of the laws of the land 
unless we change".

But also this whole notion of "traditional marriage" being defended - I 
guess that depends on whose tradition you're following as well, given 
that it was the tradition of the early LDS church (and other groups like 
the FLDS even today) that it is/was polygamistic in nature.  So while 
some groups are screaming that "traditional marriage must be defended at 
all costs", they're talking about their traditions which may go back 
hundreds or thousands of years, but for those in the LDS Church, it's 
more like a hundred years or so (the practice ended in the late 19th 
century, right?)

Jim

Post a reply to this message