logo Sign In

Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon — Page 30

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Probably. One of my personal failings is that I’m lazy. And yes, it’s better to only discriminate over one thing than over several things. But it’s still discrimination. I’m not going to hand out an attaboy because Mormons discriminate less than some other religions.

That’s fine. I’m not expecting attaboys. I just don’t appreciate the much darker picture the NYT article paints. I don’t appreciate my church being treated with prejudice any more than I appreciate the prejudice any members of my faith display towards others.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

Probably. One of my personal failings is that I’m lazy. And yes, it’s better to only discriminate over one thing than over several things. But it’s still discrimination. I’m not going to hand out an attaboy because Mormons discriminate less than some other religions.

That’s fine. I’m not expecting attaboys.

I’ve changed my mind. You can have this one.

Close enough?

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

First, I don’t share the same views as my church on most matters in this regard.

Second, my point is that people misconstrue the kindness my church tries to extend. Yes, my church does believe that gays should not have the right to marry. But that is not the same as discriminating in the workplace, in medical care, or elsewhere. My church, in spite of that belief, tries to be very embracing and tries to stifle intolerance. There is clearly a difference with believing something is immoral and actively trying to harm or stifle the person doing that something.

So, your church believes that gay people should have some rights but not all of them? That seems like unnecessary fence sitting. While it isn’t directly harming gay people, saying they shouldn’t marry does harm their right to liberty and pursuit of happiness — and there’s no good reason to not let them marry.

Author
Time

I don’t think they’re fence sitting. They legitimately believe that God does not approve of premarital sex, and if you let them marry then you’d have to let them have sex, which they also believe God does not approve of.

Which I find quite ridiculous.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

Probably. One of my personal failings is that I’m lazy. And yes, it’s better to only discriminate over one thing than over several things. But it’s still discrimination. I’m not going to hand out an attaboy because Mormons discriminate less than some other religions.

That’s fine. I’m not expecting attaboys.

I’ve changed my mind. You can have this one.

Close enough?

Man! Now I feel like a woman.

Author
Time

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

First, I don’t share the same views as my church on most matters in this regard.

Second, my point is that people misconstrue the kindness my church tries to extend. Yes, my church does believe that gays should not have the right to marry. But that is not the same as discriminating in the workplace, in medical care, or elsewhere. My church, in spite of that belief, tries to be very embracing and tries to stifle intolerance. There is clearly a difference with believing something is immoral and actively trying to harm or stifle the person doing that something.

So, your church believes that gay people should have some rights but not all of them? That seems like unnecessary fence sitting. While it isn’t directly harming gay people, saying they shouldn’t marry does harm their right to liberty and pursuit of happiness — and there’s no good reason to not let them marry.

Hence, why I disagree.

Author
Time

On a sort of unrelated subject, at what point would it become beyond the pale for a person to associate with a certain group that has bad ideas? We see this all the time: group is associated with bad ideas, person in group says they aren’t in group for those bad ideas. But at some point those bad ideas must become the group.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

Probably. One of my personal failings is that I’m lazy. And yes, it’s better to only discriminate over one thing than over several things. But it’s still discrimination. I’m not going to hand out an attaboy because Mormons discriminate less than some other religions.

That’s fine. I’m not expecting attaboys.

I’ve changed my mind. You can have this one.

Close enough?

Man! Now I feel like a woman.

Well played.

Author
Time

There is a church disciplinary process that makes that determination. Usually, holding an idea is not enough. It is advocating for those ideas publicly after multiple instances of being instructed to desist that leads to excommunication.

Does that answer your question?

Author
Time

I thought he meant why would you be a part of a group that you disagree with something like this on?

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

Does that answer your question?

No, I wasn’t talking about excommunication. I was talking about groups with ideologies more generally. Lemme see if I can explain myself a little better:

  • A group at large holds an amount of ideologies.
  • Some of those ideologies may be bad ones.
  • A person who identifies with that group says that they only support the good/laudable ideologies of the group, not the bad ones.
  • Hence the question: at what point does a group hold so many bad ideologies that it becomes necessary to disassociate from the group?

This is probably best suited for another thread… but which?

Author
Time

That’s a good question. First, let me ask you a question: what group(s) do you belong to where you hold every one of their ideologies to be correct and good?

Author
Time

This forum, right? We all agree on everything. #rotjpigmen

Author
Time

Well, you kind of stumped me there. I don’t think I try to associate with many groups, which I think may be part of my aversion to labels that I described a few months back. But I guess if I were forced to answer your question, I’d say there’s very few or no group that I believe to have universally good ideologies.

Author
Time

yhwx said:

which I think may be part of my aversion to labels that I described a few months back.

please remind me when/where that was.

Author
Time

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

Does that answer your question?

No, I wasn’t talking about excommunication. I was talking about groups with ideologies more generally. Lemme see if I can explain myself a little better:

  • A group at large holds an amount of ideologies.
  • Some of those ideologies may be bad ones.
  • A person who identifies with that group says that they only support the good/laudable ideologies of the group, not the bad ones.
  • Hence the question: at what point does a group hold so many bad ideologies that it becomes necessary to disassociate from the group?

This is probably best suited for another thread… but which?

It probably varies from situation to situation.

. It depends upon the importance of the group in your life. Leaving your book club just can’t be compared to leaving your church or your religion.

. It depends upon how bad the ideology/ideologies that the group has that you disagree with. How important are they. How important are they to you.

. It depends upon what chance you think you may have at influencing change in regards the ideology/ideologies.

. It could also depend how long you’ve been a part of said group. The longer you are with a group, the more difficult it becomes to leave it. I have literally be a part of my church my whole life. There is a nursery in my church where people can take babies to be looked after while they attend the service and/or Sunday school. I used to be a baby in that nursery. I couldn’t leave my church over something minor, it would have to be something big, huge.

. It depends up how compromising you can be. Some just can compromise and/or agree to disagree as much as others can.

. It probably depends upon several various factors which I am just not thinking of right now

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

This forum, right? We all agree on everything. #rotjpigmen

Ah, but if one had their druthers!

Thanks for the detailed take on the article, ender. Good thing about religion in this country is that it’s voluntary.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

If you discriminate Mormons for holding those views by, for example, speaking unkindly, making prejudiced remarks, not welcoming to a barbecue, or refusing to hire one for a job, then that’s not okay.

This is something that really irritates me. Speaking unkindly about someone’s philosophy is not discriminatory and making remarks about how bad someone’s religious ideology is is not being prejudiced. If the Mormon I’m welcoming to my barbecue doesn’t talk about his faith when no one wants to hear about it, then I’m cool with him or her, but they’re devout in their religion and believe that my lifestyle is abhorrent and a crime against the almighty, then I would probably find it uncomfortable to be welcoming. Refusing to hire someone for a job is different, but again, if they’re extremely outspoken and don’t keep their religion to their self while on the job, then I wouldn’t want to hire them. No matter how much you try to do this, it not compelling or fair to equate not liking someone’s philosophy with not liking someone’s immutable characteristics.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

darth_ender said:

If you discriminate Mormons for holding those views by, for example, speaking unkindly, making prejudiced remarks, not welcoming to a barbecue, or refusing to hire one for a job, then that’s not okay.

This is something that really irritates me. Speaking unkindly about someone’s philosophy is not discriminatory and making remarks about how bad someone’s religious ideology is is not being prejudiced.

First, I am not suggesting that you cannot disagree with a religion over specific beliefs. I am not at all indicating that my faith is immune from your criticism because of the different view on this topic.

But referring to the rest of your post, you are actually very wrong. A great deal of prejudice has been exhibited towards people for the religious beliefs. It has served as the underpinning for the violation of the rights of religious groups throughout history, even going so far as to lead to violence. My own faith has a long history of bigotry towards it. People have been vandalous and violent towards my faith. You can disagree without being discriminatory, but many people use their disagreement to get to the point of bigotry without even acknowledging the inherent evil of their actions.

If the Mormon I’m welcoming to my barbecue doesn’t talk about his faith when no one wants to hear about it, then I’m cool with him or her, but they’re devout in their religion and believe that my lifestyle is abhorrent and a crime against the almighty, then I would probably find it uncomfortable to be welcoming.

You are welcome to feel that way. My point is that you should not withhold your neighborly kindness just because you find something that other individual holds to be contrary to your moral worldview. How would it be if I invited my neighbors to a barbecue, but only those who abstained from sex before marriage? Would that not seem discriminatory?

How about politics? Are you going to justified in excluding people of a different political affiliation from you from jobs, parties, or other events simply because their personal philosophy differs from mine and can be changed? No, it remains bigoted to do so.

Refusing to hire someone for a job is different, but again, if they’re extremely outspoken and don’t keep their religion to their self while on the job, then I wouldn’t want to hire them. No matter how much you try to do this, it not compelling or fair to equate not liking someone’s philosophy with not liking someone’s immutable characteristics.

This is truly where people draw a false line. Yes, homosexuality is more immutable and unchangeable than a religious philosophy, but mankind’s draw to religion is certainly immutable, and the passion and strength that causes a person to cling to such views are not changed as easily as deciding what to have for breakfast. How many people have died for their faith? Why were they so committed? In terms of influence and self-definition, I’m afraid that the characteristics of one’s faith are not as different from sexual preference as you seem to believe.

Author
Time

yhwx said:

Well, you kind of stumped me there. I don’t think I try to associate with many groups, which I think may be part of my aversion to labels that I described a few months back. But I guess if I were forced to answer your question, I’d say there’s very few or no group that I believe to have universally good ideologies.

So in answer to your question, even though I differ with my church on a few things, I love most everything about it. I believe that our recently deceased president was indeed a prophet, but that does not make him infallible. I believe my church has been wrong before, is wrong on this issue, but will continue to strive to understand God’s will. I believe that there is nothing closer on earth to understanding that will than my church, but that the Church is not right about everything. Just because I am not in 100% agreement, I still am happy to consider myself a Mormon.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

moviefreakedmind said:

darth_ender said:

If you discriminate Mormons for holding those views by, for example, speaking unkindly, making prejudiced remarks, not welcoming to a barbecue, or refusing to hire one for a job, then that’s not okay.

This is something that really irritates me. Speaking unkindly about someone’s philosophy is not discriminatory and making remarks about how bad someone’s religious ideology is is not being prejudiced.

First, I am not suggesting that you cannot disagree with a religion over specific beliefs. I am not at all indicating that my faith is immune from your criticism because of the different view on this topic.

I’m not talking disagreement, I’m talking about finding a religious philosophy to be fabricated, unlikable, and out of place in modern society. I find many political philosophies to fit that description and no one screams bigotry when I am hard on those views, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to give religion a free pass because it means more to some people. I think it’s extremely problematic to do so. Look at the conversation with Warbler that I had a couple months ago where people are still willing to give the Pope a free pass even on matters of the child sex abuse cover ups purely because he’s the pope and Catholics like him so he shouldn’t be criticized too harshly. Well, he doesn’t a free pass from me, no matter how fancy his hat and robes are.

But referring to the rest of your post, you are actually very wrong. A great deal of prejudice has been exhibited towards people for the religious beliefs. It has served as the underpinning for the violation of the rights of religious groups throughout history, even going so far as to lead to violence. My own faith has a long history of bigotry towards it. People have been vandalous and violent towards my faith. You can disagree without being discriminatory, but many people use their disagreement to get to the point of bigotry without even acknowledging the inherent evil of their actions.

I don’t condone bigotry, violence, or vandalism and I know my history so you don’t need to lecture me on that. Nobody on this forum has displayed any bigotry toward you unless there’s a troll or two that I’m forgetting about.

If the Mormon I’m welcoming to my barbecue doesn’t talk about his faith when no one wants to hear about it, then I’m cool with him or her, but they’re devout in their religion and believe that my lifestyle is abhorrent and a crime against the almighty, then I would probably find it uncomfortable to be welcoming.

You are welcome to feel that way. My point is that you should not withhold your neighborly kindness just because you find something that other individual holds to be contrary to your moral worldview.

How contrary does it have to be? I wouldn’t exclude any Mormons just because they’re Mormons. Members of my family are Mormon, in fact. But I would definitely exclude people like the man that we’re mourning in this thread because he represented and led something I consider corrupt, antiquated, and morally objectionable in countless ways.

How would it be if I invited my neighbors to a barbecue, but only those who abstained from sex before marriage? Would that not seem discriminatory?

That’s very personal information that you’d probably have to ask people for in order to even know. My example only applied to people with obnoxious outward displays of religiosity, but you could do that. It wouldn’t be a very fun or spontaneous party though. It would be discriminatory, but not in a particularly objectionable way since it just sounds like the opposite of a singles’ party.

How about politics? Are you going to justified in excluding people of a different political affiliation from you from jobs, parties, or other events simply because their personal philosophy differs from mine and can be changed? No, it remains bigoted to do so.

If the person I was hiring never shut up about their political views and repeatedly brought them to work even when told clearly not to, then yes I would fire them. I wouldn’t feel good about it. I bet I’d hate firing people, but if they pushed me to it I’d have to. If someone never shut up about their boring politics that are irrelevant to everyone but them (and we all know a person like that), then I would exclude them from jobs, parties, and other events, but not simply because they differ from me.

Refusing to hire someone for a job is different, but again, if they’re extremely outspoken and don’t keep their religion to their self while on the job, then I wouldn’t want to hire them. No matter how much you try to do this, it not compelling or fair to equate not liking someone’s philosophy with not liking someone’s immutable characteristics.

This is truly where people draw a false line. Yes, homosexuality is more immutable and unchangeable than a religious philosophy, but mankind’s draw to religion is certainly immutable, and the passion and strength that causes a person to cling to such views are not changed as easily as deciding what to have for breakfast. How many people have died for their faith? Why were they so committed? In terms of influence and self-definition, I’m afraid that the characteristics of one’s faith are not as different from sexual preference as you seem to believe.

I judge people based on what they believe, think, and the way they behave. I don’t consider religion any different than what someone believes about politics or literature or anything like that. I don’t think religion is inherently worthy of respect. It’s just more of people’s opinions and I don’t think those are inherently worthy of respect either. If what someone believes makes sense to me or is rational in some way, then I’ll respect it, but if not then I don’t. And just because I don’t respect someone’s beliefs doesn’t mean that I have something against that person on a personal level.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

I’m not talking disagreement, I’m talking about finding a religious philosophy to be fabricated, unlikable, and out of place in modern society.

That to me sounds like really strong disagreement. ender obviously finds the exact opposite.

As you say, there is a difference between immutable characteristics and beliefs. In terms of invitations to your barbecue, it sounds more like you draw a line at how someone behaves. I imagine that there are philosophies (white supremacy) out there you find so bad they you wouldn’t associate with a person who held them, no matter how polite the person acts. And maybe you wouldn’t be able to abide having a Hasidic Jew over because of the restrictions their religion places on them with regard to interactions between men and women. Or a devout Muslim with similar customs.

I think ender’s call for greater tolerance - even while being able to express disagreement - makes sense. I think ender makes a strong point that people’s “draw to religion is certainly immutable, and the passion and strength that causes a person to cling to such views are not changed as easily as deciding what to have for breakfast.”

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

I think you’re mostly right. I also should point out that I do kind of agree with Ender that there’s no reason to create conflict because someone holds personal beliefs that I don’t like, but I also don’t think that religion deserves the kind of reverence that he thinks everyone should give it.

The Person in Question