LDS II: The Mormons

[AdMan]

Instead of trying to address each point individually I will make this point. Anyone that joins a religious sect, It doesn't matter what cult/sect a person chooses, should, at the very least, find out the history of that cult/sect. How they started. What kind of people they welcome into the fold. Find out what they stand for. What their views are on hot topic issues. To not do so is dangerous. To blindly join sects without knowing what they are about makes no sense. But that is what churches prey on, uneducated minds, and the gullible.

You say your mother only learned about the churches view when the prop 8 issue became news. Also she has been a member of the LDS since the 80's. Will you make the claim you or she didn't know about "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" that the LDS released in 1995? I don't see how your claim is you are a Mormon and not know the official stance, which it made official in its proclamation 18 years ago, of your own church on that issue.

You didn't follow through if that changed her perception of, or willingness to accept the views of her church. Any member that didn't fight the Mormon church, or leave it over this issue accepts it.

I agree. It sounds like the OP is using members' ignorance of the LDS's actual positions on issues like bigotry as somehow a defense for the church itself. Doesn't make much sense to me either.

 

[Travis]

Instead of trying to address each point individually I will make this point. Anyone that joins a religious sect, It doesn't matter what cult/sect a person chooses, should, at the very least, find out the history of that cult/sect. How they started. What kind of people they welcome into the fold. Find out what they stand for. What their views are on hot topic issues. To not do so is dangerous. To blindly join sects without knowing what they are about makes no sense. But that is what churches prey on, uneducated minds, and the gullible.

You say your mother only learned about the churches view when the prop 8 issue became news. Also she has been a member of the LDS since the 80's. Will you make the claim you or she didn't know about "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" that the LDS released in 1995? I don't see how your claim is you are a Mormon and not know the official stance, which it made official in its proclamation 18 years ago, of your own church on that issue.

You didn't follow through if that changed her perception of, or willingness to accept the views of her church. Any member that didn't fight the Mormon church, or leave it over this issue accepts it.

It's actually quite easy. There is what happens in Salt Lake and then there is what happens in the wards. Salt Lake can issue proclamations that doesn't mean it will actually be talked about in Ward X.

However that isn't the point here on this. My mom was aware of "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" but she disagreed with it. So did many others in the church.

The support for prop 8 was, however, done with a certain amount of secrecy. In other words the people at the top decided to do it and did so rather sneakily. She felt a certain betrayal over that. Until that happened the church had never openly played in politics and many in the church felt that was the way it should have stayed.

But, heck, if you want to continue believing all Mormons are homophobic racists, overflowing with hatred that never disagree with church leadership you can go right ahead and keep believing so.

 

[AdMan]

But, heck, if you want to continue believing all Mormons are homophobic racists, overflowing with hatred that never disagree with church leadership you can go right ahead and keep believing so.

Nice. Need any more straw for that?

 

[Chernobyl X1]

The support for prop 8 was, however, done with a certain amount of secrecy. In other words the people at the top decided to do it and did so rather sneakily. She felt a certain betrayal over that. Until that happened the church had never openly played in politics and many in the church felt that was the way it should have stayed.

Prop 8 wasn't the first time the LDS pulled this stunt. They were exposed doing the same thing in 1998 in Hawaii with their ban. Trying to claim the California prop 8 was the first time being sneaky over this issue is fallacious. Don't play the "This was the first time" game. It doesn't work here. It isn't now, nor has it been for 150+ years, a public secret of how the LDS church feels about equality among human beings. Nor was it the first time they blatantly use dishonest tactics assert their will on non Mormons. For instance how many times has Anne Frank been re-baptized with that morbid baptism for the dead practice, after the church was told to stop doing it?

Calling it a "belief" that your church is run by homophobes is wrong. It is a fact.

Whether you like it or not, when you come out in a public debate, you are a representative of your church and their ideas. If you don't like their ideas, it's easy to walk away from it. Or actually denounce their archaic practices. When you choose to defend the despicable behavior of the leadership, you accept those actions.

 

[Travis]

Prop 8 wasn't the first time the LDS pulled this stunt. They were exposed doing the same thing in 1998 in Hawaii with their ban. Trying to claim the California prop 8 was the first time being sneaky over this issue is fallacious. Don't play the "This was the first time" game. It doesn't work here. It isn't now, nor has it been for 150+ years, a public secret of how the LDS church feels about equality among human beings. Nor was it the first time they blatantly use dishonest tactics assert their will on non Mormons. For instance how many times has Anne Frank been re-baptized with that morbid baptism for the dead practice, after the church was told to stop doing it?

Calling it a "belief" that your church is run by homophobes is wrong. It is a fact.

Whether you like it or not, when you come out in a public debate, you are a representative of your church and their ideas. If you don't like their ideas, it's easy to walk away from it. Or actually denounce their archaic practices. When you choose to defend the despicable behavior of the leadership, you accept those actions.

My church?

I'm an atheist you know. They are hardly my church.



Anyways, here is what I want to know. Would you prefer that they never reformed their ways? Do you think it would be better if they don't reform in the future?

 

[AdMan]

Anyways, here is what I want to know. Would you prefer that they never reformed their ways? Do you think it would be better if they don't reform in the future?

That's not what you were asking earlier. You originally asked in this thread why the LDS church was being criticized about racism. It looks to me like you're being disingenuous by changing your questions to what you're asking now.

 

[Janadele]

... how many times has Anne Frank been re-baptized with that morbid baptism for the dead practice, after the church was told to stop doing it?

The LDS Church has always advised and asked members to submit only names of their family ancestors, that is and has always been so. The Church was not "told to stop doing it" who do you think did so and on what authority?

Neither you nor I know whether the name of Anne Frank has been submitted, we do not have access to that information and neither does anyone else not authorised.

What difference would it make to you anyway when you do not believe there is any relevance or legitimacy to such an ordinance?

 

[AdMan]

The LDS Church has always advised and asked members to submit only names of their family ancestors, that is and has always been so. The Church was not "told to stop doing it" who do you think did so and on what authority?

Neither you nor I know whether the name of Anne Frank has been submitted, we do not have access to that information and neither does anyone else not authorised.

What difference would it make to you anyway when you do not believe there is any relevance or legitimacy to such an ordinance?

I wouldn't care, but would your own family care if a satanic church tried to perform a post-death babtism on you?

Yeah, it's stupid, but they may not like it much. Same thing with an idiotic post-death Mormon babtism.

 

[Chernobyl X1]

My church?

I'm an atheist you know. They are hardly my church.



Anyways, here is what I want to know. Would you prefer that they never reformed their ways? Do you think it would be better if they don't reform in the future?

Sorry, my apologies for that comment. I was wrong for making that assumption.

So to answer your question. Every church that doesn't keep up with the progression of the human race faces extinction. By invoking unbelievable ideas that some silly god came to a single person and "revealed" that it changed it's mind to fit the current status quo, (as with the black preisthood) is dishonest. The LDS will reform or face extinction. Making up stories about a fickle god that bows to LDS leaders with revelations will be their dishonest approach. Instead of coming out with the truth as to why they are doing it.

 

[Chernobyl X1]

The LDS Church has always advised and asked members to submit only names of their family ancestors, that is and has always been so. The Church was not "told to stop doing it" who do you think did so and on what authority?

Neither you nor I know whether the name of Anne Frank has been submitted, we do not have access to that information and neither does anyone else not authorised.

What difference would it make to you anyway when you do not believe there is any relevance or legitimacy to such an ordinance?

The fact that this practice was started in the fist place is deplorable in nature.

Here is the article for Anne Frank: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/mormons-posthumous-baptism-anne-frank_n_1292102.html

Even Adolf Hitler & Eva Braun couldn't escape the bizarre ritual: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/hitlertemplework.htm

To address your point about who asked* the LDS to stop their offensive practice, It was the Jews.

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/hitlertemplework.htm

Behind closed temple doors, and unquestionably in defiance of the May 1995 agreement between Mormons and Jews, in which the LDS Church promised to cease temple ordinances for deceased Jews who are not direct ancestors of living Mormons, the practice never stopped.

The International Genealogical Index (IGI) has been available online since the 1990's. Information on baptism, sealing and endowments were available then and consistently updated over the years. I don't know who you are trying to fool by claiming this information is not privy to anyone. Or is this another attempt to lie for the LDS?

*my mistake for using the word "told" instead of "asked"

 

[pakeha]

...
Yes, because no one was ever killed horribly by the Catholic Church.

I think you missed my point. My point was that religion changes when society changes. ...

Weren't you talking about the Catholic Church burning witches?
Didn't I show you your statement was mistaken and misleading, to say the least?

 

[eight bits]

Travis

Huh? Where am I promoting anti-Catholic bigotry?

Initially, in your post #6, and as I already quoted (my post #18):

Do you think if society hadn't moved on the Catholic church wouldn't still be burning witches?

which slur you have yet to retract, even though several posters, from a variety of perspectives, have pointed out to you that there is no special historical connection between the Roman Catholic Church and the practice of burning accused witches.

Far from retracting, you then extended your remarks in post #20. In answering another poster (pakeha) who had pointed out the dodgy historical foundation of your remark, you wrote (graphic omitted):

Yes, because no one was ever killed horribly by the Catholic Church.

Yes, because no African American was ever discriminated against by the LDS Church.

You obviously do not see the parallelism, or you see it, but don't care when somebody else's ox is being gored. Fine, but that's how bigotry works. And you did ask, Travis.

If you want to be taken seriously that there is something uncouth in talking about your church's policy within the past 50 years, then you need seriously to consider watching your mouth about singling out somebody else's church for what it did centuries ago, when other competing churches did likewise or worse, and yet other churches still do today, often in Africa.

It also seems to need saying that to criticize the alleged sources of the "revelations" of L. Ron Hubbard, Mohammed, or the governing board of the LDS does not disparage the rank-and-file Scientologist, Muslim or Mormon. I disagree with each of them about some matters of fact, and that disagreement explains why I am not a member of their respective group. That makes me an outsider and a critic; but it does not make me a bigot.

 

[jhunter1163]

I think that, however they got there, ending the institutionalized racism of the LDS church is a good thing. Now if they would start doing something about the institutionalized sexism, that would be even better.

 

[Travis]

That's not what you were asking earlier. You originally asked in this thread why the LDS church was being criticized about racism. It looks to me like you're being disingenuous by changing your questions to what you're asking now.

I was pretty open right in my op.

I would think the people in this forum would like a church to abandon racist doctrine.

Sorry, my apologies for that comment. I was wrong for making that assumption.

So to answer your question. Every church that doesn't keep up with the progression of the human race faces extinction. By invoking unbelievable ideas that some silly god came to a single person and "revealed" that it changed it's mind to fit the current status quo, (as with the black preisthood) is dishonest. The LDS will reform or face extinction. Making up stories about a fickle god that bows to LDS leaders with revelations will be their dishonest approach. Instead of coming out with the truth as to why they are doing it.

I'm sorry but I don't follow. Can you find me a church anywhere that makes major doctrinal decisions and doesn't claim it is the will of God?

Weren't you talking about the Catholic Church burning witches?
Didn't I show you your statement was mistaken and misleading, to say the least?

No, I was talking about religion in general.

Travis


Initially, in your post #6, and as I already quoted (my post #18):


which slur you have yet to retract, even though several posters, from a variety of perspectives, have pointed out to you that there is no special historical connection between the Roman Catholic Church and the practice of burning accused witches.

If you think conflating the inquisition burnings in Spain with the witch burnings in...say Wurzburg is a slur....well then you must think people utter slurs a lot.

Beside, there were witch burnings in Catholic territory.

As well as other burnings.

Do you want to continue to defend the idea that the RCC was never involved in mass burning atrocities? Which wasn't even the point in the first place.

Far from retracting, you then extended your remarks in post #20. In answering another poster (pakeha) who had pointed out the dodgy historical foundation of your remark, you wrote (graphic omitted):

If my eyes had eyes they'd be rolling too at this point. That is how much condescension I have going right now.

Yes, because no African American was ever discriminated against by the LDS Church.

Many certainly were. What is your point?

You obviously do not see the parallelism, or you see it, but don't care when somebody else's ox is being gored. Fine, but that's how bigotry works. And you did ask, Travis.

You think I'm a bigot?

If you want to be taken seriously that there is something uncouth in talking about your church's policy within the past 50 years, then you need seriously to consider watching your mouth about singling out somebody else's church for what it did centuries ago, when other competing churches did likewise or worse, and yet other churches still do today, often in Africa.

You refer to my church. What is my church?

 

[Pup]

You didn't follow through if that changed her perception of, or willingness to accept the views of her church. Any member that didn't fight the Mormon church, or leave it over this issue accepts it.

Hopefully this won't be too much of a derail, but the above attitude is why I'm literally not a member of any group one joins voluntarily.

It seems that if one joins a group, there are people who believe one must be specifically endorsing every single policy of that group now, possibly in the past, and in the future unless one is ready to resign at any moment.

That seems unrealistic and I know many people who join groups because they agree with the issues that are important to them but not the rest, but that's little protection against those who use membership to accuse individuals of positions they don't hold. For me, the slim benefits of joining any group are far outweighed by the negative of being accused by those people of holding positions I don't hold.

So how do people who join groups deal with that? Do they really just happen to agree with the group on every issue? Or do they consider the benefits of being part of a group to be worth the false accusations?

 

[pakeha]

...

No, I was talking about religion in general.



If you think conflating the inquisition burnings in Spain with the witch burnings in...say Wurzburg is a slur....well then you must think people utter slurs a lot.

Beside, there were witch burnings in Catholic territory.

As well as other burnings.

Do you want to continue to defend the idea that the RCC was never involved in mass burning atrocities? Which wasn't even the point in the first place. ...

From your own source
"For some time the central office of the Inquisition had been sceptical about claims of magic and witchcraft, and had only sanctioned the earlier burnings with considerable reluctance, and only because of the reported mood of panic from Logroño. In August 1614 it ruled that all of the trials pending at Logroño should be dismissed. At the same time it issued new and more rigorous rules of evidence, that brought witch-burning in Spain to an end, long before the Protestant North."

1614.
I think your use of the Church burning witches was a prime example of religious bigotry ignorance on your part.
Whether you feel you can concede the point is another matter, of course.

I think you'll find the discussion of the LDS' racism is confined to a thread precisely on the subject of the LDS's policies, past and present. Wouldn't your OP have been more to the point as a post in that other thread, or was this thread started to reflect your view that JJREFs don't treat the LDS with the respect you believe it deserves?

 

[Cainkane1]

Mormons used to say African ancestried humans were descendants of Cain and dark skin was the mark of Cain. They changed their mind in 1978 and now some of the Priests are black. Joseph Smith actually owned a slave which he freed with much fanfare and as I recall the slave was given presents such as a fine horse and other perks. I forget the details.

 

[catsmate]

No, I was talking about religion in general.

You asked "Do you think if society hadn't moved on the Catholic church wouldn't still be burning witches?" thus specifically introducing the RCC and suggesting that it was principally responsible for executions of witches.

If you think conflating the inquisition burnings in Spain with the witch burnings in...say Wurzburg is a slur....well then you must think people utter slurs a lot.

Beside, there were witch burnings in Catholic territory.

As well as other burnings.

Do you want to continue to defend the idea that the RCC was never involved in mass burning atrocities? Which wasn't even the point in the first place.

Strawman. I pointed out that, based on evidence and historical records, most executions for witchcraft (and most were by hanging) took place in areas with either a Protestant majority or Protestant ruler. I refer you to the work done by Ronald Hutton, Norman Cohn and Brian Levack; the latter's The Witch Hunt in Early Modern Europe (especially the revised 2006 edition) is a comprehensive and quite approachable work on the subject.
Most executions took place in areas without strong central government, e.g. during the Thirty Years War in 'Germany' and in England during it's civil war. Systematic persecution by the RCC was relatively rare.

If you wish to start a thread dedicated to this subject, please do so. It's a fascinating aspect of human history, involving the intermeshing of warfare, political ambitions, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, population changes, economic dislocation and other factors. It's also been subject to a lot of utterly stupid propagandising by various groups.

 

[Myriad]

I'm sorry but I don't follow. Can you find me a church anywhere that makes major doctrinal decisions and doesn't claim it is the will of God?

Jews. (Orthodox as well as reformed branches. Yes, they have lots of divine rules, but those are held to have been arrived at by mutual covenant with God, not God unilaterally dictating.)
Unitarian Universalists.
Buddhists.
Hindus.
Shintoists.
Pastafarians.
Satanists.
Innumerable Wiccan, Hermetic, Druid, etc. circles.
Somewhat ambiguously, many liberal and moderate Protestant churches such as Methodists and some Lutherans. While they generally do claim that it's the Holy Spirit that guides their members and officials in matters of conscience, they also acknowledge that the Holy Spirit speaks differently to different individuals, and thus generally regard doctrinal matters as consensual rather than God's unilateral and unambiguous will expressed via revelation or prophecy.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[halleyscomet]

The LDS is moving forward with softening its stance on homosexuality. A major "ex-gay" Mormon group that pushed therapy to allegedly change sexual orientation has disbanded and joined with one that does NOT advocate therapy to change your sexual orientation.

Even the extremists are starring to realize you do not choose and cannot change your sexual orientation.

Longtime support group for gay Mormons shuts down
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57344806-78/north-star-evergreen-gay.html.csp