Be warned: it is offensive. But I ask LDS members: is there *anything* in that list of alleged Mormon beliefs that Mormons actually believe? Besides God being corporeal.
I just want to know what a correct list would have been for those issues, so I can tell people to stop talking nonsense when they are.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
The most offensive thing on that page was proportion of adspace to actual content.
edit: to fix wording.
[ May 13, 2007, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Let's just say that most of those statements do have roots in LDS doctrine, but some of them have been presented in sensational manner. Papa Janitor recently requested (per the Cards' wishes) that we not have threads devoted solely to a discussion of LDS beliefs, so I don't want to be in violation of that by going through a point-by-point discussion. If so inclined, you might want to go over to nauvoo.com, another OSC site for Mormon believers, and ask the question there. You're also welcome to email me through my profile if you want to hear one member's take on it. (I wouldn't be surprised if the topic were addressed somewhere on fair.org or its associated discussion boards.)
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:God is not eternal, but was once a man on another planet
This is only half (if a quarter) true. There is something that Joseph Smith said that might lead to this conclusion, but even he infered rather than stated it. Then there is a couplet by Lorenzo Snow that has not been made official, or even explains what exactly he meant. As for God not eternal, everyone is considered eternal so this makes no sense.
quote:The book of Mormon is more accurate than the Bible
You know, I am getting tired of this one used as some kind of hammer against Mormons as it is usually misunderstood completely. This comes from Joseph Smith, who said, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”
The "most correct book" doesn't mean the same thing as no mistakes or accuracy. Joseph Smith, Mormons, and the Book of Mormon itself (that clearly says there are mistakes) have never been Scriptural Innerantists. Simply put, Joseph Smith meant it taught correct spiritual teachings better than any other book. You can argue about that, but at least argue ABOUT that.
I picked these two because they are the most innacurate. The others are much more complicated and not at all the simplistic one liner garbage. I actually found the most offensive stuff was coming from some of the responders.
If this thread is to be deleted (and I can understand why) it could be transported to a few Romney/Mormonism threads that already exist.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Of note, I believe the nauvoo site requires a registration to post, and the registration requires you to assert that you are of LDS faith. At least, it has always been that way in the past (darn it! ).
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I read Papa Janitor's post and it was about "a general discussion," which we already knew OSC did not want, but this is a specific set of issues. Still I suppose if there is a problem we will hear soon. If Papa Janitor thinks this is too general I will try asking someone in meatspace. I do not want to annoy anyone.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I shall speak with my Mormon voice as I am put-off by how this list is presented.
quote: – God is not eternal, but was once a man on another planet
That is a common belief but not doctrine. There is a "couplet" (as Gordon B. Hinckley referred it) that said, "As man is, God once was." As God is, man may become. A central theme in Mormonism is eternal progression. Another theme is what is called "estates." We started off as intelligences. We got spirit bodies. We got physical bodies. We will get eternal bodies.
God being a man fits in Mormon doctrine. Many Mormons believed/believe it. It was probably more widely believed in early church history. It is not doctrine--but it doesn't go against any known doctrine.
quote: – God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children
Add to my previous statement that we are all related in spirit, or God's spirit children, and it is a natural inference that God is married. He is our Heavenly Father in a literal sense. The spirit children are us.
quote: – Jesus is the “spirit brother” of Lucifer and all humans are their siblings
Looking at my above statement, you can see that we are all spirit siblings--making Jesus and Lucifer brothers. Us and Jesus brothers/sister. Lucifer never got a body and is therefor on a different "estate."
One of the teachings I loved in Mormonism was the idea of "estates." I liked it because I was taught that the higer estate you have the more power you have. We are therefor more powerful then Lucifer because we have progressed further. That is why Lucifer only has powever over us if we grant it to him.
I am not sure I believe in Lucifer anymore. I certainly don't believe in Mormonism. I do still hold that belief in a more metaphorical sense.
quote: – The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three separate gods
They are all God with three seperate roles. I learned as a Mormon to look at God as a title much like you look at "couple" as a title. The husband has one role. The wife has another role. Together they are a couple. That is not a doctrinally correct way to look at it, but it does capture an element of true belief.
quote: – The Father and the Son each have separate, physical bodies
Yes. I don't see the controversy. It just seems like a simple basic difference in religion.
quote:– The book of Mormon is more accurate than the Bible
Yes. The bible was translated by many people in many different languages. Joseph Smith taught it lost some important truths. That is why there is a Joseph Smith translation of the Bible.
quote: – The gospel was lost until Mormon founder Joseph Smith restored it and there is no salvation outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
That is a fundamental belief in Mormonism. I would say there is no salvation outside of getting your priesthood endowments and the power of the priesthood is only found in the LDS church.
quote:– It is impossible to be saved by God’s grace alone
That is a semantics question. At it's root is the belief that God will only save us "after all that we can do." If we don't prove/humble ourselves then God's grace has no influence over us. Salvation is not automatic but neither can people save themselves. The actual "saving" is only done through Jesus Christ.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I would not say that there is no salvation. I think the highest degree of heaven, which is the one in which people are eternally married, and have spirit children of their own, is only available to those who have the correct ordinances done through the proper authority (which is why we do them for everyone). What other Christians know as heaven, which is a glorified place wherein people don't marry or have spirit children, corresponds very closely with our lower levels of exaltation. And we believe anyone who is a good person who lives a good life and tries to do what's right can make it there. I think we're in perfect agreement with other Christians on that point, with the proviso that we have extra knowledge of this higher level of exaltation beyond what they know about yet.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
This place is just rife with Mormons. Rife!
I still don't get the spirit children bit. I had always thought of the man I consider to be my "spiritual father" as simply, you know, my "spiritual father". No mom needed.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:This place is just rife with Mormons. Rife!
And you are surprised by this when the hosting author is Mormon because?
quote:I still don't get the spirit children bit.
There are two kinds of spiritual children in Mormon theology. First, there is the kind that you seem to be indicating where we have a moral and salvational connection to God. However, there is a second meaning that indicates a literal connection; that God is really a Father to us all as spiritual entities. We have a father of our bodies and a Father of our spirits with a similar relationship.
Add on if that is the case, then we also have a spritual mother - although that is more infered theology than absolute doctrine. you might want to read a similar discussion near the bottom of this thread.
I also noticed you kind of ran into that a bit in another thread.
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
steven,
Mormons believe that this life, and everything in it (everything "good", that is) is patterened after the life we had with our Father in Heaven before being born into this life. Thus, the 2 parent system of this life is simply a continuation of the 2 parent system of our previous existence.
In a nutshell! Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"And you are surprised by this when the hosting author is Mormon because?"
It was actually a Seinfeld reference. Sorry you missed it.
You're still losing me with the "spirit children". What I would like to see is either where Smith came up with this doctrine, or where it appears in some other belief system. I still REALLY don't get it. Spirit children, formed from spirit sex?
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Of note, I believe the nauvoo site requires a registration to post, and the registration requires you to assert that you are of LDS faith. At least, it has always been that way in the past (darn it! ).
Oops -- I'm sorry about the bum steer. I'm registered over there but I've never really been an active participant, and I no longer remember the TOS, other than a vague memory that we were to be respectful and faith-promoting.
I guess I'm a little hazy on just what to avoid talking about here on Hatrack, since the LDS conversations are fairly frequent, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:You're still losing me with the "spirit children". What I would like to see is either where Smith came up with this doctrine, or where it appears in some other belief system. I still REALLY don't get it. Spirit children, formed from spirit sex?
We really have no idea how, mechanically, spirits are created. No one has even approached answering that question in any kind of authoritative way. The idea is simply that somehow, we are the offspring of God. He very seriously considers us to be His children, and has a valid reason to do so.
It could be as simple as, "God has created trillions of living things, but this tiny group is actually like Him ... they are morally conscious and carry the same intrinsic potential. Therefore, whereas other things are simply His creations, this group is His spirit children." Or there could be some more detailed explanation that we don't know yet — some method by which we are derived from God, the way a child is derived, genetically, from its parents.
But we don't have to leap to the assumption that there is some process that resembles "spirit sex" in order for us to be "spirit children". It's not there in our doctrine, and I don't think it is likely to be true.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I wish that Christian religions that give Mormons a hard time about their beliefs, realized how crazy THEIR beliefs sound to non-Christians.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:And we believe anyone who is a good person who lives a good life and tries to do what's right can make it there. I think we're in perfect agreement with other Christians on that point
Not what other Christians think, but that's another topic, I would suppose. My impression was that Mormons didn't think that either, but I wouldn't know.
Thanks for all your replies.
It seems to me that "spirit child" or "spirit brother" is so clearly a metaphor (since there's no DNA transfer ) that I can't say definitively who is or is not by brother/sister. We have fraternity brothers, brotherhoods of machinists, brotherhood at the church, all men as brothers, brothers-in-law, sisters at the convent, adoptive children, child processes...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It seems to me that "spirit child" or "spirit brother" is so clearly a metaphor (since there's no DNA transfer ) that I can't say definitively who is or is not by brother/sister.
I don't think most Mormons do consider it metaphorical. Rather, I don't think they think that DNA transfer is a necessary condition of family.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It seems to me that "spirit child" or "spirit brother" is so clearly a metaphor (since there's no DNA transfer ) that I can't say definitively who is or is not by brother/sister.
I don't think most Mormons do consider it metaphorical. Rather, I don't think they think that DNA transfer is a necessary condition of family.
That is how I understand things.
How the system of parentage works on this earth and how it is derived from how things work in God's realm is not something that can be discussed with much detail.
How I look like my parents and yet am one of God's sons is just something I do not think I could comprehend in this life.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Wow. Reading the comments section on that website is scary on so many levels, very few of them specifically relating to views on Mormonism.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I know it is hard to think of, but it could be something very different than DNA that connects us as children to God. Whatever it is, Mormons believe a non-metaphorical understanding of Children of God. You have to remember that in the 18th Century such a concept as DNA, much less anything outside of sex, wasn't even imagined as family relatedness.
My point is, some early LDS leaders did make the implication it was sexual, but it was never church doctrine. Regardless, the fact we are considered Children of God in a non-metaphorical way is Mormon doctrine.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
But...if there's no DNA transfer, then what is "family"? It's something that either *is* a group of genetically related individuals, or is *like* such a group.
I am not commenting on theology here, but language. We use familiar and literal terms to describe things that are abstract, invisible, or unfamiliar, because it's the only way we can understand.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"or is *like* such a group" is closer to the theological and linguistic meaning for Mormons.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:But we don't have to leap to the assumption that there is some process that resembles "spirit sex" in order for us to be "spirit children". It's not there in our doctrine, and I don't think it is likely to be true.
Dangit! Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
One thing that I think might help non-Mormons in their quest to understand Mormonism is that we have a very strong choose-your-own theology tradition in the church. As is evidenced by the numerous differing opinions of active Mormons on Hatrack, there is very little Mormons agree on when it comes to exploring the depth of our doctrines.
Our local leaders don't have nearly the same level of formal theological training as in most other Christian denominations (which is why we suck at ecumenical debate,) and oftentimes are as ignorant on scriptural matters as the average member. There's even many times when incorrect or false "folk doctrines" are perpetuated by well-meaning but misinformed Bishops and Stake Presidents. For the most part, we choose to focus much more on the basic doctrines and how to live up to our own covenants with God.
Thus if you were to ask a "deep doctrine" question (such as the idea of how Heavenly Father is related to His spirit children) to ten different Mormons, you'd likely get ten different answers--five of which are based on something the respondant heard Bruce R. McConkie had once said in a talk. By and large, Mormons aren't that interested in our own theology, which makes theologians like McConkie so immensely popular among the average population.
Of course, that doesn't keep us from participating in the time-honored tradition of wild, unsupported speculation. I've been in lots of Gospel Doctrine class discussions where people have brought up some real doozies. My favorite response to such invention of doctrine comes from our host, who once said in a a Gospel Doctrine class "my speculation is just as good as your speculation."
This brings us back to the original topic. Romney has, for better or worse, put Mormonism in the spotlignt. There is, unfortunately, lots and lots of speculation by early Mormon leaders that have been put forth as official, binding doctrine by those misinformed about our concept of modern revelation. Just because the Journal of Discourses says so-and-so on page 376, footnote 3 doesn't mean that the Church today is bound by the opinion set forth in that statement.
Our doctrine is much broader-based than that, and our theology is even more open to varied interpretation. Each Mormon, including Romney (and Harry Reid, for that matter, who the MSM seems not to have yet noticed is also a Mormon) is probably going to have his or her own beliefs on any number of issues. Trying to figure out what Romney believes based on what other Mormons have said in the past, or the present, is foolish.
(edited because I don't like long paragraphs, so I inserted some rather random paragraph breaks throughout.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:One thing that I think might help non-Mormons in their quest to understand Mormonism is that we have a very strong choose-your-own theology tradition in the church. As is evidenced by the numerous differing opinions of active Mormons on Hatrack, there is very little Mormons agree on when it comes to exploring the depth of our doctrines.
I don't actually agree with this. (Yes, I get the irony.)
I mean, there is difference of opinion, but there is not a huge range of differences. It's nothing like...say, Anglicans or Baptists or Muslims where there wildly different factions. Not everyone agrees on everything, but in practice and generally in theology Mormons tend to run the gamut from A to B. Maybe A to C.
For the "deep doctrine" question you posed, that's not a doctrine question because there isn't doctrine on it. What you're asking for is speculation - you'll get lots of different opinions, but I doubt you'll get many of the opinion-makers saying they speak for the church and all Mormonism.
quote:This brings us back to the original topic. Romney has, for better or worse, put Mormonism in the spotlignt. There is, unfortunately, lots and lots of speculation by early Mormon leaders that have been put forth as official, binding doctrine by those misinformed about our concept of modern revelation. Just because the Journal of Discourses says so-and-so on page 376, footnote 3 doesn't mean that the Church today is bound by the opinion set forth in that statement.
I agree with this paragraph, but not with the rest of your post.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: and Harry Reid, for that matter, who the MSM seems not to have yet noticed is also a Mormon
Yeah, but he is not a real Mormon. *whispers* He is a Democrat. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*laugh/sigh*
There is a letter that is read ove the pulpit every election cycle urging members to go and vote. Recently, a new sentence has been added that said that issues relevant to members of the church can be found in the platforms of both major parties.
In other words, the official urging of members to vote is now refuting that precise meme.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I wonder if they will change the new sentence if we get a Mormon Independent in office. I suspect they put in that sentence because Bush has hurt the Republican Party. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do you really think that? *puzzled* I thought it was because there was this meme out there that in order to be Mormon you have to Republican. If there was any one person who was an impetus, I'll bet it was Harry Reid.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
You know, when they "Called" Granpa Andersen, and his family, to be Democrats, they didn't have to talk very hard. He was a good mentor for all his kids and many of his grandkids, especially with his many years of service as an official in the Box Elder County "Farmers for FDR" Committee. He always felt bad about the negative influence that "That Darn Clark" had on David McKay(another prominant Democrat). Harry Reid is my man in Washington.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
No, I really don't think that. I am just joking around. One of my favorite essays by OSC is where he talked about either the Christians hijacking the republican party or the republican party hijacking Christianity. I can't remember which did what according to OSC.
I do remember the pleasant surprise at finding out he is Democrat, and I was impressed with his ability to divorce politics from religion.
I do think the meme exists because there is a lot of truth to the cultural aspects of the Church being republican. I would not be surprised if 80-90 percent of Utah Mormons are Republican.
I think the Republican Party exploitation of gay marriage and abortion has caused this divide.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Which divide are you referring to?
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
We aren't a large segment of the church in the US, but we do exist. Mormon Democrat
Thats me! Posted by Steve_G (Member # 10101) on :
James E. Faust, Second Counselor in the First Presidency of the church is a lifelong Democrat.
"Faust served in the House of Representatives for the 28th Utah State Legislature (1949) as a Democrat for Utah's eighth district...President Faust also served as chairperson of the Utah State Democratic Party."
While the church body certainly is seems to be more right leaning than left, I think it could easily go the other way in different parts of the country/world that don't have the same political traditions prevelant in Utah and Idaho.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I see a slight change in LDS and Democrat alignment from a change in demographics and some Mormons starting to feel disrespected and used by Evangelical Republicans. There is still a strong disgareement about some Democratic platforms that needs to change before a large portion of LDS change sides.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I see a slight change in LDS and Democrat alignment from a change in demographics and some Mormons starting to feel disrespected and used by Evangelical Republicans.
MrSquicky has been trying to get this point across for years. I guess it finally took a situation like Romney to really make anyone consider his point though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
He's always saying something and doing something else. He's always down on Massachussans except when they're himself. I hate to have to say it, but I very firmly feel Mitt Romney's not an asset to the party.
I'd like to say a word on his behalf: Mitt Romney has great staff.
How do you solve a problem like Mitt Romney? How do you vote for someone with no God? Can good fundamentalists trust Mitt Romney? A Mormon blasphemer! Polygamist! He's odd!
Many a thing he says you like just plenty. Many a thing he says is just some slop. He's religious in the wrong way, but at least he's no fan of gays, and lately he says abortion's got to stop.
Oh, how do you solve a problem like Mitt Romney? How can we put a Mormon over top?
[ May 15, 2007, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
LOL -- your work, Tom?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
You're a talented guy, Tom Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's hilarious. I just read it to my roommates, one of whom works for Mitt Romney's campaign. She wasn't amused, but I kind of am.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I edited it to improve scansion just now, hopefully without losing the humor.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
While surfing the channels on TV just now I ran across an ad on one of the church channels. What caught my attention was watching "Mormon" pop up on the screen. It was quickly followed by a punch of other names randomly appearing on the screen, ranging from Scientologist to Buddhist, Jehovah's Witness to Aethiest. Of course they put Mormon between Islam and Hindu.
Recently I ran across an article that was visciously anti-Intelligent Design. Why? Did it suggest that science and Evolution were good? No. It was anti-ID because ID didn't mention Jesus Christ as our savior. Separation of Church and State isn't crossed unless the state tries to tell you how to pray to Jesus.
What does all this mean?
It means that some people are just nuts.
Some of them are Christians. Some of them aren't.
You can point to them in those groups that disagree with you, but don't be surprised if those groups point to the nuts in your group too.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
"visciously anti-Intelligent Design": I'll be thinking about *that* image all night! Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
I think there's a certain irony, certainly, that Mormons are desperately trying to tell everyone that Romney's faith has nothing to do with his ability to be president, but also knowing a gay, Muslim, Jewish, or atheist president would never be elected because of those particular things/beliefs.
quote:I do remember the pleasant surprise at finding out he is Democrat, and I was impressed with his ability to divorce politics from religion.
How do you figure that? Most of his essays regarding social issues, such as gay marriage or abortion, seem quite heavily influenced by his religious views.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: [QB] I think there's a certain irony, certainly, that Mormons are desperately trying to tell everyone that Romney's faith has nothing to do with his ability to be president, but also knowing a gay, Muslim, Jewish, or atheist president would never be elected because of those particular things/beliefs.
I still haven't heard of a big, general push by Mormons to get Romney elected. And I can't see how Romney can help being influenced by his faith. He's desperately trying to deny it, perhaps. I don't see why he thinks that's necessary.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I haven't heard hordes of Mormons -- *or* Romney -- desperately trying to convince us his faith is irrelevant! Has this really happened? (And how desperate was it?)
But if it happened, Steve Taylor had it pegged:
I'm devout, I'm sincere, and I'm proud to say That it's had exactly no effect on who I am today I believe for the benefit of all mankind In the total separation of church and mind -- "It's a Personal Thing"
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
There won't be a big "official" push by us to get him elected. Sure, the heavy influence of the majority of Mormons being Republican can seem to be a push. But simply put it ain't happening.
On a side note, he ain't even the first Republican I'd consider voting for. And yes even though I consider myself Democrat, I have voted Republican and would again if it felt right.
(Southern aint's included on purpose.) Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: I think there's a certain irony, certainly, that Mormons are desperately trying to tell everyone
Hitoshi, we're individual people, not a throng of zombie-like beings who all share the same opinion.
The Church does not endorse candidates whether they're members or not. I think the way you're phrasing this gives the wrong impression.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: I think there's a certain irony, certainly, that Mormons are desperately trying to tell everyone
Hitoshi, we're individual people, not a throng of zombie-like beings who all share the same opinion.
The Church does not endorse candidates whether they're members or not. I think the way you're phrasing this gives the wrong impression.
I'm not an uneducated fellow, you know. I know that Mormonism, like any religion, is a large group of individual people.
But considering how many times people refer to "the gay community" as some sort of zombie-like horde hell-bent on destroying Life, Morality, and the American Way, I figured, "Hey, if everyone else can do it to me..." OSC does it enough, certainly. Apparently we're all whining brats who want to steal the privileged place of marriage away from him, who knew?
At any rate, the reason I said it in the first place was a generalization to make the point that Romney and some Mormons are trying to be accepted as a non-heretical religion by Evangelicals, and Romney as a competent person no matter his personal beliefs. I find this ironic because it's exactly what minorities, like gays, have been trying to do too.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I get the parallels but not the irony.
Unless you consider that OSC speaks for all Mormons. He doesn't.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Is there a way to ignore Hitoshi? There is a one track mind that gets in the way of every single conversation on Mormonism (and I think every other conversation I have read) that exists. You don't like Mormons because of the position the Church holds on gays. WE GET IT ALREADY!
next . . .
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Is there a way to ignore Hitoshi?
err....yes. You don't pay attention to them. Was this a trick question?
I think Hitoshi contributed to this and other threads, but if you disagree, you are certainly free to ignore him. It's not difficult.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I long and yearn for an "ignore" button that I could use for specific posters, but alas, there is presently no such function. Maybe in the new forum.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Is there a way to ignore Hitoshi?" was a rhetorical question. In case you didn't get it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ignore functions would make controversial topics VERY hard to comprehend as people would wonder why theirs posts are being ignored or why certain people did not respond to a post directed to them.
I would be strongly against an ignore funtion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That seems to me like a irresponsible and immature thing to say then Occ.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I would love an ignore button, too. I think it would work just fine, and improve the level of discourse greatly. One thing I've seen on hatrack for a long time, and the main reason I no longer participate much in serious threads, is that we start to discuss some interesting topic, then someone comes in and acts like a jerk. The thing that happens next is that the interesting respectful conversation get completely derailed by people responding to the jerkiness, even if respectfully, and then it's even worse if other people act jerky in response to the original jerkiness. I hate that.
Yet for some reason, people just aren't able to continue the high-level, respectful-even-though-deeply-opinionated, positive and fruitful exchange of ideas and feelings and thoughts. Instead it degnerates into lots of people acting jerky.
We've been able to do it sometimes over the years on hatrack. We've been able to discuss highly charged, deeply felt issues with consideration, respect, and a shared assumption that everyone has a right to their opinion, and that everyone's motives are good, and that we all are intelligent and mean well. Discussions like that are wonderful things, and the more wonderful for the fact that they're so rare.
I think an "ignore" button (ignore list) would be a great boon to intelligent, rational, sane, and high-level discourse on hatrack. I would love to give it a try. Is there any forum software that lets you do that?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: How do you figure that? Most of his essays regarding social issues, such as gay marriage or abortion, seem quite heavily influenced by his religious views.
I should clarify that I am impressed that OSC is able to divorce "political affiliation" from religion. He makes a distinction that neither party does or should represent a religion. That impresses me because I am sick of hearing about the "Christian Right," and I disagree with the concept.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I get the parallels but not the irony. Unless you consider that OSC speaks for all Mormons. He doesn't.
I suppose I have an odd sense of humor then. And yes, I know he doesn't.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Is there a way to ignore Hitoshi? There is a one track mind that gets in the way of every single conversation on Mormonism (and I think every other conversation I have read) that exists. You don't like Mormons because of the position the Church holds on gays. WE GET IT ALREADY! next . . .
I think it says more about you than it does about me that you explode into an annoyed anger because I focus my writing on a topic that's both personal and one tat I feel passionately about. And please stop putting words in my mouth. I don't "[dis]like Mormons because of the position the Church holds on gays." I dislike anyone, of any religion, that looks down on me because of who I am. You don't like people who write according to a single issue they are personally affected by. I get it. I suppose I should this means that because I don't write about a multitude of subjects I don't really care as much about, I'm a waste of space on this forum. Am I understanding your statement correctly?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Is there a way to ignore Hitoshi?
err....yes. You don't pay attention to them. Was this a trick question? I think Hitoshi contributed to this and other threads, but if you disagree, you are certainly free to ignore him. It's not difficult.
Thank you, Squick. Occ, as Squick said, you're free to ignore anything I write. I'm not forcing, or even asking, that anyone read what I write. It's a public internet forum after all; it exists primarily as a discussion area in which anyone can throw in their two cents and have it ignored or discussed further. Of course, I disagree withthe idea of ignoring someone merely because they say soemthing that annoys us or goes against our beliefs. It may not be fun to read, but it's rather pointless to go to a discussion forum where you block out everyone you disagree with, eh?
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote: How do you figure that? Most of his essays regarding social issues, such as gay marriage or abortion, seem quite heavily influenced by his religious views.
I should clarify that I am impressed that OSC is able to divorce "political affiliation" from religion. He makes a distinction that neither party does or should represent a religion. That impresses me because I am sick of hearing about the "Christian Right," and I disagree with the concept.
Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification. In that case, I do agree with you. Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:At any rate, the reason I said it in the first place was a generalization to make the point that Romney and some Mormons are trying to be accepted as a non-heretical religion by Evangelicals, and Romney as a competent person no matter his personal beliefs. I find this ironic because it's exactly what minorities, like gays, have been trying to do too.
Here's the thing: everyone already gets that gays can be competent people. It is not in dispute. It is possible to disagree with one activity that someone does without believing him or her to be incompetent. Where did that even come from?
The Romney/LDS thing is a good illustration. Romney's supporters (a group that is not the same as "Mormons") are not trying to convince evangelicals that LDS is not heretical by evangelical standards (it is, by those standards). They just want people to believe that he would be a good President. There is a difference between accepting everything about someone and hiring him, and a good thing too or none of us would have jobs.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:everyone already gets that gays can be competent people.
That's not true. OSC himself wrote that their dark secret is how many of them are victims of sexual abuse, trapped in a lifestyle that they hate by the consequences of this and has compared them wanting to obtain legal marriages as children playing dress up in their parents clothes and said that they want this because they have been deluded into thinking that it will gain them something.
That's a whole mess of acusations of incompetence in some important areas leveled at a whole group of people.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Ignore functions would make controversial topics VERY hard to comprehend as people would wonder why theirs posts are being ignored or why certain people did not respond to a post directed to them.
I would be strongly against an ignore funtion.
[Done properly, I think this is avoidable. If a person on your ignore list posts, you would see:
with options to enable or disable your ignore list in a given thread or globally. That said, I'm not a fan of ignore lists because I've seen their use degenerate to "La la la la, we're ignoring you!" and other playground antics, but hey, it works in some places.]
--j_k
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:everyone already gets that gays can be competent people.
That's not true. OSC himself wrote that their dark secret is how many of them are victims of sexual abuse, trapped in a lifestyle that they hate by the consequences of this and has compared them wanting to obtain legal marriages as children playing dress up in their parents clothes and said that they want this because they have been deluded into thinking that it will gain them something.
That's a whole mess of acusations of incompetence in some important areas leveled at a whole group of people.
Perhaps so but that is not one of them. I did not read that article but what you quoted suggested that gay people have a problem, not that they are incompetent. It is possible to have a problem and be competent, and that is a good thing too, or we would all be incompetent.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
" It may not be fun to read, but it's rather pointless to go to a discussion forum where you block out everyone you disagree with, eh?"
Its not about disagreeing. It is about hearing a broken record that seems to send every discussion into the same track, even when it never was going in that direction. It comes close to trolling.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Qaz:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:everyone already gets that gays can be competent people.
That's not true. OSC himself wrote that their dark secret is how many of them are victims of sexual abuse, trapped in a lifestyle that they hate by the consequences of this and has compared them wanting to obtain legal marriages as children playing dress up in their parents clothes and said that they want this because they have been deluded into thinking that it will gain them something.
That's a whole mess of acusations of incompetence in some important areas leveled at a whole group of people.
Perhaps so but that is not one of them. I did not read that article but what you quoted suggested that gay people have a problem, not that they are incompetent. It is possible to have a problem and be competent, and that is a good thing too, or we would all be incompetent.
Ah, ok, I think I see your point. The only footnote is that any personal, non-mainstream beliefs do become qualifiers for one's competency in any political arena; a Muslim, woman, black, etc. person running for any office has that characteristic used to judge their competency when they run for office, but not as a regular human being.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: " It may not be fun to read, but it's rather pointless to go to a discussion forum where you block out everyone you disagree with, eh?"
Its not about disagreeing. It is about hearing a broken record that seems to send every discussion into the same track, even when it never was going in that direction. It comes close to trolling.
I was pointing out a parallel I saw between minorities downplaying their minority status (you will notice I included other minorities, yes?) and the problems Romney faces with trying to downplay the importance of his Mormon beliefs in his ability to be a good President. This was still on topic. It's not as though I came into a topic about favorite colors and began ranting.
If it is trolling, then I leave it up to the mods to decide as they see fit how to handle it.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I noticed the group of minorities the first time you posted. Didn't comment on that. The second time you posted was a theme you have repeated often and noticed that was the direction you were going to take.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I think an ignore function would be great although I would not use it for anyone posting on this thread so far.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Romney does have kind of a dilemma, because he belongs to a church that is not concerned about entering the Christian mainstream or advancing its views by getting people into political office. Romney knows he'll never receive any kind of official backing from the LDS church. And even if he did manage to get the majority of Mormons to vote for him, that wouldn't carry him very far. I imagine he wants to separate himself from the church a bit so he doesn't become a one-plank candidate, on a plank that won't get him very far.
All power to him if he can do that smoothly. But I sincerely hope he doesn't try to convince people that his religion isn't influencing how he thinks and acts as a politician.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I will skip reading any so called "truth" and go with my gut.
Its truthy.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
You know it's truthy when it links to an appropriate Chick Tract. Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: All power to him if he can do that smoothly. But I sincerely hope he doesn't try to convince people that his religion isn't influencing how he thinks and acts as a politician.
IMO, both his desire to double the size of Guantanamo Bay and endorsement of 'enhanced interrogation techniques' indicate that he is able to stop his religion from influencing his political positions.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think this media discussion with Richard Bushman is a must read! Him and Terryl Givens are my current Mormon intellectual heroes. I love reading and listening to them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, I think that Jack Chick summed up mormons pretty well. That man sure does have a handle on things! I wonder what he has to say about Catholicism.
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill: Trying to figure out what Romney believes based on what other Mormons have said in the past, or the present, is foolish.
Trying to figure out what Romeny believes based on what HE says in the past, or the present is foolish.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Mormon Democrat ![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)