darth_ender

moviefreakedmind said:

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.

Actually, I feel there is a great deal of bigotry regarding political philosophies. Of course, there are those groups who clearly hold abhorrent views, but I believe there is a great deal of prejudice just between the two major American parties.

I said already that you are welcome to critique the pope for his specific actions. Likewise, I have said multiple times that you can critique my church.

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.

I don’t feel like I am even approaching a lecturing attitude. If anyone is coming off as condescending in this conversation, I don’t feel it’s me. And I did not indicate that anyone was treating me in a bigoted fashion (though there are certainly those who have here in the past). In fact, this was never the point of my argument. You have sidetracked the conversation, which was actually that my church may not be perfect, but they make a great deal of effort to display Christ-like love towards everyone, including homosexuals. I was trying to point out that people who paint Mormonism as completely hostile towards homosexuals are being unfair, and I was using a parallel example in Frink’s attitude towards my faith.

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.

Well, that is your right. Unfortunately, you have demonstrated in times past that you misunderstand my faith. To be truthful, even if I were not Mormon, I would rather accept the man we are mourning in this thread to any event because, regardless of how I differ with him on the topic of homosexuality, I believe he has lived nothing but a life of kindness towards others. On the other hand, I’d have a harder time accepting someone with your attitude towards humanity in general, as your views approach sociopathy and misanthropy. I don’t mean to turn this into an ad hominem attack, but I have a hard time accepting lecturing on how to treat humanity from someone who has admitted to hating the majority of people. Perhaps that is, in fact, the primary reason you have such a negative outlook on my faith, while refusing to see the good.

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.

It’s just an example, and not necessarily a realistic one. Its purpose is illustrative, but there definitely are people who openly and obnoxious in sharing such information. And while perhaps a lame example, it still is an example of unkindness and exclusivity.

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.

You seem to conflate several arguments. I am talking about someone who just holds those views, regardless of how open or quiet they are about them.

Look, you came into my thread (or barbecue, if you will) with a strong opinion, which you have not shied away from. Yet, I continue to allow you to post these things without demanding you leave. Quite frankly, I’m not a fan of your negative opinions of those whose views differ from yours. However, I can still tolerate your opinion, as mutable as it is or objectionable as I find it.

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.

I get it. I don’t like a lot of opinions either. But if you truly feel this way, why did you even bring this topic up? That was my point about the whole thing. Just because Church leadership opposes homosexuality in a general sense doesn’t mean they are trying to be hurtful or unkind on a personal level. There is a great deal the Church has done that is good and kind, even towards homosexuals. My point was that, if people take issue with the Church’s views, they might want to remember all the good the Church has endeavored to do as well. To label an entire thing as evil based on only a few isolated points while neglecting the overall picture is ignorant and bigoted. It applies to sexual orientation, religion (which, again, was merely an illustration), politics, race, sex, etc.

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.

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.

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?

I can’t keep responding, folks. This is why I hate posting in this thread. Too much to do!

CatBus said:

darth_ender said:

or there is CNN and MSNBC

I hear this from a lot of conservatives. Do you really think there’s an anti-Trump bias here, or is this just a counterpoint to the left of FOX? All the standard leftist media boogeymen (CNN, MSNBC, NPR, NYT) seem pretty pro-Trump to me so far, just pro-Trump by omission rather than pro-Trump by commission like FOX. That’s the view from the left at least.

Just a quick look at CNN.com has several headlines that are embarrassing for Trump. Usually, I see far more. It’s often a mixture of news and opinion articles that are disparaging towards him. I’ll be honest, a part of me enjoys it and fills me with a proud “I told ya so” attitude towards the Republican Party of which I am a former member. On the other hand, I can’t help but feel like it’s excessive to the point that I find some of it hard to believe–like such extreme saturation of negative Trump news that it’s hard to know what’s really true and what is actually just people trying desperately to bring him down.

For the record, I still hope he does get brought down. I feel he is tremendously dangerous to our country and the world.

I don’t think the newspapers or national networks are much more objective than cable programs, but I did deliberately choose polarized examples.

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?

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.

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.

I think that is very illustrative of the news culture today. Don’t get me wrong, I think Trump is a slimy, dangerous schmuck who has hijacked the GOP and exposed a number of its adherents for the gullible fools that they are. However, there is no real news anymore. Either there is Fox News, which always puts a positive spin on every idiotic thing the president does, or there is CNN and MSNBC, who will probably come out with articles in the near future alleging that Trump can’t fart right or brushes with toothpaste made in a North Korean sweat shop. There is virtually no objectivity any longer.

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.

Warbler said:

I do not understand the need to restrict children of same sex marriages. It smacks of punishing the kids for the acts of the parents. Regarding the requirement for children of same sex marriages to disavow same sex marriages when they reach 18, why not simply require that of all children when they reach 18?

Did you see the comparison with children in polygamous Mormon homes?

As for the disavowing thing, it’s a good question. I personally cannot disavow it, and were I a convert seeking baptism, but I had it withheld for that reason, I would have a real hard time with that.

I think, however, that it’s important to determine both intent as well as behavior.

TV’s Frink said:

I read your post for a little while, got frustrated, and gave up. It’s the same “we’re great to homosexuals!” rah-rah talking points that avoids the fact that your religion discriminates against homosexuals as always. But don’t feel bad, you’re not alone.

It also means that you might not have gotten the full picture I was trying to paint.

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.

Do you believe it is immoral for my church to hold these views? That’s fine. If you are embracing of Mormons and have open dialogue of why you disagree, that’s great. 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. If you are destroying or damaging Mormon property for our views, then that’s definitely not okay.

My point is that just because you disagree on the morality of the behavior, it doesn’t mean you have to be unkind or discriminatory.

Perhaps you both should reread what was written as well as the link.

You’ll be missed 😃

Regarding the NYT article, I find it notoriously inaccurate, unrepresentative, and sensationalist. Does it dwell on any of his good deeds or contributions? Not much until it first “clears the air” of all the controversial topics. It primarily focuses on what it sees as his and the Church’s faults and shortcomings, obviously due to their contradiction to the beliefs of the writer.

I can address a few items here briefly.

“Facing vociferous demands to recognize same-sex marriage, and weathering demonstrations at church headquarters by Mormon women pleading for the right to be ordained as priests, Mr. Monson did not bend. Teachings holding homosexuality to be immoral, bans on sexual intercourse outside male-female marriages, and an all-male priesthood would remain unaltered.”

These remain true, but the article does not mention the Church’s advocacy for legislation in Utah that outlawed discrimination against homosexuals. It does not mention that the majority of Christian and other faiths believe sex outside of marriage to be a sin. It does not mention how the Church has repeatedly advocated for women’s rights or addressed the nature of male/female roles in the world.

From The Family: A Proclamation to the World:

“Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

This proclamation goes to great length to describe what we believe God has intended: not that men and women are inequal, but that their roles are different. Yes, it’s old-fashioned to modern ears, but we do not believe it to be discriminatory or disrespectful. Just different. During the height of the Ordain Women movement, the Church even addressed it in public church talks from its highest leaders.

What is interesting is that the article paints a picture of huge mobs criticizing the Church’s stance. While there are those outside the Church making such demands and criticisms, the majority within the Church, both men and women, oppose such a move. Interestingly, men within the Church actually favored giving women the priesthood more often than women did.

“Some Mormons faced sanctions for questioning church positions on women’s roles. Kate Kelly, a feminist Mormon lawyer, was excommunicated on a charge of apostasy in 2014 after founding the organization Ordain Women.”

Yes, chronologically it took place after forming the organization. But it also took place after repeated efforts to correct what we believe was a false teaching. Very seldom does an individual get excommunicated immediately, even when teaching things contrary to our doctrine. Repeated efforts are made to correct the behavior, and only after repeated defiance does an individual get excommunicated.

From NYT:

"Although the church officially abandoned plural marriages in 1890, it was a defiantly polygamous theocracy in the mid-19th century. In a 2014 teaching, ‘Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo,’ the church said that Joseph Smith, the church founder, had married as many as 40 women, some of them already married. It said that Smith was a reluctant polygamist, agreeing to multiple marriages only after an angel threatened him with a sword.

“Some critics, said that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had previously contended that Smith had been happily married to only one woman, and that the new teaching — in the words of the website OnceDelivered.net, which identified itself as an expression of the Baptist faith — had used Scripture to ‘address the inconvenient truth of Smith’s polygamy.’”

This is probably the most blatant falsehood in the article, as our church has long admitted that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. I mentioned the Community of Christ recently. This organization was once known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It was once a far more conservative organization, and it split with my church largely because its adherents believed that Brigham Young and the other Twelve Apostles instituted polygamy on their own without Joseph Smith’s sanction. They have only recently taken a more neutral viewpoint on what was once absolute doctrine: Joseph Smith never had more than one wife. There has never been a time when we did not admit such things. We may not broadcast it loudly, and we do believe that Joseph’s marriage to Emma was a much deeper emotional commitment for him, while the others were done more out of duty. Nevertheless, we have never hidden that fact from public eye or Church membership. I guess when you leave statements like “some critics” making certain claims, it leaves a great deal open to speculation and can hide the nature of the reality of the situation.

Of homosexual relationships, I will not pretend that I am in 100% agreement with how my church handles it. Nevertheless, it is clear that the intent has always been to preserve familial happiness.

“But in 2015, Mr. Monson responded to the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage with a letter read in Mormon churches saying that sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage ‘are contrary to the laws of God.’ And, further drawing the line, the church declared same-sex couples to be apostates and restricted their children from baptisms and other rites.”

I don’t believe the Church has ever labeled homosexuals as apostates; certainly not in the referenced 2015 letter or in recent years. Yes, they may be excommunicated for homosexual behavior (with which I disagree, personally), but they are not apostates. Even though I’m sure many here will take issue with my church’s doctrine on homosexuality, but I don’t believe any honest individual could ever state that the Church was acting in any malicious or cruel manner. The Church did receive a great deal of criticism for disallowing ordinances to children living in a home with two gay parents, but that criticism was clearly misrepresenting the intent: the Church does not want to foster a conflicting environment where the culture within the home is contrary to the doctrines of the Church. There is a similar standard with children who come from fundamentalist polygamous families. The same Church that embraces its history of polygamy does not allow it any longer and pursues action against any practitioners within its membership. ]If a child wishes to be baptized but lives in a polygamous home, the child may not be baptized until 18 years old and disavowing polygamous marriage](https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson). This is not to punish the children, but so as not to put them in a compromising situation where they accept teachings so different from what is practiced in their own home.

Interestingly, the apostle speaking in that article, D. Todd Christofferson, has a homosexual brother who is in a committed gay relationship, yet attends church. I point this out to illustrate that my church continues to try to reconcile years of doctrine and teaching on sexual morality and Christ-like love. I believe any effort to paint my church as cruel to the LGBT community is both dishonest and unfair.

So, in short, it is not an impressive article to me. However, I am sure that many found it sufficiently incriminating to reinforce their stereotypes of Mormonism.

Fixed it.

Love it, MFM! 😃

JEDIT: fixed the image.

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

I’d say they are quite comparable. We both see our respective leaders as God’s spokesperson on earth. Our president is our prophet.

I didn’t know the Mormons have such a person.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Interesting. So the Quorum of the Twelve (or Fourteen at that point?) could decide not to reorganize the presidency and they themselves lead the church without a First President?

Yes. When Joseph Smith first died, the Church was led by the Twelve for three years. For the next few successions, there were relatively long interim periods where the Twelve would lead. Beginning with Lorenzo Snow at the turn of the 20th Century, reorganizing the First Presidency became a much quicker process.

I will say this, as the articles don’t make it too clear: the next prophet has always been the president of the Quorum of the Twelve, but theoretically they could pick any member of that quorum. Also, the counselors have most often (by far) come from that quorum (thus explaining your Quorum of Fourteen point), but they do not need to. A president could pick any Melchizedek priesthood holder to be his counselors.

The Twelve Apostles gather in holy vestments for what is known as the Arm of the Lord. They take turns arm wrestling until one reigns as champion. This is followed by a chess championship, round robin-style, known as the Mind of God. Finally, they hold a pole vaulting exercise called the Leap of Faith. Whoever scores best among the three events is declared to be the one chosen by God and becomes the next prophet.

Actually, there is a nice, orderly process.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/additional-resource/succession-in-the-presidency-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900006782/how-the-lds-church-chooses-its-new-president.html

Interestingly, succession is one of my favorite topics, for while it is orderly today, when our first prophet was martyred, there was a great deal of confusion and some schism. I love studying the schismatic groups and the routes they followed. However, only the Salt Lake City-based church has a substantial following. Next would be the Community of Christ, who believed our first prophet’s son, Joseph Smith III, should succeed his father. They have followed a very different path to the present day and hardly resemble us in any fashion at this point. While my church is approaching 16 million members, theirs only has roughly 250,000.

I’d say they are quite comparable. We both see our respective leaders as God’s spokesperson on earth. Our president is our prophet.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900006756/president-thomas-s-monson-16th-prophet-of-the-lds-church-dies-after-a-lifetime-spent-going-to-the-rescue.html