Ender6666: the more I learn about mormonism, the more I respect their theological positions for consistency, but the more I hate how they co-exist with their neighbors mackillian: how you mean? Ender6666: I mean, the theology is very self-consistent. I appreciate that. Most theology's need a lot of tricky manuvering mackillian: right Ender6666: But, I keep running into mormon tendencies to ASSUME that other people want to be mormons mackillian: yes mackillian: I hate that mackillian: what I've found, though Ender6666: I suppose its young religion phenomenon :-/ mackillian: is that the mormons who know me, never, ever disagree with me when I say I could never, ever be a mormon Ender6666: yeah. mackillian: which I find inconsistent Ender6666: Like, every religion did it in its infancy. Judaism, Christianity after the empire converted, islam...protestantism in the renaissance... baptists do it mackillian: eah mackillian: yeah Ender6666: I think its new religion arrogance mackillian: LOL mackillian: as opposed to old religion arrogance Ender6666: No, seriously mackillian: I know Ender6666: Judaism doesn't prosleytize anymore, catholics have been working for about 200 years to reduce frictions with other religions, islam as practiced in non-islamic countries is very passive, the eastern religions are mostly passive for the last 2000 years Edit in: With a few notable exceptions mackillian: yes Ender6666: many protestant sects are a lot better about being jerks then they were mackillian: yes Ender6666: Its the born agains, the baptists, and the mormons Ender6666: which I suppose might be an offshoot of ALSO being mostly insulated communities Ender6666: Interesting Ender6666: if you're around long enough, you're probably not very insulated, and so have to adapt to the fact not everyone thinks your "new" truth is really very exciting mackillian: huh Ender6666: maturation process of religion *smirk*
Not very coherent in the above conversation, but I'm thinking that religions without insulation lose their aggressive assumptions that everyone else wants to be a member of that religion. In their infancies, religions tend to be very isolated, and spread outward into other communities rather slowly. It takes time, and contact with neighbors, to lose the "rougher" edges of religion.
I've gotta sleep on this one for logic holes.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Fascinating conversation. I have many views on religiion I keep quiet about lest I offend.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:But, I keep running into mormon tendencies to ASSUME that other people want to be mormons
You really feel this way? 'Cause I'd say that Mormons assume that everyone should be Mormon, but that it's never going to happen because most people don't want to be Mormon. To me, the whole missionary effort is about finding those people who actually do want to join the Church.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
And the way our church sees it is "We want everyone to have the opportunity to hear the Gospel. Whether or not they are saved is up to God and them, only the Holy Spirit can save. If they accept Christ, we rejoice, regardless of what church they go to after that."
Not that we don't want people to join our church, we'd love to have them, but our primary concern is getting the Gospel preached to "all nations," and fulfilling the great commission.
So, I'd have to say I agree with Jon Boy, we don't think everyone wants to be Christian. We just think everyone should have the opportunity to make that decision.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
You do realize, Paul, that that conversation carries its own arrogance, as if you have the knowledge, wisdom, and experience to define such a thing.
That isn't a personal remark so much as a general remark to anyone and everyone who has made a casual observation, well meaning or not, about a religion they know little about, having not actually experienced it. People somehow feel like they can quantify and qualify something they don't understand. Once they've safely catagorized it, they do not need to bother anymore with understanding it.
Silly religious people, they'll grow out of it.
Somewhere, in a country far away, is a woman who wears a veil covering her face with dignity and strength. She loves her religion, she will follow it to her dying day. And I don't understand it, but it is what it is and she is a good person as far as it goes. Who am I to issue statements about how trampled over she is, I who have never lived her life. Who am I to say what it is she thinks.
See the inconsistancies noted within that very conversation? Yes, Mormons are just like THIS, but isn't it strange they act differently with me? Why was it the statement that you adhered to rather than the experience? Why am I yet another exception in that I am Mormon and I think very few people want to be Mormon. Indeed, every other member on this board that I'm aware of doesn't think that everyone wants to be a Mormon. What is the rule, that there are exceptions?
I think such and such is like THIS. But then when something happens that is different from the belief, do you change it? No, because it is easier to keep that belief because that belief somehow makes you superior to have a sure knowledge rather than a space of "I don't know enough".
Everyone does it. The world is so much better with a statement of beliefs that can be trotted out when asked, like some little junior high survey.
How did the world begin?
Why are you here?
Is there a God?
Religion: mass delusion or not?
Religion: which ones should we tolerate? Who should we be polite to, and who do we think are raving lunatics?
So comforting to have those answers all nice and pat, isn't it?
Guess what, everyone. You might be wrong. You probably are, but that is the exception, isn't it?
Be honest. None of us know very much other than the opinions of other people we adhere to or discard as is most comfortable to us.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Wow, Paul, you've really got it wrong.
I'll pray for you.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I don't think his notion is quite "they'll grow out of it" in the sense that they'll "learn better," but in the sense of a historical framework of religion. It's an incredibly generalized statement, to be sure, but it's an initial statement. A tentative feeler. If it seems okay as a generality, then maybe it's worth researching.
I guess I see this in the viewpoint of a religious studies major. By studying the history of religions, sometimes common themes play out. The evolution of religion, if you will. I'm sure there have been countless books and essays on the topic. What Paul is offering is a suggestion. That young religions act differently than old religions. The characteristic of age is correlated to a behavior. This might be true on a large scale. It requires a lot of research, however, to know more than a fancy.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
<-- is currently doing research that could corroberate that, but is using the information for a different purpose, and not willing to rearrange it for the purpose of such a debate
Suffice to say, there is a correlation to how long the religion has existed as an institution and its behavior pertaining to other religions, both similar and dissimilar. However, there is also a regional correlation, and a cultural one. Those three together do tend to show that religions taking root in (mostly western, but not only western) Europe and the US tending to be more absolutist and prone to... well, prosyletizing emphatically. The East has had their own troubles, though, so it's difficult to lump them all in the same basket.
Taken from just a Judeo-Christian standpoint, though, Paul's point gains far more weight. The early (Roman) Christians, the Reformers, the Protestant movements, and so on.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
1. One of the best classes I have ever taken was Sociology of Religion. There are lots of theories.
2. Maybe the Lord knows that human beings grow complacent in their institutions, and that's why there's new prophets every millenia or so.
3. The links at the bottom are to sites for Muslim singles.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Though I have always been very cautious when it comes to imposing my religious beliefs on someone, I'm quite a zealot when it comes to parenting.
I love being a parent and I want to share that experience with others. I want others to experience the same joy, so I assume that everyone would be better-off having experienced parenting. I know this assumption is both wrong and arrogant; yet, though I don't press the issue, I would rejoice if they decided to have a child.
If people have enough conviction and joy in their religious beliefs to to want to share them with me, I look at it as a gift I can choose to accept or reject. Typically, I try it on, and if it fits, then I'll wear it. If it doesn't fit, then I set it aside.
Personally, the only time I'm put-off by a belief is when it does not allow for the inclusion of all who would choose to join in the experience and community of the believers.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Yeah, there is always a fundamental misunderstanding of baptisms for the dead, too, I've found. Mormons see it as an offer or a gift to someone who is fully capable of choosing how they wish to respond to it. Non-mormons tend to see it as something done to others against their will, or without their consent. They often believe dead people can't make choices. We believe they can. That one fundamental difference in viewpoint makes for a lot of misunderstanding of the LDS church, I think.
Also I sometimes hear stories of missionaries being pushy, yet they all are trained to make an offer and take no for an answer. I don't doubt that occasionally some could be overzealous and make a mistake, yet I suspect this happens fairly infrequently, based on the missionaries I've known and talked to, and knowing the training they all undergo. So I'm not really sure where this disconnect comes from. If some RMs and people who've had bad experiences with LDS missionaries could comment on this, I'd be quite interested to see if they have more insights.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
See, I was a Mormon, and I did a number of BFtD...and not once did it ever occur to me that it was ever a choice for the dead in question, nor was it ever communicated to me as such. I can totally see how it might be as you say, ak, and how it could be taken as such...but it's not widely preached as such, because so few people raised in the church ever see that sort of conflict well enough to think about that aspect.
As far as Mormon arrogance, I haven't seen much lately. My sister is still LDS, and she still loves me. I saw kat's "dry, jack, sympathetic" thread, though, and saw a bit of it. Truly, most of my Mormon friends think that there are a whole lot more Mormons out there than there really are. Then again, there might be more than I think. But I make it a habit to go to church every so often, and every LDS ward I've seen outside Idaho and Utah pales in comparison, as far as sheer numbers go.
But as long as Mormonism is the fastest growing religion in the country, you're gonna have to accept some sort of arrogance. They're obviously doing something right.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
quote: We just think everyone should have the opportunity to make that decision.
How many times does a person have to make that decision before you've done your job?
*puts on I Voted No On Proposition Jesus Saves My Soul button*
When I lived in the dorms, I only ever took the elevator if I had too much stuff to make it up the 4 flights of stairs. Did I do that for the exercise or because I was tired of being gang saved in the elevator? I don’t think it’s universal of Baptists, but of the population living in my dorm, it was assumed that everyone needed to be saved no matter what they thought.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The early (Roman) Christians, the Reformers, the Protestant movements, and so on.
It's interesting that each of these movements faced severe repression, only to inflict such oppression on others years later. I don't know exactly what it means, but it's interesting.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dag, it means human beings often suck, and that what the Albanians did to the Serbs was neither unprecedented nor unpredictable.
As much as I'm occasionally annoyed by being called arrogant and dislike the misunderstandings, a little check and balance is good for any people. If the unconvinced and unimpressed didn't exist, we'd have to invent them.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Hey mack? Anytime you feel like going mormon, I'll walk you through the process, and I'd wager there would be many there to welcome you with open arms.
Seriously.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Wow, Frisco, I'm very surprised by what you say. It was made completely clear to me when I was taught about proxy baptisms that it was a gift which might be accepted or rejected, that only the living can receive ordinances, so that the dead need our help if they wish to receive them, and that it serves to bind the generations of humanity together into one family. (I was going through this process as a grown-up, so I'm not sure if that would make any difference in the teaching or not.)
I love that there is something that matters that I can do for my ancestors, since they gave so much of themselves to me. Even if they never knew me in this life, so much of what I am comes from them. I love it that I can reflect back some of that, and give of myself to them in return.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
I'd still flip you off, though.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Are you ALLOWED to?
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Only when he really means it. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
I flipped off my bishop the other day, so ya, I think I could still flip you off...
Oh, watch....
--I--
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Papa Moose, I don't know if you meant it to be or not, but your post was totally hilarious. Thanks.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:It's interesting that each of these movements faced severe repression, only to inflict such oppression on others years later. I don't know exactly what it means, but it's interesting.
My point is that each, including subsets of each, have a distinct correlation with the passage of time and their behavior. I don't recall one Christian institution, including the Eastern Orthodox church, who hasn't exhibited the exact same behavior towards others as was directed towards them at one point. In fact, the only group I haven't found blatant repression of any others (as an institution) so far has been the Jehovah's Witnesses, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. It just means I haven't found any outstanding examples (and am not looking to find specific examples). Compared to other Judeo-Christian religions, the "age" of the JW church is definitely a factor, as is the size and regional integration into society.
Posted by Psycho Triad (Member # 3331) on :
I think he meant the humor, Johnny.
Pop is cool like that,
Crazy as always, Psychotriad
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Celia, as far as I'm concerned, you tell me no and I won't bombard you again. I'll probably continue to pray but I will not accost you in an elevator.
I personally do not have a great amount of the spiritual gift of evangelism. My gifts are for other things, so I'm not extremely comfortable doing any "hijack evangelisms" Not only that, I can understand that the people being hijacked may not appreciate it and may be very uncomfortable. I will win no friends for my faith if I make you feel like you're being attacked.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I just want to say that LadyDove is a very graceful, lovely person. Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
jeniwren- Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
First of all, I kind of think it's natural for such a small group to think there's more out there than there really are. When you consider the emphasis on family, community, and mass communication in the LDS, I think it would be easy to get the sensation of more members than there really are, particularly for lifelong members.
As a new member who spent as much time in church in the first month as I had in my entire life up to that point, I don't share that assumption, of course.
-----
Paul,
quote:Ender6666: the more I learn about mormonism, the more I respect their theological positions for consistency, but the more I hate how they co-exist with their neighbors
Interesting. Aside from posthumous baptisms, and the proseltyzing, how hateful is the Mormon co-existence? I'm curious. I also think you're wrong when you say that most Mormons assume other people really want to be Mormons.
I think you're slightly mistaken, because most Mormons I've known might say something like, "They'd be happier if...", not, "Most people just want to be Mormons." The first statement is natural to almost any argument where there is any chance of being right or wrong. It follows naturally from that consistency you complimented. The second statement is mistaken, though I don't doubt there are many people who DO think that way.
I could debate Catholic 'pacification', and I could point out that the style in which Islam is practiced in non-Islamic nations probably has much to do (though not completely, and I also think the nature of Islam in the world today has much to do with the political culture in Islamic nations) with the laws in those nations, rather than the nature of Islam as a whole today. But your ultimate point, that religions tend to change in sometimes predictable ways as they age, I agree with.
Of course, I can't help but notice the irony of your complaining of religious arrogance, given the style in which you complained.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)