Mormons and Christianity

[Parmamaite]

These may be occurrences in a fringe group, but I have trouble reconciling the outrage against a whole church because of child-abuse among a minority of priests with the downplaying of the sort of practice described here.

So, because the Catholic Church have been unjustly branded in the media because of what some catholic priests did, it's okay for you to do the same against the mormons?

Sure, let's take the polygamous habits of 100.000 mormons and use it to condemn the 12 million other mormons. If you like to keep your prejudices I can't do anything about it, can I.



As for them not being Christians, I'd say it's a load of BS. Noone has the authority to say what true Christianity is, not even you.

Excuse my harsh words, but intolerance and media-propelled misconceptions and lies really enrages me.

And just for the record, polygamy and forced marriage is as far as I know illegal in the US, and perpetrators should be prosecuted of course.

[truehobbit]

it's okay for you to do the same against the mormons?

I do not recall doing that. Please don't put words into my mouth.

I think asking to excuse harsh words doesn't make using them any better.
If you want me to overlook your rudeness, I suggest you edit your post.

[Parmamaite]

it's okay for you to do the same against the mormons?

I do not recall doing that. Please don't put words into my mouth.

I do not want to put words in your mouth, but that was how I understood you when you said:

ETA: thanks for the links, TED - I must say, they quite confirm my assessment of the situation.
It is a basic tenement of Mormon faith even today to be polygynous and the branches of Mormonism that keep practising it against the law and the decision of the first branch consider themselves the truly faithful.

I will not edit my last post, it's how I feel about it. But you're right, there was no reason to write an excuse at all.

[JewelSong]

it's okay for you to do the same against the mormons?

I do not recall doing that. Please don't put words into my mouth.

Well, what you said was:

I think that's [meaning the number of Mormons who practice polygyny] a very sizeable minority.

and then you went on to compare the child abuse scandal outrage with the Mormon minority

These may be occurrences in a fringe group, but I have trouble reconciling the outrage against a whole church because of child-abuse among a minority of priests with the downplaying of the sort of practice described here.

So it seems that you were saying that it is not okay to denigrate the entire Catholic church due to a minority of priests' behavior, but it is okay to do so with the Mormons, because somehow, their "minority" was more significant than the Catholic minority of child-abuser priests.

And what Parma was saying is that in his view, it is a similar issue. And I tend to agree with him. Both involved a fairly significant minority and both issues have had negative effects on their respective churches. But neither should be used to catagorize the adherents to the faith as a whole. Most Catholic priests are not child abusers. Most Mormons are not polygamists.

Also...as someone who has been told by by others in the past that I am "not really a Christian" because of what I do or do not believe, I also think that that it not up to you (or anyone) to decide who is or isn't a follower of Christ.

[truehobbit]

So it seems that you were saying that it is not okay to denigrate the entire Catholic church due to a minority of priests' behavior, but it is okay to do so with the Mormons, because somehow, their "minority" was more significant than the Catholic minority of child-abuser priests.

That is NOT what I said.
In fact, it's the exact opposite of what I said.

What I said was that if someone insists that the Catholic church is rotten because of misdeeds committed by a minority of its members, then I don't understand how it's possible to look at the Mormon practices and say you are ok with them.

What you and Parma are doing is twisting my words to make them say the exact opposite.

And this thread is about the question of whether Mormons are Christians. The question itself is undecided, and everybody gives a different answer.
So I can very well come to an opinion of my own and express it here and it is not for you or Parma or anybody else to forbid me or criticise me for forming and stating such an opinion!

[Primula Baggins]

Hobby has a point. Discussing whether Mormons are Christian or not is what this thread is for. Expressing an opinion on the topic of the thread is every poster's right. That doesn't mean Hobby or anyone else is rude or judgmental, or would confront someone in real life about this.

That said, I think the bit Parmamaite quoted could also be interpreted as he and Jewel did—it is not perfectly clear whether hobby's objection was to the downplaying of polygyny as an issue or the outrage against the Catholic Church over the molestation scandal.

That said, I think calling someone else's opinion "a load of BS" goes beyond the mutual respect we strive for here. It's fine to disagree, it's fine to disagree vigorously—but it can be done without resorting to expressions like that.

[truehobbit]

Prim, thanks for agreeing on the politeness issue.

But I don't get this:

That said, I think the bit Parmamaite quoted could also be interpreted as he and Jewel did—it is not perfectly clear whether hobby's objection was to the downplaying of polygyny as an issue or the outrage against the Catholic Church over the molestation scandal.

How can my quote possibly be interpreted the way Parma and Jewel did without reading into it things that twist the actual words to the opposite?

Besides, I explained what I meant. Is it still not clear?

I'd really appreciate if someone could point out how it's possible to get from the sentence Parma quoted to the meaning people are reading into it.

[Primula Baggins]

These may be occurrences in a fringe group, but I have trouble reconciling the outrage against a whole church because of child-abuse among a minority of priests with the downplaying of the sort of practice described here.

"I have trouble reconciling" these two things means you see an inconsistency: that there is outrage in one case and downplaying in the other.

But would you prefer that they both be downplayed, or that there be outrage in both cases? Nothing in the sentence makes that clear.

Your subsequent remarks do, of course, but it was that sentence Parmamaite was responding to.

[Jnyusa]

Hobby, I think what Parma and Jewel were trying to get at was that what you were saying was different from what you were doing. You were criticizing those who criticize the Catholics but not the Mormon, but at the same time you were using the same arguments against the Mormons yourself that you don't like to see used again the Catholics.

I believe we would all agree that the same principle should be applied in all cases.

__________

Just by the way, folks ... and by folks I mean everyone ... this is a general request:

I've been following the dicussion in this thread as well as the discussion in the Lasto thread about clothing laws in Iran.

I have to say that both of the threads contain characterizations of these religions that are too prejudicial for my taste. I don't think it is warranted to expect the worst of certain other religions all the time, which is the attitude I have seen displayed in both threads now. To suppose that bad things are 'what you would expect' from a paticular religion goes over the line for me and I'm hoping we can all rein in our self-righteousness just a bit.

Jn

[Cerin]

As for them not being Christians, I'd say it's a load of BS. Noone has the authority to say what true Christianity is, not even you.

Hi, Parmamaite. I don't believe we've ever had the pleasure of conversing before.

I'll tell you plainly that what I've read of Mormonism strikes me as very strange (just like the Jehovah's Witness faith). This is because they hold beliefs that are not Biblical, while still professing to be Christians. Now I can't argue the specifics with you, because I frankly don't remember the specifics of either of those faiths, except that they believed different things about Jesus than I do, things so fundamentally different as to make the use of the term 'Christian' meaningless.

This is not to say that I am the true Christian and they are not. It simply means that both of us using the same term to describe our beliefs isn't helpful, because those beliefs are profoundly and essentially different.

This is not to say, either, that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses aren't perfectly lovely people. The one Jehovah's Witness I was acquainted with was one of the sweetest souls I ever met.

I also do think it's unsettling the way the Mormons practically run the state of Utah. That doesn't seem in keeping, to me, with our separation of church and state-style Democracy.

[truehobbit]

But would you prefer that they both be downplayed, or that there be outrage in both cases? Nothing in the sentence makes that clear.

No, of course it's not in the sentence, because I'm not talking about what I would prefer.
I have trouble reconciling means that I think there's an inconsistency, like you said. And that means that I think that either one would be outraged at both or unconcerned about both.
Anything else is reading things into it that simply aren't there.

You were criticizing those who criticize the Catholics but not the Mormon, but at the same time you were using the same arguments against the Mormons yourself that you don't like to see used again the Catholics.

No, I wasn't.
I've explained it often enough now, though, I think.


I haven't followed the Iran-thread, but I haven't seen any self-righteousness here. Who said anything about expecting bad things from a religion?
True, maybe we would be more reluctant to express criticism if we had a Mormon or an Iranian here, but I think it can't be expected that people refrain from critically remarking on things that don't agree with what most people take to be the elementary tenets of civilised society, i.e. respect for the human rights and liberties.
If a culture or group follows traditions that are at odds with these, I think it's understandable if we can't give them the acceptance we are generally expected to give to people we don't agree with. As to how far that is self-righteous is another, very interesting question.

[truehobbit]

Cerin, I agree (and I really liked your analogy on the first page, about what kind of game people call baseball and whether that's important).

Some specifics are here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_beli.htm

Mormons do believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the way to salvation, hence they might be said to be Christians, and the Catholic church, for example, recognises them as a Christian sect.

However, their belief contains many elements I can only call pagan (without meaning any evaluation by the use of that word).
They believe (or, at least, originally believed) that there are many gods and humans can become gods.
They used to believe that God fathered Jesus by using a human shape to impregnate Mary (much like Zeus or so making children, I suppose), though the teaching on that seems to have changed.
They believe that there is a female deity to whom God is married.

What, to me, is very relevant, too, though, is that the source of their faith is not only the Bible, but the revelation Joseph Smith claims to have had.
This, IMO, is defining of the foundation of a new religion.
The early reformers may have started new churches and denominations by interpreting the Bible differently from the Catholic church, but this is a long way from having a founder who claims to have had information directly from God.

And, yes, to a modern observer, a group whose social organisation operates via a theocracy must be unsettling.

[Jnyusa]

Hobby: Who said anything about expecting bad things from a religion?

Nearly every post, up until the falsehood of the report was revealed, implied that this was exactly what one would expect from Moslems. I came within an inch of locking that thread that minute I saw it.

True, maybe we would be more reluctant to express criticism if we had a Mormon or an Iranian here, but I think it can't be expected that people refrain from critically remarking on things that don't agree with what most people take to be the elementary tenets of civilised society, i.e. respect for the human rights and liberties. If a culture or group follows traditions that are at odds with these, I think it's understandable if we can't give them the acceptance we are generally expected to give to people we don't agree with. As to how far that is self-righteous is another, very interesting question.

Hobby, this exactly the sort of presumption I'm talking about. It happens that I lived with a Shi'ite Moslem family for nearly five years and I can assure you that they were every bit as civilized as you are.

To presume that we are the only ones who hold dear the 'elementary tenets of civilized society' is self-righteous, imo. I don't know what else one would call it.

It is made more troublesome for me, not less troublesome, that we have no Mormons or Moslems here who can state what they do believe. The rest of us are just generalizing about them based on third-hand information. That is a good reason to be more careful rather than less careful, in my opinion. We simply have no idea how the Mormons of the official church in Salt Lake City views those who have broken off to adhere to the old ways. We simply have no idea how a modern Moslem living in the Western world views this unfolding antipathy between Islam and the West. I think it must be very uncomfortable for them, a serious dilemma, and it is a great loss for me that we have to have these discussions without their voice. At the very least, we should not presume to react negatively to things that we can only imagine they might have said if they were here.

Jn

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thank you, Jn. Both discussions have been troubling me, as well.

[truehobbit]

Hobby: Who said anything about expecting bad things from a religion?

Nearly every post, up until the falsehood of the report was revealed, implied that this was exactly what one would expect from Moslems. I came within an inch of locking that thread that minute I saw it.

Ah ok - but it wasn't in this thread.
(I didn't know the falsehood had been revealed - should I go and post a "told you so"? - Can't help finding that cool, as my suggestion it might be false was completely ignored both here and on TORC. )

Thanks for the further explanation, Jny!
I understand what you mean about us talking about things we don't know about and not having a chance to hear from people with first hand experience - I agree that's a problem that should make us more careful rather than less.

However, I certainly wasn't trying to imply that Muslims as such are somehow uncivilised - I think the problem is much more complex than that!
You can have a Shi'ite Muslim family who believes every bit as much in human rights as you do.
You can also have one who believes in the Muslim interpretation of the human rights.
Or you can have a group who believes in values that strike us as impossible to reconcile with what we hold as fundamental to society. My example was only about this last group.

I think the latter problem would make a nice discussion topic.

[Jnyusa]

Or you can have a group who believes in values that strike us as impossible to reconcile with what we hold as fundamental to society. My example was only about this last group.

I think the latter problem would make a nice discussion topic.

Yes, as long as the premise includes the fact that they might be right and we might be wrong.

But generally it would be very difficult to have this kind of discussion about fundamental values unless we had access to the voice of those who hold differing values. A bunch of Christians and Jews sitting together discussing how the fundamental values of Islam differ from their own is unlikely to arrive within one hundred miles of the truth.


Jn

[anthriel]

One thing that has popped up in my head whilst reading this:

There have been parallels drawn here between judging the Catholic church on the behavior of a few "fringe" priests, and also judging some sort of basic Christian faith on the behavior of a few fringe abortion clinic bombers, and the weejies that are being felt about the Mormon faith regarding polygny.

I understand the point; the radical actions of a few in the name of a particular belief should not impugn the many others in that faith.

HOWEVER, and I think this is pivotal, bombing clinics and brutalizing children were NEVER a part of the original faith of Catholics and Christians. Texts could be warped to support such ideas, I suppose, but never was it written into church doctrine that Catholic priests could sexually abuse children, for example.

In the case of the Mormon church, this reputation for polygny that the LDS church is currently uncomfortable with certainly WAS part of their faith, before a revelation (as I understand it) changed that rule for them.

It is absolutely more understandable to feel uncomfortable with a religion for positions which they once held as doctrine (and that is still kept as doctrine by some), than to judge a religion based on the actions of people who are doing things in that religion's name which have never been part of the mainstream teachings of the faith.




However, (and this is a HUGE however) I will NOT judge people who identify themselves as a certain religion based solely on the things that I dislike about what I have learned about that belief system. People do NOT, always, support everything in their own hearts which the church has "written". In fact, in my experience, very few people do.

I have recently had this point driven home to me; I had occasion to be held accountable for a point in the Christian doctrine which I, even as a Christian, do not believe in. I was STILL held accountable for that point, simply because of the label "Christian", even after I explained, to the best of my ability, my own unique feelings.

I WILL NOT DO THAT TO OTHERS.

If someone is a Mormon and believes that polygny is okey-dokey, I reserve the right for a few goosebumps, and perhaps the fairly quick exit stage right. If someone is a Mormon who tells me that they do not believe in polygny (not that I often ask), then we are on the same page with that one.

Everyone is an individual. Everyone.

I WILL NOT let myself assume, upon hearing someone share the fact that they are Mormon with me, that I then instantly know all of their beliefs, and that we cannot, from that moment on, relate on any level about our feelings towards Christ.

Uh-nuh. Not gonna do that.

[truehobbit]

Anthy, I fully agree - that's very much what I tried to say in my reply to Jny about the complexity of the problem.
The question here, I think, is how much you are entitled to those goosebumps you mention.
I'd reserve the right for them, too, when confronted with some ideas - but should I be allowed to mention them?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

HOWEVER, and I think this is pivotal, bombing clinics and brutalizing children were NEVER a part of the original faith of Catholics and Christians. Texts could be warped to support such ideas, I suppose, but never was it written into church doctrine that Catholic priests could sexually abuse children, for example.

In the case of the Mormon church, this reputation for polygny that the LDS church is currently uncomfortable with certainly WAS part of their faith, before a revelation (as I understand it) changed that rule for them.

It is absolutely more understandable to feel uncomfortable with a religion for positions which they once held as doctrine (and that is still kept as doctrine by some), than to judge a religion based on the actions of people who are doing things in that religion's name which have never been part of the mainstream teachings of the faith.

Anthy, dear Anthy, here is the problem I have with this. It was (as I understand it) doctrine of the Catholic church until it was explicitly repudiated by the church, that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ. Despite this repudiation, this doctrine is still held by some. Do I condemn the Catholic church because of a view that was once doctrine (and led to some pretty horrible actions) and is still held by a small percentage of Catholics even though repudiated by the mainstream church? I don't think that I should.

[Primula Baggins]

I think it would be useful to separate our personal feelings about aspects of others' beliefs (present or past) from what we do about them.

In other words, we can't tell other people not to be angered or bothered or offended or creeped out; we have the right to feel that way ourselves; but we should not generalize (which I think was Anthy's point), and we should not attack individuals or groups for things that they may or may not believe, simply because they bear a particular label.

In particular I think it's helpful to stop and consider our own assumptions about what is "universally true," and whether it's fair to publicly judge an entire group of people by a standard they may not recognize or accept.