 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:16:17 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> OK. When I talk of "The Church" (or "The Union"), I'm speaking of the
> organization, and not the individuals that comprise it (even as a
> group).
Well, in that case it's completely ridiculous to say the Church 'says"
anything as it does not have a mouth nor a voice independent of its
membership or leadership.
By that same logic, the US government has no stand on Iran, genocide, or
other things because the US government is a non-sentient entity. What
the President or members of congress (or the judiciary) say about issues
doesn't reflect the beliefs of the branches of government they represent
because the branches cannot express their positions as they are non-
sentient.
The reality is that an organization takes a stand on an issue when either
the leadership takes a stand or the membership (in large enough numbers)
all moves in the same direction on the issue.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 I wonder if one's temple recommend would be rescinded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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:14:21 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> (In fact, members are frequently reminded to continue asking God if
> everything they've heard recently in Church is true, and if they should
> accept it).
That's interesting - so if the member doesn't accept something and starts
to try to explain to others why they don't, then the church leadership
"comes down on them" if they teach their alternative view or preach it
from the pulpit?
That "threat" of being booted out of the church for trying to promote an
alternative view seems to run counter to the "reminder" you describe
above. I might even think it is more likely that it's a way to get
people to try to integrate the teachings of their church leadership into
what they've already been taught, rather than to promote challenging the
ideas.
Since the consequence of not accepting what they've heard in the Church
is true and then speaking out when they reach the conclusion that it
isn't is to be excommunicated or removed from their position (BYU
professorship or other position in the Church).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:11:50 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> How many BYU professors (for
>> example) have been dismissed for being seen to be challenging the
>> Church's authority?
>
> That's actually an instance where I would side with the Church.
>
> BYU is a privately funded university, and the Church has a vested
> interest in keeping tabs on what, exactly, is taught there. I'd expect
> them to be hard on professors that don't toe the line, just like I would
> a private school run by Jehovah's Witnesses, or Jesuits, or any other
> religious group.
Well, I would agree as well, but I would also think that as a place of
higher education, they should also lose their accreditation in areas
where that has happened. For example (not that this has happened), if
the Church decides that creationism should be taught as a science, sure,
they're welcome to do that. But the accrediting body has the right (and
quite possibly the obligation) to pull their accreditation for teaching
science since creationism isn't a scientific area of study, but a
religious one.
> It's not like they're using state funds to run the place. If you don't
> like what they teach, then don't go there - go to University of Utah
> instead, which is a public university.
Well, my wife did go there - Church members get a deep discount on
tuition, and as an accredited University, it opens doors. The leader of
the team that created NetWare (Drew Major) graduated from the Computer
Science program at BYU, in fact. My stepson goes to the UofU.
As an interesting side note, it just occurred to me (because you said
they don't take state funding) that it's ironic that very large segments
of the membership think that Obama is a socialist (I've heard some at
work state that they believe that), but they pay their 10% income tithe
regularly in order to support the Church's outreach programs, to help the
poor, and to help lower the cost of tuition a their school. It seems
that that is just a bit more socialist than they claim Obama is.
I hadn't thought about that before this conversation. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> But also this whole notion of "traditional marriage" being defended
"Traditional" marriage when I was born didn't include allowing whites to
marry blacks, either, so I'm not sure I *want* to support "traditional
marriage."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:14:18 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But also this whole notion of "traditional marriage" being defended
>
> "Traditional" marriage when I was born didn't include allowing whites to
> marry blacks, either, so I'm not sure I *want* to support "traditional
> marriage."
Yeah, agreed with that. It strikes me that those who defend so-called
"traditional marriage" don't really know what traditional marriage is.
They've co-opted the term to mean "one man and one woman", but that's
actually a relatively recent thing when it comes to the history of
humanity, from what I've read on the subject.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> As an interesting side note, it just occurred to me (because you said
> they don't take state funding) that it's ironic that very large segments
> of the membership think that Obama is a socialist (I've heard some at
> work state that they believe that), but they pay their 10% income tithe
> regularly in order to support the Church's outreach programs, to help the
> poor, and to help lower the cost of tuition a their school. It seems
> that that is just a bit more socialist than they claim Obama is.
>
> I hadn't thought about that before this conversation. :-)
>
> Jim
Religious people are never against religious socialism, just secular
government socialism. Why? Because the later they equate with Soviet
Russia, China, North Korea, and other places where "socialist" doesn't
mean, "We all share and share alike", but rather, "You share what I tell
you to, or I shoot you!" Mind... one could argue that this isn't much
different than what churches have done throughout history, or the
political maneuvering they do now, just without the ability to simply
shoot people that disagree. Basically, if the state wanted to give every
child a laptop, that would be bad, because the state is "forcing" them
to receive laptops, and using our money to do it. If the church wanted
to do the same thing, it would be a "good thing (tm)", instead. What
disgusts me is cases where its not a laptop, but, "A few crackers and
some free milk, so that the local poor kids get at least one half assed
meal that isn't from McDonalds." That is also "bad", if the state does
it, instead of a church group. (This literally happened a few years back.)
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> It wasn't until later that "both" fell out of favor. And the polygamy
>> mainly because more liberal groups,
>
> It had nothing to do with falling out of favor (see my reply to Jim on
> popular opinion) or because of liberal groups within the Church.
>
> The practice of Polygamy was halted because the President at the time
> (Wilford Woodruff, I believe) said that God told him it was time to stop.
>
Snort. Yeah, well.. Try that today, if it was still as common as it was,
and they would be calling the man a god hating atheist liberal, no
matter what his position was. But, your probably right. Liberal groups
in churches don't change policies, they just lend undue support to the
ones that *do* support the policy, until such a time as the people
supporting it die off, and are replaced by people that support the new
order of things.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:22:22 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Religious people are never against religious socialism, just secular
> government socialism. Why? Because the later they equate with Soviet
> Russia, China, North Korea, and other places [...]
That's quite possibly true, though it's interesting to me that there's a
required 10% tithe in the LDS church (if you want to stay in good
standing) that goes to funding the sorts of things I mentioned earlier -
BYU tuition reductions, stocking the Bishops' storehouses, etc, etc,
etc.
The difference between "religious socialism" (I like that term) and
"government socialism" is that the latter has control over your life in
the here and now. The former? Well, that's just your eternal soul we're
talking about - so doing it at that point is good for your eternal
existence. But as for taking care of people in the current existence,
eh, screw 'em. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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?
I can see how you view it as revisionist, and it certainly can appear to
be that way. However, there are some subtle distinctions between
allowing black men to hold the Priesthood, and allowing homosexuals to.
First of all, Blacks weren't excluded because of anything they
themselves did, but because they happened to be born in a certain
family. As such, they weren't considered responsible for their
condition, and weren't considered sinners because of their skin color.
It was always understood that, at some future point, they would be
allowed to hold the Priesthood.
Homosexuals, on the other hand, are called sinners solely because of
their actions. Whatever physical urges you might feel or experience,
the Church teaches that you are in control of your body, and not the
other way around.
As such, I have a hard time believing that the Church will ever condone
homosexual activity.
IMNSHO, however, I would be seriously annoyed if someone tried to tell
me to stop being attracted to women, and to go have sex with men
instead. In light of that, I think it would be highly hypocritical of
me to suggest that homosexuals change their orientation.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
