On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:59:48 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Maybe not a sin, but it seems to be a prohibition nonetheless.  Maybe
>> "Utah Mormons" are different in that regard, though (I have heard that
>> from various people, including those members of the church both inside
>> and outside of Utah).
> 
> "Utah Mormons" are the scourge of the Church, and a detriment to
> society.  They are both more judgmental and less forgiving than members
> of the Church in virtually any other part of the world.

I also don't find that to be the case.  In fact, many of my friends who 
are members of the Church here in Utah are more open-minded than some 
I've encountered out of state.  I don't know what mission work is like 
for those who are outside Utah, but I know many of the people I work with 
(and their kids who are now of the age to go on their missions) do a fair 
amount of service work instead of just "spreading the word".

> They also tend to have lower IQs, from my experience with them.

Well, I have found that to not be the case.  But whatever happened to 
judgment being reserved for God? ;-)

At the same time, I'd point out that the Church leadership is also made 
up (it seems) exclusively of Utah Mormons.....so that also doesn't speak 
well of the Church as a whole. ;-)

>> "Here's what we do, but you do what you like" isn't really giving
>> people a choice.  I wonder if one's temple recommend would be rescinded
>> (I don't know a lot about this aspect of the church) if one said "yes,
>> I drink Mountain Dew regularly".
> 
> No, it would not.  Now, if you drank Coffee or Tea, then yes.

Interesting.  Of course, it also seemed quite interesting to me that part 
of the prohibition on caffeine seemed to be lifted when Coca-Cola opened 
a bottling plant here in SLC.  The plant is now closed (I believe).  But 
Diet Coke is very, very popular here.

>> See, there's the problem.  "Blacks are equal, but only at some date in
>> the future".  That doesn't work for me any more than "All men are
>> created equal" does in the historical context of "men" being "white
>> males who own property".
> 
> I never claimed it was accurate, only that it was what the Mormons
> believe.  Besides, for a somewhat conservative religion springing out of
> 19th century revivalism, it seems quite progressive.
>
> That the world eventually caught up and passed them isn't their fault.
> After all, they were waiting for God to say, "When."

Progressive, perhaps, but as I said elsewhere the timing is just too 
convenient for my tastes.

>> No, it's not.  Recent research suggests that (a) it's more natural than
>> some people want to believe, and (b) that it's genetic and not a
>> learned trait.
> 
> That's more in line with the research I've seen as well.

It'll be interesting to observe how this plays out and at what point we 
start hearing "well, Gays are equal, but it hadn't been revealed to us 
when that would happen".  From the outside looking in, there seems to be 
a fair amount of revisionist history in the Church.  As you've studied it 
and are apparently a former member, I wonder what your perspective on 
that is?

Jim

Post a reply to this message