Darren New wrote:
> I'll assume you meant "vote against" if we're talking about the CA 
> initiatives,

My bad, I got it backwards.  Of course, I would vote for the peoples' 
right to offend religious nutjobs :)

-- 
Chambers

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.

Well, Communism and Socialism were originally propagated by extremely 
religious people.

> I hadn't thought about that before this conversation. :-)

That's not the half of it.  Mormons actually believe in a form of 
Stewardship where everything is essentially owned by the Church, but 
given to the members to use (and care for) responsibly.  However, God 
stopped asking them to try living that way, because people in general 
are too selfish, greedy and petty to live up to it.

At one point, after everyone is righteous enough, that policy will again 
be implemented.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

If someone believed that God told them that what they had heard in the 
Church weren't true, I would expect them to leave the Church on their own.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:43:10 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> If someone believed that God told them that what they had heard in the
> Church weren't true, I would expect them to leave the Church on their
> own.

What if God told them it was their mission to correct the Church?  Then 
the Church's response would be to throw them out as a heretic.

That's the problem with people saying that God speaks directly to them.  
There's no way to verify it.  Yeah, I know, that's what "faith" means, 
but faith only goes so far, and when someone contradicts the Church "in 
God's name" or "because God revealed the *Truth* to them", the Church 
doesn't react very favourably to that.

Jim

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> What if God told them it was their mission to correct the Church?  Then 
> the Church's response would be to throw them out as a heretic.

If God spoke to you tomorrow, and told you to go correct the Mormon 
church, I would assume that He also tried to speak to the current 
leaders of the Mormon church.  An action as drastic as asking you to 
correct them must mean that they aren't listening to Him anymore.

Assuming that God wants the Mormon church corrected enough to ask you to 
do it, I would also expect Him to empower you to achieve that end.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:40:17 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> 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.
> 
> Well, Communism and Socialism were originally propagated by extremely
> religious people.

An interesting point. :-)

>> I hadn't thought about that before this conversation. :-)
> 
> That's not the half of it.  Mormons actually believe in a form of
> Stewardship where everything is essentially owned by the Church, but
> given to the members to use (and care for) responsibly.  However, God
> stopped asking them to try living that way, because people in general
> are too selfish, greedy and petty to live up to it.

That's interesting, I hadn't heard that before.

> At one point, after everyone is righteous enough, that policy will again
> be implemented.

Which kinda trods on God's grant of "free will", no?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:28:13 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> 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.

Well, note that I didn't say "gays in the Priesthood", I was just talking 
about equality.

> 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.

Given the relatively short history of the Church, I'm wondering when that 
"always" began.  Is it something that was "revealed" to Joseph Smith, for 
example?  Or did that revelation come later?

> 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.

That's pretty consistent with what other Christian sects teach as well.

> As such, I have a hard time believing that the Church will ever condone
> homosexual activity.

Well, I would tend to agree with it, but at the same time, if that were 
to come forth in a revelation of some sort (in the same way that the 
Church's views on polygamy changed - isn't it now considered a sin, but 
it didn't used to be?).

> 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.

Yeah, same here.  It's a shame that more people don't adopt that attitude 
and try to understand what it is that those who are saying "no, dude, you 
can't get married to that dude over there because YOU'RE DUDES AND THAT'S 
JUST ICK ICK ICK!" are being put through as a result.

I've said it many times before, but the fact that my BIL married his 
partner of many, many years doesn't affect MY marriage or MY feelings 
towards my wife one iota.  Of course I'm happy for them, but it doesn't 
cheapen my marriage at all, and I completely fail to understand how it is 
that some people can say that it does (or should) - for me or for them.  
I feel sorry for those whom it does make their relationship with their 
spouse "less special" - but it shows that their relationship isn't as 
strong as perhaps they want, so they're looking for an excuse.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:59:22 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> What if God told them it was their mission to correct the Church?  Then
>> the Church's response would be to throw them out as a heretic.
> 
> If God spoke to you tomorrow, and told you to go correct the Mormon
> church, I would assume that He also tried to speak to the current
> leaders of the Mormon church.  An action as drastic as asking you to
> correct them must mean that they aren't listening to Him anymore.

It certainly could happen.  Leaders often make mistakes or go on a "power 
trip" when given authority.  Look at the history of monarchies where the 
power the monarch received was "granted by God".  I don't see this as all 
that different.

> Assuming that God wants the Mormon church corrected enough to ask you to
> do it, I would also expect Him to empower you to achieve that end.

Perhaps, though the struggle/journey may have benefit as well for the 
long term.  That's the problem with trying to second-guess God's 
motivations, too.  There may be a reason why he might put someone on a 
collision course with the Church leadership that isn't apparent to anyone.

I was raised Lutheran myself, though - though I identify as non-Christian 
now (I'd probably say mostly agnostic to be honest - don't know if 
there's a God or not, don't really care, I guess I may find out at some 
point.  I just try to live a good life as best I can).  The idea of a God 
who meddles in earthy affairs bothers me, though.  Assuming the creation 
story happened in a way that's perhaps vaguely similar to the story in 
Genesis, it seems likely that if there is a God, he may have defined the 
parameters of the Universe (physics, for example) and set things in 
motion.  But once the rules for how things interact in the universe were 
set, they can't be changed.

Assuming there is a God of course. :)

There was a very interesting Asmiov short story along these lines, but 
"God" was a child playing with a model, and he got bored with it after a 
while and just walked away from it.  The idea's been used in other 
stories (there even is a Simpson's Halloween special that played with the 
idea IIRC - I think Lisa was their "god" figure), and Asimov may've been 
riffing on someone else's idea.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Assuming the creation 
> story happened in a way that's perhaps vaguely similar to the story in 
> Genesis, it seems likely that if there is a God, he may have defined the 
> parameters of the Universe (physics, for example) and set things in 
> motion.

That's a complete non-sequitar. How is Genesis anything like "setting up 
physics then sitting back and watching"?

(This is the sort of thing where someone says "I believe in God", and you 
get things like "10 things you have to think about" videos that make no 
sense in relationship to.)

-- 
   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 9-7-2009 9:57, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:59:22 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> I was raised Lutheran myself, though - though I identify as non-Christian 
> now (I'd probably say mostly agnostic to be honest - don't know if 
> there's a God or not, don't really care, I guess I may find out at some 
> point.  I just try to live a good life as best I can). 

Some time ago I learned, and I think it was here, that that is not what 
'agnostic' means. An agnost is someone who thinks that he *can* not know 
the answer to fundamental questions like the existence of one or more 
Gods. That is fundamentally different from someone who merely does not 
know, or doesn't care. Usage has been watered down and now often 
(erroneously) include your opinion, basically because people forgot to 
create a word to name that. Then again a word means what it is used for, 
so perhaps there is now no word anymore to describe an agnost in the 
original sense.
BTW is there in English a word to describe someone who thinks there is a 
higher power but does not know what exactly? In Dutch we have the newly 
created 'ietsist' for that (Dutch 'iets' means something).

Post a reply to this message