This is topic So you want to use 'religion' as your rationale in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=045683

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I don't know if people remember, but I seem to recall that one of the reasons people stopped saying 'I believe X because that's what my religion teaches' is because other people said, o.k., if that's your rationale, then your rationale is bigoted/racist/idiotic/wrong, and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth because people felt like something very personal to them was being attacked.

Another reason that I seem to remember that people stopped using 'my religion says X' as a rationale is because it basically shut down conversation. There was a thread about this and why religious explanations aren't as 'good' as non-religious ones, but the bottom line is that, unless you belong to a particular religion, that religion's argument is not going to be persuasive.

In light of the above two points, it would seem to me to be a bad idea to use your religion as a point in an argument.

It might be said, of course, that we aren't arguing and that just telling someone why you feel a certain way is just being honest, and to do otherwise is to lie.

I accept that rationale, but I guess I'm curious what people who use their religion in conversations/debates/arguments with people not of their religion expect the reply to be to those arguments? I don't see anyone really able to say anything other than "O.K. That's the way it is", then walking away.

If this is what you understand the reply to be to a 'religious' rationale, then I guess it is understood that when giving a religious argument, you are basically ending discussion with you on that topic.

*******************

Just some thoughts I've had on the whole religious rationale thing. Please note that I am not saying that 'religious' arguments are better than 'non-religious' ones, or saying that there is somethign wrong with religious people. Far from it.

I am just trying to explain how I view, and how others might view, certain types of religious arguments that seem to me to be bottom-line statements with no room for discussion.

So, no attack Storm-san! No! Storm is try to be win for niceness! Respect Storm's effort!
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
On second thought, I know this thing is going to get derailed to hell and back. I probably ought to delete it.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
You Saxons make me sick, you need another Norman invastion IMO.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I've been trying to articulate something similar for the last few days myself, Storm. Thanks for doing it better.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Are you Teuton your own horn again, Blackblade?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm curious what people who use their religion in conversations/debates/arguments with people not of their religion expect the reply to be to those arguments?

---

quote:

---

I reckon that if you don't want to hear religion as an answer, you shouldn't ask the question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
Are you Teuton your own horn again, Blackblade?

---

Actually I've got a ton of Saxon blood myself. But I'm 1/8th Norwegian. My wife is 1/2 German (her father is German and her mother has a good deal of German ethnicity too.)

We draw swords and battle to the death every morning
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
What a coincidence. I have about a ton of Saxon blood myself.

I keep it buried in a special tank in the back yard until Interpol and the SSS (Secret Saxon Society) quits looking for it.
 

---

Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
 
That must be exhausting.
 

---

Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
I think it doesn't so much come down to a "religious reasons" issue, so much as it comes down to what people accept as their basic principles

examples:
I view human life as beginning at the moment of conception, and at that moment being as valuable as any other human life.

Others may view human life as starting later and/or being worth less until a certain point in gestation or until birth.

This is the primary disconnect in all the abortion debates, which happens to coincide with various religions, but really isn't a religious issue per se.

Another example that has nothing to do with religions:

I believe that order is in general preferrable to chaos.

Others believe that chaos is in general preferrable to constricting order.

All arguments should be able to come back to basic principles like these. Now admittedly there are some "basic principles" which are closer to the surface of the arguments: Literalists believing that the Bible is word-for true.

At some point, many arguments are going to come down to these disconnects, which really can't be addressed by logic. so yes, once you get to this point I don't think there's anything to do but just walk away.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
<deleted since someone is attempting to re-rail the thread.>
 

---

Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 
aww, don't mind me Karl, I think we all appreciate a bit of Anglo-Saxon humor =p
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Storm Saxon:


I am just trying to explain how I view, and how others might view, certain types of religious arguments that seem to me to be bottom-line statements with no room for discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Storm Saxon:


I am just trying to explain how I view, and how others might view, certain types of religious arguments that seem to me to be bottom-line statements with no room for discussion.

---

I think it depends on the kind of conversation you are having and the kind of relationship you have with the person in question.

I have religious discussions/debates all the time. I am perfectly happy to argue the idea of papal authority (for example) with a fellow Catholic, citing historical and scriptural evidence for my point etc.

Arguing though, for example, the authority of prophecy in LDS religion, though, can't be done by me without attacking the core of someone's belief.

And that, I think, is beyond the scope of this forum. So once someone goes to the "Prophet says so" argument, the discussion is pretty much over.

Does that make sense?

---

quote:

---

Not really, you could attempt to demonstrate through the words of commonly (as in Catholic and Mormon) accepted prophets that the words of a Mormon prophet are not docterinally sound.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Juxtapose:
There should also be room for the simple sharing of ideas and perceptions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xavier:

quote:

---

Not really, you could attempt to demonstrate through the words of commonly (as in Catholic and Mormon) accepted prophets that the words of a Mormon prophet are not docterinally sound.

---

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but IIRC, when a Mormon prophet and a biblical prophet contradict, it is the more recent prophet whose words hold greater sway.

The more recent revelation is considered the more accurate one.

---

Not from my understanding. A modern day prophet MIGHT (but this is rare) say, "This passage is hard to comprehend but by combining other scriptures, and careful thinking this is what the scripture says, as prophets are by design supposed to illuminate the scriptures.

Prophets in this scenario OFTEN say, "This is what I think." but rarely say, "This is what God thinks."

What prophets do NOT do is say, "This prophet is mistaken, and this is what God thinks now!"

In fact that to Mormons is one of the signs of a false prophet, in that they say the scriptures are wrong, or that another prophet is mistaken.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
And it looks like hatrack is supported by the Zionists, per the google ad at the bottom.

Jerusalem, Everything.

Coma added for dramatic effect.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I have an ad for "Spiritual Formation" at Spring Arbor University. "That Christ be formed in [me]..."
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Black Blade, I don't agree with your representation of modern prophets. Xavier is right.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Black Blade, I don't agree with your representation of modern prophets. Xavier is right.

---

quote:

---

Porter, if we say 'I believe X because that's my religion', I think we are basically speaking in a foreign language to someone not of our religion, or gibberish.

---

quote:

---

It has nothing to do with not wanting to hear religion as an answer, Porter.

---

quote:

---

Fulfilling a law doesn't do away with it. It confirms it. The law is not a prophecy, it is a principle of righteous government.

---

Quibble.

A previous prophecy said that God's people couldn't eat pork while a later prophecy said they now could.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Katahrina--I didn't see them. But now I am ignoring them.

mr_porteiro_head, what prophecy says God's people can't eat pork? The dietary regulations in Leviticus 11 say that God's people shouldn't eat pork (shellfish, etc.) because it is unfit for human consumption, but that is not a prophecy. Are you clear on what prophecy is?
 

---

Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
 
I assume that when someone ends an argument by saying, "I believe this because it's my religion," they mean something along the lines of that, in their opinion, their religion has turned out to be right about a lot of things in the past, and that therefore they trust what it has to say about everything. At least that's the most rational meaning I can give to that line.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
I think that a "prophecy" definition is also semantic. Not to mention, I don't think that "prophecy" is actually getting used in this discussion. It seems that "revelation" or "communication from God" is the broader discussion.
 

---

Posted by Dasa (Member # 8968) on :
 
What Omega M. said is the sense in which I have heard the term used.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Coma added for dramatic effect.

---

quote:

---

But that is often the real answer.

Just because you can't relate to the answer doesn't mean that the answer is wrong.

quote:It has nothing to do with not wanting to hear religion as an answer, Porter.

Then I am still misunderstanding youn.

---

Porter, I don't believe I ever said that the religious answer was wrong, or implied such. The thesis of my original post was 'Why it might not be a good idea to use your religion as an argument', not why religious arguments are wrong.

Let me see if I can give examples of my two points that might help me elaborate on what I was trying to say:

1)I believe homosexuality is wrong because the Book of Bob says it is.

Reply: Then the Book of Bob is homophobic and bigoted.

Conclusion: Bringing your religion into an argument as the basis for an argument opens up that religion to attack. A lot of people seem to consider attacks on their religion to be out of bounds because their religion is something that they hold very dear. I think, emotionally, something along the same lines as bringing your mom into an argument as the basis for what you're saying.

2) I believe women should have abortions because the Book of Bob says they should.

Where does someone who is not a Bobian go with this? If it's pretty clear that the Book of Bob is for abortions, and the person is resting their belief primarily on the Book of Bob, then there is no way to have a debate or an argument. All you can really do is acknowledge their belief, perhaps say soemthing along the lines of I don't believe that, or, I agree, then walk away.

If you don't believe in the Book of Bob, then that argument means nothing to you since it draws upon a reality that doesn't exist for you.

And, of course it works the opposite way.

So, does that mean that religious people and people outside of their religion cna't debate on some things? Possibly.

************************************

Of course there are things that everyone holds dearly and won't compromise on or listen to, and I'm not trying to say that religious people are uniquely close minded.

I guess what I am saying is that if anyone cares about influencing the opinion of the person they are talking with, they should take into account what arguments they use if they want to sway that person's opinion. If you don't care, cool. Go right ahead quoting from the Book of Bob or Mao's Little Red Book, or whatever revealed writings you live your life by. If you do care, then it might be wise to frame the argument in such a way that the other person understands what you are saying.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

The thesis of my original post was 'Why it might not be a good idea to use your religion as an argument'

---

quote:

---

A lot of people seem to consider attacks on their religion to be out of bounds because their religion is something that they hold very dear.

---

quote:

---

As such, I think the answer is shrug your shoulders and move on or be prepared to offend.

---

quote:

---

And I responded that I don't use it as an argument.

---

quote:

---

But, your question SS isn't "what should religious people do" but "What should non religious do?" (in response to your last paragraph). As such, I think the answer is shrug your shoulders and move on or be prepared to offend.

---

quote:

---

People also hold their loved ones very dear, yet these threads debating their very morality are common.

---

quote:

---

The only solution is for each side to leave eachother alone. Christians who are against homosexuals should refrain from passing laws against us and we should refrain from passing laws against them. (like prayer in school, tearing down on christian monuments on state property, removing the 10 commandments from state property, removing god from the pledge and the money.)

---

quote:

---

We gotta stop fighting. It's hurting everyone and not helping anyone.

---

quote:

---

Just because someone believes something as an article of faith, and everyone does have articles of faith, that doesn't mean they can't frame their argument in a non-religious..no, that's not right...a non dogmatic? way such that someone else can't understand what they are saying.

---

quote:

---

Even if someone asks us why, is it a lie to say,I believe it is right, and here's why, without ever referring to articles of faith, of the spirit? I don't think so--because it isn't, is it?

---

quote:

---

But if you are asking for the reason why I believe X, and the reason I believe X is because of my religious beliefs, then yes, it would be dishonest to give you other reasons.

---

quote:

---

I still don't understand why, even if you feel it is absolutely vital to mention that your basis for belief comes from God, your belief is supported by the following things you've observed, whatever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Here's the thing -- when discussing touchy subjects, I am almost sharing my views (or correcting misconceptions about them), not trying to convince or persuade others.

---

quote:

---

Here's the thing -- when discussing touchy subjects, I am almost sharing my views (or correcting misconceptions about them), not trying to convince or persuade others.

---

quote:

---

Why are you sharing your views or correcting misconceptions about them?

---

quote:

---

Why are you sharing your views or correcting misconceptions about them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
No more polygamy? Stop physically gathering to Zion and build up your stakes in your homeland? The priesthood goes to all worthy males? Any of those ring a bell?

---

quote:

---

SS, you speak as though there's no point in talking with somebody unless you're going to be able to change their mind. I do not accept that premise.

---

quote:

---

To understand WHY they believe what they believe, so that a foundation can be made for debate.

---

quote:

---

As to correcting misconceptions about them, this is very necessary. On more than one occasion I have been quoted as accepting a view that I do not accept but that I did not correct when first attributed to me.

---

quote:

---

Let's face it, we all think our beliefs are the best. Otherwise they wouldn't be our beliefs.

---

quote:

---

There is always common ground.

---

quote:

---

Religions deal with only a handful of behaviors and assumptions, a few dietary quirks that apply only in times of plenty, and mostly staying in the church for marriage and socializing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

Religions deal with only a handful of behaviors and assumptions, a few dietary quirks that apply only in times of plenty, and mostly staying in the church for marriage and socializing.

---

I completely disagree.

---

quote:

---

The fact that it is a portion you pay a great deal of attention too in know way prove it is important, it just means you are fixed on the trivial.

---

How, exactly, can you know what is important and what is trivial, while we are wrong about it?

I consider the color yellow extremely trivial in comparison.
 

---

Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
 
You wouldn't if you were the Green Lantern...
 

---

Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
 
Storm, being a devout church person myself I might take exception to your original post if it weren’t for the fact that I’ve heard other church types participate in the sort of pointless “discussion” you describe. And it comes as no surprise to me when I hear folks accuse religious types of using circular logic. You know the type of logic I mean: “If you don’t believe me, just ask me.”

The way I look at it is that there are different types of religious “discussions.”

One is where both sides just flail around and whoever has the biggest sword or the loudest preachers wins the debate. This type is useless or even worse and evinces the type of “bigoted/racist/idiotic/wrong” that you talk about in your starting post. Taken to it’s extreme it turns into proselytizing by the sword. The ironic thing is that both sides are always wrong. And I know that is a true statement because my religion says so. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist. )

Another type of discussion is where both sides keep it amiable and maintain their civility. Probably no one is going to be convinced that the other is right, although they usually find there is a lot of common ground. This type of discussion is OK. It may be merely an intellectual exercise in comparative religion but it can be fascinating and can help promote better understanding among friends.

About 30 years ago I became a coworker with a young man who was a devout Protestant. As soon as he found out I was a Mormon, he tried to get into an argument by saying something provocative about my church. I was just out of high school and all full of fancy debate techniques. I was also feed up with religious verbal brawling. So as soon as he tossed down the gauntlet, I said that I was perfectly willing to calmly discuss or even debate it with him, but that I was not going to flail around from subject to subject, throwing high-order abstractions at each other such as terms like resurrection, atonement, spirit, etc. We were just going to end up getting mad at each other. In order to discuss anything intelligently we were going to have to first define our terms so that we would know what each other meant. Because there was a real good chance that each of us understood any particular word differently.

So that is the way we approached it. What resulted was that we became good friends, we had many interesting discussions, and were even able to banter back and forth about religion on occasion without rancor. Neither of us ever felt the need to change religions, but we each found out and were willing to admit that the other guy was NOT a fool for believing what he did.

One of the things we explored was the ways in which the set of doctrines of a religion is analogous to systems of math. It ought to be self-consistent but it doesn’t necessarily have to be consistent with another religion. Much the same way that ,say, plane geometry and solid geometry share common axioms but have some that are different. Each system is self-consistent. Both are useful but which one best describes the real universe? Decide for yourself.

Then there is a third type of religious discussion. This happens when someone finds that his own beliefs and practices just are not working all that well for him. They are looking for answers. I’m perfectly willing to participate in this type of discussion too, because I think that we have a lot of answers and a lot of behavioral advice that can bless the lives of people.

But I have the attitude that any religious discussion of this sort, and any religion, is useless if it does not provide a way for someone to find out for himself if the things he is hearing are true or not. And I’m not talking about the old song and dance, “what the scriptures and prophets say is true, because the scriptures and prophets say so.“ That, by itself, is circular logic and pretty much useless. But if you join “The scriptures and prophets say thus and so.” with “But don’t take my word for it; don’t even take St. Paul’s or Joseph Smith’s word for it. Put it to the test yourself.” Then it stops being circular and becomes what I like to think of as spiral logic.

I know that no amount of documentation or eloquent language on my part is going to convince anyone of anything. I also know that they have every right to not even listen if they don’t want to. But if they want to know if I’m telling the truth they have to put it to the same tests others have used and find out for themselves. Mind you, the proofs and tests I’m speaking of are not the same sort of “logic” or tests that we associate with the scientific method or with rigorous math proofs, but they are analogous in some ways. It involves a spiral loop that looks something like this: Hope (Faith) -- Action -- Confirmation -- Hope (Faith) -- Action -- Confirmation , etc.

How it works is that you hear some principle of the gospel or belief or suggested way to do something, and you start to hope that it is true because it sure seems like it would be a good thing if it were true. It would sure be nice if it works and results in the promised blessing or benefit or whatever. So then you try it out -- change some behavior. Then comes the confirmation that it was true because it starts to work and feel right. Which then causes an increase in your faith; which causes you to improve behavior some more; which results in stronger confirmation; which increases your faith some more; . . . An upward spiral.

Of course I’ve oversimplified the process a little because it involves other things such as study, prayer, behavior modification, and real intent. It does not yield results to the casual inquirer. What real intent means is epitomized by the prayer of a guy who really wanted to know. He prayed, “. . . I will give away all my sins to know thee.” Now that is real intent.

I’ve heard it argued that what I describe is a sort of self-delusion. I can understand how it can look that way. That’s certainly a reasonable explanation. All I can say is the feelings I’ve experienced match pretty well with some of the scriptural descriptions of those feeling such as, calm assurance, or “Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter?” or “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” I like to think I can tell the difference between an emotional response and a spiritual response. Then there are also sometimes physical proofs that certain things work and yield the promised result.

So anyway, I guess the points I’m trying to make are: Some “religious explanations” can be useful and in many ways be “as ‘good’ as non-religious ones.” (Hey, science doesn’t have all the answers either and sometimes they even get it wrong - not to mention the times when scientists lose their objectivity and start to act like religious fanatics complete with heretics and inquisitions.)

On the other hand, religions that just expect you to believe what they say without providing a way to prove it for yourself, well, they deserve to have their explanations personally attacked.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuel Bush:
On the other hand, religions that just expect you to believe what they say without providing a way to prove it for yourself, well, they deserve to have their explanations personally attacked.

---

Charming. Religions that don't work exactly the way yours do deserve to be attacked. Personally!

Just lovely.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I at that comment myself.


 

---

Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
 
On the same quote that rivka quoted... Isn't a part of faith just believing because it's in your heart and not because you need 'proof'?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Glad to hear it's not just me, mph.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

Isn't a part of faith just believing because it's in your heart and not because you need 'proof'?

---

quote:

---

I like to think I can tell the difference between an emotional response and a spiritual response.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cmc:
I guess I'll try to explain a little bit more of what I mean... Some of the lessons I've learned with regard to religion - I don't need to see or experience the same lesson with my own eyes in my own lifetime. The stories 'passed down' are enough for me - I don't need hard evidence.

Does that make sense?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Katahrina--I didn't see them. But now I am ignoring them.

mr_porteiro_head, what prophecy says God's people can't eat pork? The dietary regulations in Leviticus 11 say that God's people shouldn't eat pork (shellfish, etc.) because it is unfit for human consumption, but that is not a prophecy. Are you clear on what prophecy is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
MPH: Law of Moses was not WRONG, it simply fulfilled its purpose and was no longer needed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

Isn't a part of faith just believing because it's in your heart and not because you need 'proof'?

---

I don't think I could agree with that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by General Sax:
You wouldn't if you were the Green Lantern...

---

quote:

---

Law of Moses was not WRONG, it simply fulfilled its purpose and was no longer needed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cmc:
What part's not clear, King of Men? I'll try to explain it differently.

---

quote:

---

1)I believe homosexuality is wrong because the Book of Bob says it is.

Reply: Then the Book of Bob is homophobic and bigoted.

---

quote:

---

But in religions where there is a central authority (such as LDS, if I understand it correctly) who they believe receives direct communication from God and has additional
"scripture", there isn't a religious argument that I can make that isn't a direct attack on the core of their religion. I can't change their minds without converting them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
When I'm talking to someone and they use the "because God said so" defense, I don't make assumptions about their god or his scriptures, I just sigh. Because people who let their religion dictate their beliefs rather than inform them are impossible to argue with, such as literalists.

---

quote:

---

A lot of my beliefs, at core, come down to "because God said so." And I happen to think that's a good thing.

---

quote:

---

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

---

 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I agree with mph.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
It's funny how this forum changes.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

I agree with mph.

---

There's a shocker.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

I agree with mph.

---

There's a shocker.

---

Smugness becomes you not.

Go pack a box or something.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cmc:
The original reply was no. Your explaination came after I offered to put it a different way... To me no and yes but you're being silly are quite different.

---

I did not say "Yes, but you're being silly." I said (over two posts) "No, you're being silly."
 

---

Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
 
*emerges from lurking*

I sent King of Men an email because it's just not worth going back and forth over something so inconsequential - especially in a thread that has nothing to do with whose reply means what.

*dips back into the shadows*
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I typed a response to this out on my phone, and then it never went through. Since it's still there, and since it doesn't seem irrelevant yet, I'm going to try to send it again . . .
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I've run up against this with other people before--most notably with GreNME a week or two ago. I think some of us have a fundamentally different rationale for why we engage in serious threads than others. I don't come here to convince or to be convinced; I come to achieve a greater understanding of other people than I have. So when people tell me that they believe something because it is a tenet of their religion, first of all, that *is* an answer to me, but, second, that does *not* necessarily end it for me either. Because I am *not* looking to convert them, I have not hit a dead end. I may have follow-up questions about in what manner their religion has indicated that they should believe this, whether there is room for differing opinion on this topic within the faith, if their religious hierarchy has given any rationale behind the stance. Or the conversation might shift entirely for me at that point, but still continue. It only hits a dead end if the intent were for one of us to come away with changed beliefs.

For that reason, I aree with Storm when theists *do* desire to change someone's beliefs. For example, around here, the pro-life movement has traditionally filled their billboards with images of Jesus and Mary. I think that's a key mistake on their part, and one that hamstrings their cause. Their most dedicated opponents are unlikely to be swayed by such appeals. What they should focus on is scientific and logiccal arguments. Similarly, if you wish to convince someone to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, you'd better have more to go on than a religious argument.

But again, even when I participate in "serious" threads here, I rarely "debate."

I think this answer's Storm's question of why bothering to correct misconceptions and explain views even if changing someone's mind is not possible: we do it to increase each other's understanding, even if changing their minds is not possible. How many tragedies have been borne out of misunderstanding? I think that when we here interact politely with people with wildly varying opinions, we are really doing something positive.

So, to make a long post short . . . I agree with Porter.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I like stories that end like that.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

think this answer's Storm's question of why bothering to correct misconceptions and explain views even if changing someone's mind is not possible: we do it to increase each other's understanding, even if changing their minds is not possible. How many tragedies have been borne out of misunderstanding?

---

If circumstances have changed because of increased understanding, then you have changed someone's mind and they have behaved differently....

Conversely, if circumstances do not change, that is people do not change their behavior at all from what you have said, then who cares if there is increased understanding? Understanding is an internal state that, unless it is translated into action is practically meaningless for everyone outside of that person.

Lookit, I'm not saying that communication is some kind of deathmatch where only one side can emerge victorious. I hate that stuff. I'm not arguing for debate over discussion.

What I am saying is that people communicate for a reason, a selfish reason, and that reason is to get something, some change in behavior, a reaction.

In the particular case of gay marriage, where there is anger on one particular side because their relationship is viewed as second class if not detrimental to the social fabric, what does understanding mean? What is it worth?

Must I paint you a picture, you stupid spic?

Now do you get it? Is understanding going to be enough if I keep on calling you a stupid spic? No?

Oh, but that's not really the case here, some say? No one is calling names. But is there really need to do so if actions speak louder than words?

'Look, we don't have anything personal against gay people--why, KarlEd is so nice. He's my best bud.'

'So, why do you not allow him to marry his lover?'

'Well, it's in the book and I gotta represent!'

Um, seriously. That's not understanding. That's not dialogue. That's the biggest copout on the planet and a refusal to engage in conversation.

Of course, people can engage in conversation with those of the book as long as they understand that their answer isn't going to change, eh? Is that really conversation? Is that really dialogue? I don't think so.

I am sorry for having to insult you for the sake of driving a point home. I don't think of you as a stupid spic. I think of you as a human being. But I want to make it personal for you, to help you understand what is going on, because that is the truth of the matter.

All this talk about 'understanding' ignores the very personal feelings involved in arguments that aren't addressed. Understanding without a change in behavior is meaningless.

If you must believe in a tenet of your religion, then Bob love you. But don't lie to yourself and others about the emotional and human cost of following your belief, and if people offer you evidence that your belief is wrong and you refuse to acknowledge their hurt or address their evidence, don't expect them to find solace in meaningless understanding.

Do we understand?

*********************************

I tried to make this thread non-topical, but in light of recent events, it seemed like the best way to make my point was to make it topical. Sorry for beating the dead gay horse.

Also, let me be clear that I am not saying that just because someone has sacred literature, beliefs, that they are close minded. There are a million people of faith out there who have engaged various topics on this and Ornery and who have evidence for what they believe that everyone can understand. They don't need to fall back on the book. They have modified their position as much as they can to stay within their religion and address the concerns of those they are speaking with. My hat is off to them.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I think its important that people realize that even if its not readily apparent on the surface of the forums, people do in fact change their minds concerning certain topics. People are not always quick to acknowledge it. At least for me, I can see how once somebody reaches a point in a conversation where they are stumped they usually just disappear rather then write, "You've got me." They may not say anything but they are certainly thinking about what they have been told when they log off. I can think of one thread in particular where the topic was "How could the purpose of sending people to earth be free agency when there clearly already was free agency before men were born." Obviously this topic only makes sense to people who are at least acquainted with Mormon theology. I got involved in the thread, but eventually bowed out to watch it pan out and I CERTAINLY reached a point where I had no answer to the points a fellow hatracker had made.

I still don't have the answers but I was different in that before the thread I was sure about that particular point, and now I still have to reflect on it.

Before I started forum hopping, I was adamantly against any form of governmental recognition of homosexual relationships. My stance has significantly (at least to me) softened.

As a younger man I was quite pro life, I am still opposed to much of the abortion that goes on today, but I now recognize incidents where abortion is favorable to birth.

I voted Democrat last election, my parents couldn't believe it. They have always been gracious and allowed their children to believe as they honestly did.

A significant chunk of thought change has gone on since I joined hatrack, and I admit that with hesistancy because part of me feels that somebody who too oft changes his/her mind demonstrates that they are not very intelligent. Sure there's something to be said about being teachable, but there's also something to be said about being right, and quickly becoming so.

I honestly do not appreciate realists and pessimists alike saying, "Why argue, nobody is going to change their minds." If you don't like the fact that others from your perspective don't change their minds, try evaluating just how willing you would be to change your own mind if occasion demanded it.

If by debating you change only your own mind, I still think that is time well spent.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Black Blade:

I never said that modern prophets say that older prophets were wrong. You said that.

What happens is that modern revelation will supplant previous revelation. Like the part about the priesthood - it is not necessary to say that previous prophets were WRONG to extend the priesthood to all worthy males. Extending the priesthood to all worthy males does not say that Moses was wrong to limit it to descendents of Levi.

However, it does mean that the revelation from the latest prophet matters more/is more relevant than revelation from previous prophets.

---

quote:

---

Rivka: Where was the Law of Moses before Moses?

---

quote:

---

Before the Law of Moses there was already the gospel.

---

quote:

---

What I am saying is that people communicate for a reason, a selfish reason, and that reason is to get something, some change in behavior, a reaction.

---

quote:

---

In the particular case of gay marriage, where there is anger on one particular side because their relationship is viewed as second class if not detrimental to the social fabric, what does understanding mean? What is it worth?

---

quote:

---

If you must believe in a tenet of your religion, then Bob love you. But don't lie to yourself and others about the emotional and human cost of following your belief, and if people offer you evidence that your belief is wrong and you refuse to acknowledge their hurt or address their evidence, don't expect them to find solace in meaningless understanding.

---

quote:

---

I agree with half of this statement. My particular selfish reason for communicating, about half of the time, is completely internal, and it has to do with understanding better. This may (or it may not) sound self-serving, but I believe it is accurate.

---

quote:

---

In the particular case of gay marriage, where there is anger on one particular side because their relationship is viewed as second class if not detrimental to the social fabric, what does understanding mean? What is it worth?

It's worth trying to reduce the venomn in the debate, so that people won't feel that they have to entrench themselves more deeply if only to defend themselves from attack.

---

My point that I made very badly, that I've been trying to get at, is that dialogue is not possible unless each side feels that their needs and concerns have a possibility of being met, that they will be listened to. If one side knows that this isn't going to happen from the outset, then genuine dialogue is not possible and, thus, understanding is not going to be achieved.

The venom in these discussions comes not from lack of understanding, but from lack of listening and a willingness to modify one's position in light of evidence given by the other side. After all, why does the other side produce evidence? At least, that's where my venom comes from.

quote:

---

Obviously, we're not unanimous on these points, but I disagree with the apparent characterization that Christians are closed-minded on these points, because I have personally seen some of them on this forum change their minds.

---

quote:

---

First, do you have evidence that theists here lie about the emotional and human cost of following their beliefs?

---

quote:

---

Second, how do you propose to offer evidence that their religious beliefs are wrong? I don't think you can--but I don't think that's a conversation-ender. I think you can turn the conversation in other directions, like "Okay, it's a sin. We don't legislate against adultery any longer, and we don't legislate against a wide variety of sinful heterosexual marriages, so why this one?"

---

quote:

---

If your barometer of whether this conversation is worth having at all is whether or not people abandon their own beliefs to follow yours, well then you will almost certainly be disappointed. But I think we should be able to have non-rancorous, mutually respectful conversation on those topics. Shame on us when we can't.

---

I am not proposing that people--gay or straight, religious or non-religious-- abandon their beliefs without reason, or even at all! I am proposing that people engage in dialogue with the other side in meaningful ways! That is the whole reason for this thread and for everything that I've posted in this thread!

Ever since I've been on this forum, people of faith have sworn up and down that they have reasons for what htey believe in, evidence, that they just aren't blind sheep and are willing to modify their positions. I took this statement at face value and believed them, despite the large amount of evidence to the contrary. Now people of faith, when asked to show evidence of this flexibility and reasonability that they've sworn that they've had are suddently struck dumb. They retreat to victimology rather than admit that they have no arguments.

"You're picking on us when you ask us to produce evidence!"

Do I think that their arguments are going ot be persuasive to people onthe other side? Almost certainly not. (edit: That came out more negatively general than I meant. I should've said something more along the lines of 'many won't'.) But at least then I'll know where the hell they're coming from and why they believe what they believe, that they have 'examined the evidence', and that, my friend, is when understanding--real, meaningful understanding-- will come. That's when, at least for me, my rancor will disappear. Until then, pointing to The Book doesn't help me to understand jack. And that's a large part of what I've been trying to say throughout this whole thread.

[ October 31, 2006, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
 
(I wrote the following before I read the last two posts. I don't know if that matters or not, but here goes anyway. )

I saw the musical “1776” for the first time about 10 yours ago. Which was about 25 years after it was produced. (yes this is leading somewhere) (and I think it is apropos to this thread)

At any rate, the character Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island said something in the movie that, at the time, just jumped out and slapped me across the brain, and I thought, “Wow, that’s profound.” Now, I don’t know if Hopkins actually said this in real life, but what the hey, it’s still profound. I’ve often wondered why some people get so offended by beliefs different from their own. Is it because they are so insecure that they can’t handle it when someone has a differing opinion? I don’t know.

Anyway, the character Hopkins said:

“Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea! “
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I think I've stepped on a mine here, because this thread is about more than just the topic stated.

I agree with you insofar as I believe theists should be open to changing their minds on things that are not articles of faith, and I believe that legislation is not and should not be an article of faith. (Of course, if it's your faith's stated aim to create a theocracy or something, then for you it is an article of faith, but I don't think that many people here lean quite in that direction.)

But I was posting in response to your stated question, that I do not believe that referencing faith ends the conversation, for two reasons: because the faith answer is an honest answer if the question is simply "why do you feel this way," and, second, because if what we're up to is debate, then I believe that many, if not most, debates can be turned away from matters of faith to more flexible questions.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Why do you want understanding? Is it to help you live life better? To perhaps become a better person?

---

quote:

---

My point that I made very badly, that I've been trying to get at, is that dialogue is not possible unless each side feels that their needs and concerns have a possibility of being met, that they will be listened to. If one side knows that this isn't going to happen from the outset, then genuine dialogue is not possible and, thus, understanding is not going to be achieved.

The venom in these discussions comes not from lack of understanding, but from lack of listening and a willingness to modify one's position in light of evidence given by the other side. After all, why does the other side produce evidence? At least, that's where my venom comes from.

---

quote:

---

Certainly, the statement 'That's my faith' seems to me to be a slap in the face to people attempting a dialogue on a position that is important to them. That's not dialogue, that's a bottom-line take it or leave it, who cares what you think declaration.

---

quote:

---

I am not proposing that people--gay or straight, religious or non-religious-- abandon their beliefs without reason, or even at all! I am proposing that people engage in dialogue with the other side in meaningful ways! That is the whole reason for this thread and for everything that I've posted in this thread!

Ever since I've been on this forum, people of faith have sworn up and down that they have reasons for what htey believe in, evidence, that they just aren't blind sheep and are willing to modify their positions. I took this statement at face value and believed them, despite the large amount of evidence to the contrary. Now people of faith, when asked to show evidence of this flexibility and reasonability that they've sworn that they've had are suddently struck dumb. They retreat to victimology rather than admit that they have no arguments.

"You're picking on us when you ask us to produce evidence!"

Do I think that their arguments are going ot be persuasive to people on the other side? Almost certainly not. But at least then I'll know where the hell they're coming from and why they believe what they believe, that they have 'examined the evidence', and that, my friend, is when understanding--real, meaningful understanding-- will come. That's when, at least for me, my rancor will disappear. Until then, pointing to The Book doesn't help me to understand jack. And that's a large part of what I've been trying to say throughout this whole thread.

---

quote:

---

I think I've stepped on a mine here, because this thread is about more than just the topic stated.

---

Well, I tried. Sorry for any wandering about.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
No apology necessary. That smiley that you left off the quote was not intended in a smart-ass way, but to convey my goodwill despite my growing sense that there is more going on here than I see on the surface. (A lot of threads these days seem to be interwoven with each other, and I'm just not here as much these days, and so sometimes I approach a thread on its own points, without realizing at first that it's part of another discussion.) You seem offended or annoyed that I'm not engaging you in the manner that you want, and for that I apologize, but I'm pretty much coming at this from the only angle I know how to. I think we have many areas of agreement; I simply disagree with the original suggestion that citing faith as a reason for a belief is necessarily a conversation-stopper. I've tried to explain why I feel this way, and I don't seem to have succeeded.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I had a long post typed out, but I feel like I'm just repeating myself, Rivka. If it's not clear what I"m saying by now, I don't know that more repetition is going to help. I just dont' have time for it. Sorry.

Thank you for your thoughts, good night.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I'm not offended or annoyed at you about anything you've said in this thread, Icarus. Sorry if I came off that way.

In part I'm annoyed because I can't seem to make myself clear, and I hate it when that happens.

In large part, though, I'm extremely annoyed at the people of faith, organized religion people, whatever, for making a sharp u-turn in dialogue the last couple of days. My thread was an attempt to address that in a constructive way, but I don't think it's really been very constructive, which just makes me more annoyed at my inability to say what I want to say and/or people to understand what I'm saying.

At this point, I just want to give up on ever having a dialogue about an article of faith with anyone ever again. For a long time, this forum made me think that maybe red and blue could get along, that we could talk things out, but I don't think I believe that any longer, and I'm not sure what that means. I think I'm going ot have to reorganize my thinking about things, at the very least.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
It does not seem to me that the change lies where it seems it does to you.

Not saying your perception is wrong -- I'm at least as biased as you -- just that mine differs.

In any case, I am sorry that you feel so negatively. Especially to whatever degree I have contributed.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
That was well said, Rivka. I appreciate the kind words, and would also like to apologize for contributing to any negative feelings.

I also want to thank those people in this thread who took the time to type out well thought-out posts that I never responded to. Blackblade, General Sax, Samuel Bush, thanks for contributing your thoughts to the thread. It sucks to take the time to write a long post and then not have anyone respond to it, but I did read them. I, and probably others, just don't have time to respond to you in the same thoughtful fashion.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I feel that I am probably responsible for much of your frustration. I'm sorry for that. I don't know the cause of the miscommunication between us, but it wasn't intentional.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Let me offer the following, not involving personalities. The question of whether a statement that someone has religious beliefs about a given topic should shut down debate might be seen more clearly if we ask the following questions:

(1) Should someone who says he has religious beliefs be excluded from all discussion and debate?

(2) Should someone be excluded from discussion and debate about the topic inwhich he holds religious beliefs?

(3) Should someone who has religious beliefs not be honest in stating where he is coming from?

Let me deal with number (3) first. Obviously we do not want people who are dishonest to participate in discussion or debate. (It is enough of a challenge dealing with people who are sincerely mistaken! ) But just as obviously, we should not make people feel that they have to be dishonest in order to participate in a discussion or debate.

As far as number (1) is concerned, it is contrary to the sense of democratic fairness and tolerance we have all been raised with for us to be exclusive of a class of people because they have religious beliefs, when by all polls, the vast majority of people do have religious views about something.

Number (2) may seem reasonable to some people, but it really amounts to excluding arbitarily those people who are guaranteed to have a view different from their view. What if there is a God? What if there is truth--at least some truth--in some religions? What if the religious view does in fact turn out to be the correct one about a given topic?

Must all participation in public discussion and debate be reserved only for atheists or agnostics? Here are reasons why this is untenable:

(A) This could be viewed as a self-serving attempt to bias the field of discussion and debate.

(B) This could not really be enforced. You cannot silence people who feel they have a right to participate and wish to participate in public discussion and debate. The only tools available are rudeness and trying to make them a pariah by refusing to acknowledge what they say--but many people will object to the rudeness and will not participate in the attempt to shun the "pariah."

(C) Some may also try to use as a tool a demand that religious people censor themselves and feel they should not participate. But since they would hardly agree with this, such a tool is useless. People simply cannot be controlled to this extent, and frankly, we should not try to be so controlling--unless we don't mind being continually frustrated.

My conclusion: Anyone who wants to participate in the public marketplace of ideas must be prepared to take their lumps. There is no shortcut or "easy button." Don't insist on having everything your way, because you can't have it. Patience is a part of maturity and wisdom. Etc.

[ November 01, 2006, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Ron, when you are confronted with someone who says "I know you're wrong about Creationism because my religion says the Earth is the body of Ymir, the Frost Giant," how do you respond? What further discussion do you have on that topic?

More to the point, do you feel that you've "taken a lump" when someone responds that way? Has your argument for Creationism been battered or reduced by their stated belief in the bones of Ymir?
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
The arguments of evolutionists are of exactly the same character as those of the Ymirist to me.

What further discussion do we have? Arguments based on the facts, and also addressing the religious view rather than ignoring it. I believe in evangelism. I do not hesitate to challenge the philosophies underlying evolutionism and uniformitarianism. Anyone who has religious or philosophical beliefs should be prepared to defend them.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
*mutters* I think I was doing o.k. until I got to the third page. I think that's when things started to get a little muddled.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:
As has been explained several times today, on several threads, there is a difference between saying, "I question my belief in God and/or my religion" and "I question the reasoning behind each and every tenet of my religion." I believe most theists (on Hatrack, at least; probably not at large) would agree with the first.

Most would not agree with the second. And I think that is what you are asking for.

---

quote:

---

Arguments based on the facts

---

quote:

---

For some religions, agreeing with their leadership is a core article of faith. "If Reverend X, or Rabbi Z, or the Council of Q decide something, I must agree with them or stop being a member of this religion.".

---

I don't know what religion that would be.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
kmbboots, you said: "I can be a good Catholic without agreeing with the Vatican's position."

I don't know if the Vatican agrees with that, but more power to you.

Storm Saxon, you asked: "What's a fact?" That is a philosophical question.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Am I the only one having trouble posting? I can't see my own posts...
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
*mutters* I think I was doing o.k. until I got to the third page. I think that's when things started to get a little muddled.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:

quote:

---

For some religions, agreeing with their leadership is a core article of faith. "If Reverend X, or Rabbi Z, or the Council of Q decide something, I must agree with them or stop being a member of this religion.".

---

I don't know what religion that would be.

---

quote:

---

I have read on this forum, people who are LDS claim that they can't change their view on homosexuality unless the church leadership does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:
As has been explained several times today, on several threads, there is a difference between saying, "I question my belief in God and/or my religion" and "I question the reasoning behind each and every tenet of my religion." I believe most theists (on Hatrack, at least; probably not at large) would agree with the first.

Most would not agree with the second. And I think that is what you are asking for.

---

I would almost exactly reverse that. I don't question my belief in God; I constantly question and challenge the tenets of Catholicism. But my religion says that I can - and should. I can be a good Catholic without agreeing with the Vatican's position. I believe that I am a better Catholic for disagreeing with the Vatican's position on some issues.

That isn't true for some religions. For some religions, agreeing with their leadership is a core article of faith. "If Reverend X, or Rabbi Z, or the Council of Q decide something, I must agree with them or stop being a member of this religion.".

---

1) I am aware of your perspective. I have other friends (including other Catholics) who share it.

I cannot claim to really understand it.

2) I agree with Katie. It's not about agreeing with "the leadership" on everything. On the Jewish forum I post on regularly, there are some people who think I'm barely this side of a heretic! (Ok, I'm exaggerating. But not by much.)

However, to me, and I get the feeling to many of the theists on Hatrack, being a member of a particular religion does mean agreeing with the basic tenets. And while I understand that not everyone gets that this devolves upon a basic tenet, it does.

Of course, I am perfectly aware that not all members of my religion agree with that. I just think they're wrong.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

Storm Saxon, you asked: "What's a fact?" That is a philosophical question.

---

You have it as a facet of your argument, so I'm asking for clarification from you.

Let me be more specific: "my religion says the Earth is the body of Ymir, the Frost Giant".

Is this a fact?
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
kmbboots, you said: "Ron, the Vatican doesn't have to agree!" Ah, so then you are your own pope? (Just kidding!)

katharina, one takes a chance naming cults. Safe to say, the Jimmy Jones community that drank Kool-Aid laced with cyanide, was a cult. If you refused to drink, and escaped before they could force you, then you were not a member. You also survived. There are religious groups which appear to use brainwashing methods. These have to be inflexible in order to maintain the conditioning.

I would be inclined to feel that anyone who engaged in an open discussion with me about their religious beliefs, willing to defend them, is not a cultist. Cultists are generally people who cannot be reached by reason or evangelism.

Of course, this leads to the dangerous corallary that people who believe something just because it is what their church teaches, without being able to defend it themselves, are actually cultists, even if they are members of mainline denominations.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Storm Saxon, the fact in that proviso would be that your Ymirism believes that to be a fact.

You appear to be using "fact" as an synonym for "truth." I meant it in the sense of data, the various things that we all find commonly accessible as actual occurring manifestations of objective reality, that need to be interpreted and explained. It is the interpretations and explanations that we argue about.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Katie, about your question....that is the real question, and it is debated even within the RC Church.

During the last Presidential election cycle there were RC clergy who said they would refuse Kerry Communion because of some of his political stances, and it caused a huge uproar. Not all clergy, and the official stance of the RC church didn't say that, but some fairly predominate leaders of the RC church were of the opinion that he wasn't RC, despite his professed faith.


I am not trying to bring up Kerry as any sort of political statement at this point, but that was the most blatant example in recent times I could think of, one that I remembered right away.


There isn't a clear cut answer, which proves it was a good question.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Arguments based on the facts, and also addressing the religious view rather than ignoring it. I believe in evangelism. I do not hesitate to challenge the philosophies underlying evolutionism and uniformitarianism. Anyone who has religious or philosophical beliefs should be prepared to defend them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
There is no official juding a "good" Mormon. The closest would be the temple reccomend interview. While there are questions concerning meeting attendance and the law of chastity in the interview, there is no question concerning same sex marriage.

I was afraid that you were saying Mormons have to agree with everything as part of their religion. That isn't true, and saying it is perpetuating a misconception.

quote:

---

I have read on this forum, people who are LDS claim that they can't change their view on homosexuality unless the church leadership does.

---

There is a difference between "can't" and "won't". There are good Mormons who do disagree. You cannot say that they are not, and no one else is claiming that they are not.

I have a question, though. If the Vatican doesn't have to agree, then by what standard is someone still "Catholic enough". I mean, how much dissent can occur before one is no longer Catholic? This is a very sincere question.

---

quote:

---

You appear to be using "fact" as an synonym for "truth." I meant it in the sense of data, the various things that we all find commonly accessible as actual occurring manifestations of objective reality, that need to be interpreted and explained.

---

quote:

---

I was afraid that you were saying Mormons have to agree with everything as part of their religion.

---

quote:

---

Nauvoo is only one of many, many places to discuss Mormony things.

---

quote:

---

By the way, does anyone know if in fact John Kerry has been refused Communion?

---

quote:

---

Can you show me a Mormon on this board or Nauvoo who believes that homosexuality is an equally valid way of loving versus heterosexuality?

---

Do your own homework. I know some.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
kmboots, by local clergy, I meant the local bishops, as distinguished from the central church authority vested in the Vatican.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Maybe some Mormons would like to discuss this over a cold beer? Any takers?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
See, stuff like that makes me think you're not asking in good faith.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

Do your own homework. I know some.

---

Mormons willing to stand up in church and argue that men should be able to have sex with men? That's what I mean by 'loving'. Or that men should be able to platonically 'love' each other, which is, I'm guessing, what might be closer to what is argued for by 'some' Mormons.

In any case, I will keep my eyes open. I hope you will point out any you happen to run across.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I'm sorry your experience has been so limited you don't know any.

They weren't online. I have no way of linking to them.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

See, stuff like that makes me think you're not asking in good faith. [Smile]

---

I would totally share my beer with you, Kat.

Sigh. Look. I'm not just being mean. The whole point of my last few posts is that while there are a whole lot of things that Mormons can debate, and Bob knows a lot of you little bastiges are some of the most contrary corksuckers on the planet, there are some things (edit: I gather. It seems to me.) that are above discussion if someone is to remain a Mormon. I'm pretty sure this is what Tom was getting at, rather than the straw man that Mormons don't debate.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I know ak has been gone for a while. But is she that easily forgotten?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Yes, Mormons (generally - it's in the temple recommend interview) follow the Word of Wisdom, which modern prophets have specified to mean no alcohol, tobacco, coffee, or tea, and to eat healthily and exercise. Mormons are generally better with the Don't's than the Do's, but that's the general idea. Edit: I swear there was a post I was responding to.

I don't know what to say, Stormy. I wasn't going to tell my RM, faithful friend that because of her opinion she wasn't a real Mormon.

Good point, rivka. I wasn't even thinking of her.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

I wasn't going to tell my RM, faithful friend that because of her opinion she wasn't a real Mormon.

---

quote:

---

You don't get kicked out for disagreeing, however.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
kmboots, by local clergy, I meant the local bishops, as distinguished from the central church authority vested in the Vatican.

---

quote:

---

It is the case that you can be denied entry to the Temple for disagreeing, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:

quote:

---

It is the case that you can be denied entry to the Temple for disagreeing, isn't it?

---

No.

The final recommend is up to the bishop and stake president, but agreement with specific doctrines outside of 1) Jesus as Saviour, 2) Joseph Smith as a prophet, and 3) present leadership as prophets is not necessary. If the issue had become so large in someone's mind that they thought that the presidency of the church were no longer prophets, that would do it, but that's a bigger issue.

As for the previous debates, politics is a mess and people say all sorts of crappy and crazy things.

---

quote:

---

Can a Mormon be a prominent pro-choice activist without losing his or her recommend?

---

quote:

---

how can you hold those views and still recognize the divine authority of the leaders of the church?

---

quote:

---

Could the leaders of the church call somebody and say, "Hey, look, maybe you didn't realize this, but this thing we said about marriage is official scripture" -- and then kick him out if he still advocated the same opinion?

---

quote:

---

Couldn't you be excommunicated for private doubts, though, if you expressed those doubts at your interview in a manner that suggested that you were doubting the authority of the leadership?

---

quote:

---

The purpose is fairly similar. The message -- "you aren't adhering to our doctrine closely enough to be entitled to full membership" -- is identical.

---

quote:

---

Having or not having a temple recommend isn't an indication of 'full membership.' I think we're running into a terminology problem, Tom.

---

quote:

---

But the thing is, it is equivalent to excommunication as excommunication is often meant.

---

quote:

---

For instance, I know many people who have belonged to a religion who, while participating in that religion, have had a couple wild years under their belt, but I know of no Mormons who have done the same.

---

quote:

---

To secure a temple recommend, the receiver must also have demonstrated his eligibility, and that eligibility is based on personal worthiness.

---

quote:

---

Loyalty to leadership is a cardinal requirement of all who serve in the army of the Lord. A house divided against itself cannot stand. (See Mark 3:25.) Unity is basic and essential. Declared the Lord, “If ye are not one ye are not mine.” (D&C 38:27.) Failure to sustain those in authority is incompatible with service in the temple.

---

quote:

---

But the thing is, it [loosing a temple recommend] is equivalent to excommunication as excommunication is often meant.

---

quote:

---

My point -- that challenging the official statements of the church leadership (whether publicly or privately) can result in censure, and therefore that the church is not as tolerant of ideological dissent in this respect as is asserted -- is independent of the terminology used.

---

See, I disagree with the word "censure."



I understand what you mean, and you have a point.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I have explained why. If you choose not to believe me, I don't know else I can do.

For questions of how to reconcile, I can't answer on this issue because I haven't had to do that. For other issues, it is an enormously personal experience that there's no way I'm sharing here. Suffice it to say it takes lots of prayers, wrestling, and patience.
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 

quote:

---

What word would you use to describe the decision that someone isn't wholly Mormon enough to enter the Temple?

---

quote:

---

My experience with various religions in America leads me to believe that Mormons, in general, are much more uniform in what they believe about many things and how strictly they observe tenets (as I understand them) of their religion, than many other religions.

---

quote:

---

You can point to someone and say "X lost his recommend because...

---

quote:

---

The word usually used is "unworthy". Meaning that there is a list of requirements and the person doesn't meet the requirements yet, or no longer meets the requirements. But they are still fully Mormons, and the only priviledge they miss out on without a temple recommend is attending the temple.

---

quote:

---

If I lost my temple recommend, nobody in the entire world, besides my bishop and Stake President (and possibly their ecclesiastical leaders) would ever know about it unless I told them.

---

quote:

---

That is seriously a failure of your experience. I know many, many, many, including my father.
......

Kat is absolutely correct about that. There are a lot.

I'm sure you've interacted with some here on the board, but they didn't announce their past mistakes.

---

Well, you all do realize that for a lot of us, you guys on this forum and Nauvoo are the only real exposure we have to 'Mormon' culture?

That said, please understand that I am not making some kind of absolute statement about Mormons. I certainly understand that I'm only one person and that my experience is severely limited. Please understand that I'm not trying to be mean.

On the other hand, I can't deny my own experience. I know y'all must wonder why some people are kind of, erm, skeptical that there isn't some, how to put it?, vigorous pressure to encourage people to be the best they can be in the Mormon church. Speaking, at least, for myself,it has nothing to do with doctrine (I seriously could not care less) or hearsay or slander (never really heard much if anything about Mormons until I got here), and everything to do with the Mormons I've met on this forum and that I've observed on Nauvoo.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
My wife would notice, since we go together, but there's no way anybody else in my ward would ever notice. It's not like there's a specific time that we all go together.

We don't hide when we go, but we don't announce it either. I have run into one member of my ward at the temple, so I know he had a temple recommend. For the hundreds of other people in my ward, I have no way of knowing whether they have temple recommends or not, except for the handful that have callings (like bishop) that require a temple recommend.

Seriously -- I have no way of knowing who has a recommend and who doesn't, and others have no way of knowing the same about me.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
I believe the Catholic term "excommunicate" means being cut off from grace, cut off from God, cut off from salvation. This is far, far more than what other churches mean by "disfellowship."

To my church, Seventh-day Adventist, disfellowship means the person is removed from the official membership list of the local church, and in turn signifies that the local church does not acknowledge the person as a representative of what a Seventh-day Adventist church member should be. No claim is made that the person is cut off from grace; indeed, the hope is that grace will operate for the person. The concept is often called "redemptive discipline," designed to help the person who presumably fouled up recognize that what they did was really wrong, so they can be convicted and find repentance. After a period of some months, the person can be considered for re-admission to membership, usually along with being rebaptized. In practice, the person may go to a church in a different city, and depending upon the generosity of that church, it may be willing to accept the person into membership on profession of faith. The churches (or at least their pastors) do communicate with each other, but one church usually does not feel a great burden to abide by the judgment of a sister church. This may seem inconsistent or indecisive; but we do have to keep in mind that we cannot read the heart, and it is generally better to err on the side of mercy.

What I am not clear on is the distinction between the Mormon concept of a person not being allowed to enter the Temple, and the Catholic concept of a person being cut off from communion with Christ and the church. Do Mormons feel they have to be elligible to enter the Temple to be saved? Scott R seemed to indicate that is not the case.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
So would it not be a major blow to you to lose your temple recommend, Porter?

Or, to put it another way, would you agree that someone can be a "good" Mormon, in full and complete support of the LDS church, and still lose his temple recommend?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Tom, I corrected your erroneous statement that having or not having a temple recommend is public.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Instead of making me feel like I have to speak up and correct the statements you said about me, it actually makes me less inclined to discuss it with you.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Except that I'm frankly skeptical that you could keep the loss of a recommend all that secret in most wards. I'll take your statement at face value, but it seems to me that the "secret" would evaporate the first time you were invited to a wedding.

Otherwise, yes, I'll freely concede that you limited your input to that point and are not disputing the assertion that temple recommends are a way to ensure doctrinal conformity.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
If you are ineligible to enter the Temple, you can still listen to the Tabernacle Choir on CD.

They must have made an exception for the Philadelphia Philharmonic Orchestra, who recorded a number of musical compositions in the tablernacle with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
He said it. You don't believe it. We are at an impasse. MPH is the only one actually in a position to know.

Weddings are tiny, tiny, tiny and are generally only immediate family. The ward is invited to the reception, not the wedding. *considers* Possibly that's one of the reasons, actually.

The tabernacle is not the temple. Ward buildings are not temples. Stake buildings are not temples.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Ward members are not generally invited to the temple ceremony of a wedding. I've only been invited to the temple ceremony for family and extremely close friends.

I've been to maybe five in my life (including my own). I've been invited to even more, and I doubt that anybody made any judgments on my worthiness or recommend status when I wasn't able to attend.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
So would it not be a major blow to you to lose your temple recommend, Porter?

Or, to put it another way, would you agree that someone can be a "good" Mormon, in full and complete support of the LDS church, and still lose his temple recommend?

---

quote:

---

Weddings are tiny, tiny, tiny and are generally only immediate family.

---

quote:

---

Mormons are discouraged through the threat of limited participation from dissenting on issues on which their leadership has authoritatively spoken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

(But, again, I don't quite understand how Kate can be openly dismissive of the Vatican, either. I suspect the answer there comes down to bureaucracy; we have a lot of nuns here at Edgewood who voiced the same sort of displeasure until just recently, when the Vatican finally noticed and cracked down.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Blackblade, howdy.

Since kat does not feel like explaining, would you explain how one reconciles disagreeing with direct prophecy and a belief in direct prophecy?

It seems (to an outsider) that if you believe God speaks directly to someone and that person issues doctrine that is what he says that God told him, and you disagree with that doctrine you either have to believe that that person could be mistaken about what God said, or lying about what God said. How does that not call into question direct prophecy?

---

quote:

---

I just wanted to make the point that challenging members of some religions on points (such as SSM) on which their leadership has spoken was also a direct challenge to a central tenet of their faith.

---

Are you implying this violates the TOS?
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
I don't think that anyone else is being dishonest, just perhaps a bit defensive, not without some justification.

Tom's reasoning style can sometimes feel like he's trying to logic you into a corner and then pounce
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm happy to have that discussion, Tom. Another thread?

---

Sure! I was very grateful to Rivka and Lisa and some of our other Jews when they explained the Jewish approach to faith and doctrine; it's still hard for me to grasp, since I think Judaism is almost as alien as it's possible a modern church can be to me, but I was glad to have the opportunity to read what they had to say.
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
I don't think that anyone else is being dishonest, just a bit defensive, perhaps not without some justification.

Tom's reasoning style can sometimes feel like he's trying to logic you into a corner and then pounce
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 

quote:

---

If you (like Porter) don't consider the public shame a factor for whatever reason, but still believe that the loss of a recommend would be a horrible loss -- something that Porter didn't answer, but which you're free to decide for yourself

---

quote:

---

-- then the core issue remains untouched: that the threat of losing a Temple recommend is a mechanism used to enforce a bare minimum of doctrine (as interpreted by any given Bishop.)

---

quote:

---

For example, I've never heard of anyone losing their recommend over a differing opinion on abortion or same-sex marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Blackblade, howdy.

Since kat does not feel like explaining, would you explain how one reconciles disagreeing with direct prophecy and a belief in direct prophecy?

It seems (to an outsider) that if you believe God speaks directly to someone and that person issues doctrine that is what he says that God told him, and you disagree with that doctrine you either have to believe that that person could be mistaken about what God said, or lying about what God said. How does that not call into question direct prophecy?

---

Howdy do yourself!

I just deleted a long response because I got very sidetracked Sorry.

There is also the possibility that "I" do not understand the issue entirely. If the prophet spoke, said God was speaking through him, and I did not agree with what he was saying, I would seriously think about the entire situation and attempt to see if I could reconcile God's words with the situation. If that failed, I would study my scriptures for help, as well as pray for guidance as to literature that might help me understand why God held such a point of view.

If it was an issue that was not a moral one, i.e God one day says, "Evolution is simply not true." I can be content to wait until I am dead to figure out how that might be so.

If the issue is a moral issue, and I do not agree with the prophet, lets say the prophet goes off the deep end and says, "Everyone must commit suicide." I have a long history of having divine assurance that what the prophet says is God's words. It would be hard for me to get passed that, but if upon praying on the matter I felt strongly that this command was not of God, I wouldn't obey, and I would leave it up to God explain to my satisfaction why the prophet had spoken amiss.

Though one should not forget that in a universe where God does speak to men, and he does utilize a prophet as his spokesman, it would make sense that God would always tell his people to do what he had just told the prophet to tell them to do.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Because it's not actually draconian?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Because it's not actually draconian?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

For example, I've never heard of anyone losing their recommend over a differing opinion on abortion or same-sex marriage.

---

I think what Kate's trying to understand is why people don't.

Because the LDS church has not been unambiguous about its stance on same-sex marriage. How can you support same-sex marriage and still believe that the leadership of the church was speaking for God as they claimed when they condemned it? By default, isn't the implication there that you doubt their scriptural authority?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

I'm happy to have that discussion, Tom. Another thread?

---

Sure! I was very grateful to Rivka and Lisa and some of our other Jews when they explained the Jewish approach to faith and doctrine; it's still hard for me to grasp, since I think Judaism is almost as alien as it's possible a modern church can be to me, but I was glad to have the opportunity to read what they had to say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I was very grateful to Rivka and Lisa and some of our other Jews when they explained the Jewish approach to faith and doctrine; it's still hard for me to grasp, since I think Judaism is almost as alien as it's possible a modern church can be to me, but I was glad to have the opportunity to read what they had to say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I was very grateful to Rivka and Lisa and some of our other Jews when they explained the Jewish approach to faith and doctrine; it's still hard for me to grasp, since I think Judaism is almost as alien as it's possible a modern church can be to me, but I was glad to have the opportunity to read what they had to say.

---

Could you express that gratitude by avoiding using the word "church" in reference to Judaism? I'm pretty sure I have asked this of you before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Thanks, Jenna. That does make some sense. At least it makes it clear that (like Catholicism) it isn't a clear cut issue. Although the direct prophecy part still confuses me. I have the same question as Tom.

And thanks BlackBlade: That is good information. I had thought (again, from what people had said here) that the leadership had spoken prophetically on the issue.

---

http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=043282;p=0&r=nfx#000000

^^ This is a personal thread I created dabbling with this same issue. You will note alot of the participants of THIS thread are found therein

I eventually reached the conclusion that the letter from the church was asking members to in effect vote their conscience on this issue. I'm confident that President Hinckley probably supports a ban on even civil unions, but even in his letter he has not said, "God will not abide civil unions in the US."
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Sorry this isn't in response to this comment but on another you made Rivka. Could you explain to me the Jewish (if thats the right demographic term) perspective on the law laid out by Moses from God? We can call it The Law since that's what it's called in the Old Testament if that's OK with you?

---

Sure. In this thread, or elsewhere? And can it wait until tonight?

I should do SOME work today.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Could you express that gratitude by avoiding using the word "church" in reference to Judaism?

---

Sure. And if I forget, given how incredibly often the word "church" is used in that context, please forgive me as we seek to forgive people who call users by their username.

------

quote:

---

Because they believe the Book of Mormon is true. Because they agree with so many other things.

---

quote:

---

I'm talking about how can any individual who really believes that the church leadership speaks for God openly and confidently disagree with the church leadership on an issue they claim to have asked God about?

---

quote:

---

I'm having trouble imagining why, no matter how much else I liked about a religion, I would belong to a religion -- and still consider myself a faithful member of a religion -- that claimed direct divine revelation if I did not believe they were actually receiving such revelation. I can freely accept that such people may well exist, but their minds are a mystery to me.

---

quote:

---

Mormonism in practice is much more fuzzy than Mormonism in theory.

---

quote:

---

But, then, is it NOT a "settled issue" that same-sex relationships are considered wrong by the Mormon church?

---

quote:

---

Is this in fact something that perfectly "recommended" Mormons can publicly argue about without worrying that someone else will accuse them of not being a "good" Mormon?

---

quote:

---

If someone were teaching at BYU that same-sex marriage was perfectly acceptable and should be legal, and writing books about how the Church's doctrine on this was wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if some action was taken - I don't know what kind. I don't know if their temple recommend would come into question.

---

quote:

---

t's entirely possible to be a participating Mormon without a temple recommend, though. I know quite a few of those.

---

How? I got the impression it was a whole cloak-and-dagger affair. j/k
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 
!!!

Where's my dagger?
 

---

Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
 
Heh. Okay, three groups. 1)Mormons with recommends that I know about. 2)Mormons without recommends whose condition I know. 3)All other Mormons. By descending size:

3)The vast majority of Mormons I know casually; many Mormon friends who haven't mentioned that they've gone to the temple recently to me.

<Insert large gap>

1)Mormons with recommends that I know about. (Incidentally, as per above, it's not as though they walk through the halls saying, "I have a recommend;" there are no Tom-got-his-recommend parties; rather this is done through inference; ie, "I can't go to the movie tonight; I'm going to the temple.")

<slightly smaller gap>

2)Mormons without a recommend. Now, when I know this I know it because it has come up in conversations about something else or that particular Mormon's relationship to the church as a whole. This is because 1)This person has chosen to make it public or 2)This person is a close enough friend to me that we talk about things like this. One's personal recommend status is _never_ a matter for casual conversation - if it comes up it's because the individual in question has brought it up.

It's also probable that I know more marginal Mormons interested in discussing Mormonism than most people.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

that the threat of losing a Temple recommend is a mechanism used to enforce a bare minimum of doctrine (as interpreted by any given Bishop.)

---

quote:

---

How? I got the impression it was a whole cloak-and-dagger affair.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

Could you express that gratitude by avoiding using the word "church" in reference to Judaism?

---

Sure. And if I forget, given how incredibly often the word "church" is used in that context, please forgive me as we seek to forgive people who call users by their username.

---

quote:

---

Is this in fact something that perfectly "recommended" Mormons can publicly argue about without worrying that someone else will accuse them of not being a "good" Mormon?

---

quote:

---

How often it is used by whom?

---

Actually, to be honest, I use it all the time myself, and I'm certainly not an evangelical Christian.

It was hard for me not to see you as being overly picky, but I thought about it, and I guess I can understand your position if I substitute the word 'synagogue' for 'church' in reference to a 'church'.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Considering the exceedingly strong association of the word (from its very origin!) with Christianity, I don't think I'm being picky.

Feel free to disagree. I don't care if you think I'm irrational, picky, etc. As long as you respect my request, what goes on in the privacy of your head is your business.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Well, what if I ignored your request but understood your position. Make you feel a lot better, eh?

Next person to use the wink smiley is a poopy head!

*jinx*
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 

quote:

---

Considering the exceedingly strong association of the word (from its very origin!) with Christianity, I don't think I'm being picky.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
Well, what if I ignored your request but understood your position. Make you feel a lot better, eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JennaDean:
I really think most people who do it just use it out of habit or ignorance, not even thinking of what it really means.

---

Agreed. Mostly ignorance, I think.

I'm attempting to reduce it.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The genericization of "church" has always bothered me a little from the opposite perspective.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Until this thread, I didn't know that there was any meaning to the word besides the generic one.

I still don't know what it is, but at least I know there is one. That counts for something, right?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Dictionary definitions:
Compact OED
American Heritage
Online Etymological

And Wikipedia entry and disambig.
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 
I guess the point is, Muslims don't go to church. Jews don't go to church. Church is a Christian word and ought only to be used to describe Christian houses of worship or Christian congregations that worship together.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Exactly.
 

---

Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
 


(i had to... and i don't even USE those!!)

; )
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:

quote:

---

that the threat of losing a Temple recommend is a mechanism used to enforce a bare minimum of doctrine (as interpreted by any given Bishop.)

---

What keeps you from driving recklessly? Are you worried about your own safety, or are you worried about losing your driver's license?

---

Does everyone in the world worry about their own safety? If so, why do we have traffic police?
 

---

Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
 
Samarkand posted the following and it is a very good point:

“. . . However, we are not free to impose our beliefs on others. Instead, our government imposes restrictions on behavior based on harm to others: eg. drinking and driving is not ok not because God says not to, although some relgions feels he does, but because drunk driver could kill or injure themselves or others. Murder is wrong not because God says so, but because society does not function when other people are randonly killing each other. Etc.”

I can’t vouch for other Mormons but I can tell you why I support or reject any particular proposed legislation that comes along. The criteria that I almost always look at is: Will this legislation cause harm to others? Or is this a good law that will help prevent harm to others?

Whether or not there is some church doctrine about the subject is a side issue.

I don’t really give a dingo kidney whether or not someone out there is committing sin. Well, sometimes I do care but still . . . I know that sin happens. I know that there is not a whole lot I can do about it. Nor am I allowed to force anyone to behave a certain way . Freedom of choice is one of the fundamental doctrines of my church.

It is hard to overemphasize just how important this doctrine is. We teach that one of the two huge sins that caused Satan to be cast out of heaven is that he “sought to destroy the agency of man” It was so dire a sin that he is forever damned from ever progressing any further. When you consider that his stated goal was to save all mankind (which is the same goal God has) it is impossible to think of a better cause than that. Yet the WAY Satan wanted to go about saving all mankind turned that good cause into a major sin. He wanted to destroy freedom of choice.

I’m not saying this to try to get anyone to believe in that particular doctrine. I’m stating it so that you will understand that is what we believe.

So I, as a Mormon, would be way out of line to pass a law that forces someone to behave a certain way just because it bothers me that there is some sinning going on, or because I didn’t like what someone else is doing. (Even when there is no legislation involved but I just may want to force someone to not do something or to do something, I’m way out of line. A case in point is that recent Mormon mom and dad who kidnapped their of-age daughter to prevent her marriage. They committed a grave sin even though their intentions may have been good.)

So anyway, the only consideration for me is if the law will prevent someone form harming others. An extension of that is that I have to try to decide if some trend will be detrimental to society as a whole in the long run and if some kind of legislation would help to curtail that trend.

My point is that I can be a member in good standing even if I disagree with some other devout Mormon on a political issue. We can both agree, and probably do, that certain things are sins in the eyes of God and that they is set in stone, as it were. We are still allowed to disagree on whether or not anything ought to be done about it legislatively, or whether or not it would even do any good. We probably would also both agree that people are going to do pretty much what they want to anyway (just as I am going to probably hang on to my favorite sins regardless).

This is the sort of leeway that allowed me to be outspokenly opposed to a proposed humongous increase in tobacco tax in Arizona several years ago. Some of my fellow Mormons were shocked that I would do anything that would seem to support smoking. After all, I don’t even use tobacco and it is against our religion. So an extra tax like that was not going to be any skin off my nose. People shouldn’t be using tobacco anyway. Yah, well, I was opposed to the tax anyway and still am.

Just using that to illustrate my point.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
As an utter side note, he's been so busy with comps he hasn't had time in ages, but I just love it when Matt posts.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
That was a really interesting and thoughtful post, Sam. Thanks.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Thanks to both Sam and Matt, actually.

I have to ask, though, Sam: let's say that you felt that a same-sex marriage ban, for whatever reason, would be bad law, regardless of your personal stance on the morality of same-sex marriages, and actively and prominently campaigned for it. Would this get you in trouble with church leadership? I can certainly understand why individuals might be able to separate issues of morality from issues of legality, but does the church recognize that distinction when pressed?

Edit: and this is one of those questions that gets asked of Catholics, too. Should Kerry have been denied communion for his political stance on abortion? If not, why not? Where is that line drawn between dogma and policy?

[ November 02, 2006, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I think that the Church would recognize such a distinction, but I can't back it up with examples of where that has happened one way or another.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
My own thinking on the issue would be examples -- if any -- of pro-choice and/or pro-SSM Mormon politicians. I'm not aware of any who share these positions, but I assume there are Congressional Democrats who are also Mormon; I know about Reid, but he's vocally pro-life and thus not particularly useful as an example in this case.

Edit: BUT, now that I think about it, he actually opposed the federal anti-marriage amendment; there was a bit of a firestorm about that from Mormons, in fact, who felt (clearly erroneously, since he's presumably still in good standing; I find it hard to imagine that people wouldn't know, in this age of universal blogs, if he'd lost his recommend) that this was a betrayal of the church. So there's your example, right there.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 

quote:

---

I find it hard to imagine that people wouldn't know, in this age of universal blogs, if he'd lost his recommend

---

quote:

---

My own thinking on the issue would be examples -- if any -- of pro-choice and/or pro-SSM Mormon politicians.

---

quote:

---

I just find it strange you can believe Mormons can be so secretive about basic things and not about this.

---

quote:

---

From what I understand, Mitt Romney ran under a pro-choice banner.

---

quote:

---

He's not my problem right now, so I haven't payed much attention to him, so i could very well be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattB:
Mormonism in practice is much more fuzzy than Mormonism in theory.

...snip...

So what we're left with is them stating what they believe God's will is. They're not claiming revelation. However, a lot of Mormons tend to assume proclaimations are about revelation. A lot don't. So, again, practice versus theory.

---

quote:

---

He may be seeking the GOP nomination in 08.

---

quote:

---

And in order to be more appealing to the pro-life wing of the GOP, he's trying to appear more pro-life. That would fit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

I have to ask, though, Sam: let's say that you felt that a same-sex marriage ban, for whatever reason, would be bad law, regardless of your personal stance on the morality of same-sex marriages, and actively and prominently campaigned for it. Would this get you in trouble with church leadership? I can certainly understand why individuals might be able to separate issues of morality from issues of legality, but does the church recognize that distinction when pressed?

Edit: and this is one of those questions that gets asked of Catholics, too. Should Kerry have been denied communion for his political stance on abortion? If not, why not? Where is that line drawn between dogma and policy?

---

Tom, I’m not sure I can answer your specific question. I have a confession to make, and don’t tell anyone about this, but I don’t know what the church leadership have said about proposed same sex marriage ban legislations. (But now I’m all curious about it so I plan to find out.)

I can say this, if they have said that we ought to pass those laws and then I go ahead and vote against the law, I would not be in any trouble with the church. It is rare that the church leadership takes a public stand for or against some piece of legislation. But even when they do take a stance, there is no reproach, onus, stigma, or whatever attached to voting contrary to their counsel.

(The only flack one might get is from some other rank-and-file member of the church who is being fanatical about something and thinks everyone ought to think like him. And he would be out of line to give me a hard time about my politics.)

It’s not like when the prophet says that we shouldn’t commit adultery and then I go ahead and do the deed anyway. That would definitely have some reproach attached. So there is a distinction between doctrine and political debate.

Like I said, it’s a rare event. The last time I can remember it happening was against the Equal Rights Amendment. The leadership took a stance because they felt it would be detrimental to the institution of the Family in the long run. But I’m pretty sure no members got in trouble for supporting that Amendment.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
I still think George Romney would have made a good president. If only he had not stuck his foot in his mouth with his statement that he was "brainwashed" by the generals involved in the Vietnam War! I do not know much about Mitt Romney--but what I have heard sounds good. I would have no problem with a Mormon being president. As long as he only brings one first lady into the White House. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

MattB's statement, "Mormonism in practice is much more fuzzy than Mormonism in theory." -- is true of all churches that I know of. Most of the fuzziness comes from the fact that the common church member does not have an extensive knowledge of the official teachings of their church.

Kmboots said: "I guess it just feels impolite to try to instruct someone else on their religious doctrine." Yes, and yet I find that when I talk with members of other churches--especially Catholics--I know far more about what their church teaches than they do, so how do I discuss it with them? The first thing I have to do is draw them out and find out how much they do know. Most Catholics I have talked to, for example, do not know what their church teaches about "Original Sin" and the nature of "grace," even though these are major points in contention between Protestantism and Catholicism.

Many people will shrug and say, "Oh well, that's just theology." Sigh. The word theology means knowledge or science of God. Is it unimportant what we understand about God and His ways?

In truth, most people are content merely to inherit their religious beliefs, and do not choose them intelligently after thoughtful study and comparison with Scripture for themselves.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:

MattB's statement, "Mormonism in practice is much more fuzzy than Mormonism in theory." -- is true of all churches that I know of. Most of the fuzziness comes from the fact that the common church member does not have an extensive knowledge of the official teachings of their church.

---

quote:

---

Or, you know, he's had a change of heart.

---

That's right, Scott. *pat pat* When he was trying to appeal to a mostly liberal state, he didn't highlight his pro-life stance out of conviction to principle; and now that he's trying to get nominated by his party for president, he's had a change of heart.
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
The desire for votes instigates many changes of heart it seems.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Oh--then what you are saying, kmboots, is that it is the theology that is fuzzy.

I would say that the science of salvation--exactly how it is that God saves us--becomes more complex and deep the more one studies and looks into it. But it does not become "fuzzy"!

If the theology of a church becomes fuzzier the more one knows about it, it is obvious what that might imply. But I prefer to leave it to people to see that and make judgments about it for themselves. To me, the great clarifier is the Bible. As Isaiah 8:20 declares, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." But when you accept other written documents as equal or more authoritative than the Bible, this in itself can introduce fuzziness, if they contradict each other.

---

quote:

---

It is more complicated and less clear cut. At least with Catholicism

---

quote:

---

The desire for votes instigates many changes of heart it seems.

---

quote:

---

LOL

You'll never get me to apologize for taking people at their word.

---

We're just having fun, Scott.

Like I said, Romney isn't even on my radar yet and, in any case, nothing could convince me that all politicians aren't basically creatures of convenience. Since Romney is a politician, he gets my full cynicism. It's nothing particular about him.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Sorry this isn't in response to this comment but on another you made Rivka. Could you explain to me the Jewish (if thats the right demographic term) perspective on the law laid out by Moses from God? We can call it The Law since that's what it's called in the Old Testament if that's OK with you?

---

quote:

---

The other part of the fuzziness relates to the fact that theological principles alone never help you arrive at precisely what you should do at any given time. Temporal understanding of the physical world is necessary.

We are taught to feed the hungry, but we need to use non-theological reasoning to identify the hungry we should feed, procure the food, and transport the food to the hungry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Sorry this isn't in response to this comment but on another you made Rivka. Could you explain to me the Jewish (if thats the right demographic term) perspective on the law laid out by Moses from God? We can call it The Law since that's what it's called in the Old Testament if that's OK with you?

---

Torah 101. Let me know if that answers the question(s) you're asking.

---