The Storm Over the Mormons

[idea]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I don't know how long you have been a member of the Church, idea, but I have seriously noticed a pretty substantial improvement in articles about the Church over the years.

The wolf has better learned to artistically use language to portray itself as a sheep is what has happened over the years. The fake polite PC language with a dark overall message is actually more dangerous – better for everyone to just see and recognize the wolf for what it is than to be tricked into thinking it is a sheep they are listening to.

[idea]

Originally Posted by Watchmen

The article clearly identifies who Pingree is and what he's about it never says or implies that Pingree "represents the Mormon population." On a side note, I had his brother as a professor once - one of the best ever!

The point is they included a gay activitst - that is akin to finding an LDS member who is pro-choice and asking them their viewpoints on the church's anti-abortion stance. It is going out of their way to find contention and hide the unity that exists between people in the church. It does not matter if they say this person "represents the Mormon population" or not. After reading this article the general population has an image in their minds of gay activists and fense sitters being forced to obey orders from a power hungry control freak church leaders. This is a false image. As I said before, the vast majority of the church did not need to be ordered to do anything. The vast majority would have acted without the direction of the firt presidency. Directions from GA's simply better organized what members were already doing.

Have you seen the latest general handbook of instructions? Compare it to the previous handbooks - IT IS NOW 75% SMALLER. Why? GA's are telling members to govorn themselves, to be self-reliant, they no longer need to tell anyone all the little details of how to act, because they recognize the church is to a point that members govorn themselves - AND THAT IS THE GOAL. GA's would rather not have explain things like "now if you touch a stove, you are going to get burned" - Their goal is not to control members of the church, but to "teach principles that allow members to govorn themselves."

It's not one-sided - it's a tragic fact.

It is a tragic fact that was not counterbalanced by other facts. What if it had been a pregnant teenager who killed herself because she felt bad about getting an abortion? Would that be appropriate to include in an article on why the church is pro-choice? No, it would not be appropriate. THE CHURCH DID NOT CAUSE ANYONE TO COMMIT SUICIDE!!!! This kid was not killed by church policies, this poor kid died because of homosexual retoric that was crammed down his throat by a liberal population. If there was not pressure to live a sinful lifestyle, if there were no brainwashing confusing their mind of what is right and what is wrong, if instead this child was given support by all around them to seek abstinance, and participate in support groups - the kid would have been alive and well today.

Issuing letters to every congregation to be read in Sacramento meeting is akin to issuing orders. The article also mentioned that a general authority said there would be no ill will towards members who did not support Prop 8. I wonder why you left that out?

Anytime the word "...but... appears, everything before "but" is negated by what comes after it. This article essential did that. The church does not issue any "orders". Our Heavenly Father provides information akin to "if you touch the stove you will get burned". Those who are smart and want to avoid painful consequences listen and learn, are happy to be led away from danger. I don't know about you, but I do not feel as if I am "following orders". We are given information, nor orders. http://www.affirmation.org/pdf/2008_...presidency.pdf
what I hear, is if we don't do something, we are going to get burned. A warning, and information on how to avoid unwanted consewquences.

I'm assuming you're not in California. It was not one letter to a few stakes in California. It was a letter read in EVERY SINGLE WARD in California. The letter was followed up by satellite broadcasts from Salt Lake and Salt Lake orchestrating a nation-wide fund raising campaign. In California, every ward was directed to organize committees to create phone banks, conduct fund raising activities, post lawn signs, and go door-to-door. Not a sacrament meeting, relief society meeting, or priesthood meeting go by without various mentionings of Prop 8. For a few months, going to Church was dreadful. I go to Church to worship God and remember Christ - not bash gays (which is what was happening - EVERY WEEK). I walked out of church on numerous occassions. On one Fast Sunday and became fed up, made sure I was the last one to share a testimony and got up and shared my testimony of CHRIST! I wanted the meeting to end on that note - not the endless fear-mongering that was taking place. So, I find your comment that the article was ridiculous completely uninformed. For many months, fighting gays was the number one priority of the Church (at least in California).

I am in Texas. The topic does not come up in our church at all. Once in stake conference we were told a parable about Lot and Abraham, ... if you go to the right, I will go to the left... if you go to the left I will go to the right - remember that part? and Lot chooses the greener pastures that just happen to be next to Sodom and Gomorah - anwyays, we were told to be as Abraham, even if it means brown grass, we should avoid living anywhere near Sodom - we were commended and told that our area was "one of the strongest" that we lived in a good place. I am sorry you live in an area where the church is at odds with 1/2 of the surrounding population.

As I said above, it was more than "one little letter."

It all started with one letter... actually it started with the vote of the people being ignored by judges, when the church and the majority of the population were attacked by a minority speicial interests group.

Stewart is not a minority - both Brother and Sister Stewart voted yes.

fence sitters are a minority. Most people do not feel conflict over acting on information given by GA's. Most are glad for the info, not conflicted over it.

No where in the article does it make it sound like the presidency was pitted against the majority of the members. Just the opposite, in fact - it shows that members are rank and file ready to obey those orders from Salt Lake.

But most often, the outcome of that process affirms the Prophet's instructions. The combination of free-will rhetoric and de facto obedience

free-will is "rhetoric"???? de-facto obedience??? Again, I submit that most members are not acting out of "obediance" but out of free will.

reality: Everyone agrees with one another and so act similarly
lie: the majority does not agree and acts because they are forced to by authority.

It most certainly is/was part of the discussion. It was one of the talking points I heard every single week for a few months.

NOT for the majority of the church - not for people outside of Calif. (and most are outside of Calif)

You're taking that out of context. Mormons thought they were being good citizens and were surprised at the backlash. That's the point of the sentence - not the point you try and make it sound like.

they should not have included the word "thought". It implies that they were not being good citizens. The Mormons "were" being good citizens, and were surprised at the backlash the received for upholding their right to vote and campaign for issues they felt were important. That is how it should have been written.

Your response was horrible in that it revealed how uninformed you are about what actually happened in every ward in California.

Perhaps you do not know what happened outside of Calif, the viewpoint of the majority of the members of the church on this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was just thinking of the song “follow the prophet” – catchy tune. Anyways, I was thinking about how this is in the children’s songbook – not in the adult hymnal. Hopefully as people mature we are no longer following, but standing side by side – united in one heart, and one mind… that we are all able to do things, not because we are told to do them, but because we are able to choose what is right on our own.

Given the choice of doing something because we are told to do it, vs. doing something because it is the right thing to do - the better reason for doing something is because we recognize that it is the right thing to do. (of coarse we have to be able to recognize what the right thing to do is before we can reach this level)

The reason we do things is almost as important as what we do. The hot stove example – the reason most adults refrain from touching the stove is because they don’t want to get burned – not because someone orders them not to touch it. When someone tells a diverse audience “don’t touch the stove” – you don’t lower your eyes, and nod your head, and say “OK – I will do what I am told” – you clap your hands, and say “I agree with you, would have said the same thing myself, let’s work together to put up guards to make sure no one gets hurt…. Working together, not follow the leader, is the goal.


We talk about blind faith, but the goal is not to have “perfect blind faith”... blind faith is a means to an end – it is not the goal, is not the final destination. From an adult hymn - “I was blind but now I see” – the goal is being able to see and go forth with our eyes wide open, not to blindly follow.

[Watchmen]

Originally Posted by idea

The wolf has better learned to artistically use language to portray itself as a sheep is what has happened over the years. The fake polite PC language with a dark overall message is actually more dangerous – better for everyone to just see and recognize the wolf for what it is than to be tricked into thinking it is a sheep they are listening to.

There was no dark overall message in the Time piece. It was well done and completely fair. If that article doesn't represent good journalistic standards, I don't know what does.

[Watchmen]

Originally Posted by idea

The point is they included a gay activitst - that is akin to finding an LDS member who is pro-choice and asking them their viewpoints on the church's anti-abortion stance. It is going out of their way to find contention and hide the unity that exists between people in the church. It does not matter if they say this person "represents the Mormon population" or not. After reading this article the general population has an image in their minds of gay activists and fense sitters being forced to obey orders from a power hungry control freak church leaders. This is a false image. As I said before, the vast majority of the church did not need to be ordered to do anything. The vast majority would have acted without the direction of the firt presidency. Directions from GA's simply better organized what members were already doing.

Have you seen the latest general handbook of instructions? Compare it to the previous handbooks - IT IS NOW 75% SMALLER. Why? GA's are telling members to govorn themselves, to be self-reliant, they no longer need to tell anyone all the little details of how to act, because they recognize the church is to a point that members govorn themselves - AND THAT IS THE GOAL. GA's would rather not have explain things like "now if you touch a stove, you are going to get burned" - Their goal is not to control members of the church, but to "teach principles that allow members to govorn themselves."


It is a tragic fact that was not counterbalanced by other facts. What if it had been a pregnant teenager who killed herself because she felt bad about getting an abortion? Would that be appropriate to include in an article on why the church is pro-choice? No, it would not be appropriate. THE CHURCH DID NOT CAUSE ANYONE TO COMMIT SUICIDE!!!! This kid was not killed by church policies, this poor kid died because of homosexual retoric that was crammed down his throat by a liberal population. If there was not pressure to live a sinful lifestyle, if there were no brainwashing confusing their mind of what is right and what is wrong, if instead this child was given support by all around them to seek abstinance, and participate in support groups - the kid would have been alive and well today.



Anytime the word "...but... appears, everything before "but" is negated by what comes after it. This article essential did that. The church does not issue any "orders". Our Heavenly Father provides information akin to "if you touch the stove you will get burned". Those who are smart and want to avoid painful consequences listen and learn, are happy to be led away from danger. I don't know about you, but I do not feel as if I am "following orders". We are given information, nor orders. http://www.affirmation.org/pdf/2008_...presidency.pdf
what I hear, is if we don't do something, we are going to get burned. A warning, and information on how to avoid unwanted consewquences.



I am in Texas. The topic does not come up in our church at all. Once in stake conference we were told a parable about Lot and Abraham, ... if you go to the right, I will go to the left... if you go to the left I will go to the right - remember that part? and Lot chooses the greener pastures that just happen to be next to Sodom and Gomorah - anwyays, we were told to be as Abraham, even if it means brown grass, we should avoid living anywhere near Sodom - we were commended and told that our area was "one of the strongest" that we lived in a good place. I am sorry you live in an area where the church is at odds with 1/2 of the surrounding population.


It all started with one letter... actually it started with the vote of the people being ignored by judges, when the church and the majority of the population were attacked by a minority speicial interests group.



fence sitters are a minority. Most people do not feel conflict over acting on information given by GA's. Most are glad for the info, not conflicted over it.



But most often, the outcome of that process affirms the Prophet's instructions. The combination of free-will rhetoric and de facto obedience

free-will is "rhetoric"???? de-facto obedience??? Again, I submit that most members are not acting out of "obediance" but out of free will.

reality: Everyone agrees with one another and so act similarly
lie: the majority does not agree and acts because they are forced to by authority.




NOT for the majority of the church - not for people outside of Calif. (and most are outside of Calif)



they should not have included the word "thought". It implies that they were not being good citizens. The Mormons "were" being good citizens, and were surprised at the backlash the received for upholding their right to vote and campaign for issues they felt were important. That is how it should have been written.





Perhaps you do not know what happened outside of Calif, the viewpoint of the majority of the members of the church on this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was just thinking of the song “follow the prophet” – catchy tune. Anyways, I was thinking about how this is in the children’s songbook – not in the adult hymnal. Hopefully as people mature we are no longer following, but standing side by side – united in one heart, and one mind… that we are all able to do things, not because we are told to do them, but because we are able to choose what is right on our own.

Given the choice of doing something because we are told to do it, vs. doing something because it is the right thing to do - the better reason for doing something is because we recognize that it is the right thing to do. (of coarse we have to be able to recognize what the right thing to do is before we can reach this level)

The reason we do things is almost as important as what we do. The hot stove example – the reason most adults refrain from touching the stove is because they don’t want to get burned – not because someone orders them not to touch it. When someone tells a diverse audience “don’t touch the stove” – you don’t lower your eyes, and nod your head, and say “OK – I will do what I am told” – you clap your hands, and say “I agree with you, would have said the same thing myself, let’s work together to put up guards to make sure no one gets hurt…. Working together, not follow the leader, is the goal.


We talk about blind faith, but the goal is not to have “perfect blind faith”... blind faith is a means to an end – it is not the goal, is not the final destination. From an adult hymn - “I was blind but now I see” – the goal is being able to see and go forth with our eyes wide open, not to blindly follow.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. The bottom-line is you are not in California and are completely ignorant of what actually happened here in regards to Church involvement. The article was completely accurate.

[FireOfTheCovenant]

I tend to stay away from this topic. As I said before in another thread, there are many other "commandments" from the First Presidency that have been ignored. We should start focusing on them instead and having virtual lynch mobs.

I know of a man who was asked/called by some of the men from the church (how high up, I do not know) to organize around 75 stakes in California for the whole Proposition 8 thing.

He said he didn't want to do it.
Despite his feelings, he did what was asked of him. Eventually, his name ended up on one of the "zomg we r so angry at teh prop 8 h8terz" list.

I'm not trying to make any veiled comparisons. Just wanted to share.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Mormon Defender

The mormons did the right thing, if anything, they should get there money back!If gay's could marry, then men could marry animals, family, and even children without consent soon!

Oh dear. Men might even be able to marry more than one woman at a time! Heaven forbid something like that could happen.

[idea]

Originally Posted by Apex

Time is publishing this article about the Church and the gay marriage debate.

Just FYI - I have asekd that this thread be moved into the same faith debate area as per #10:

10. Discuss Individual Religions Forums
The DIR forums are for the express use for discussion by that specific group. They are not to be used for debate by anyone. People of other groups or faiths may post respectful questions to increase their understanding. Questions of a rhetorical or argumentative nature or that counter the beliefs of that DIR are not permitted. Only posts that comply with the tenets or spirit of that Dir are permitted. The DIR forums are strictly moderated and posts are subject to editing or removal.


As per #10, anything that counters the beliefs of this DIR are not allowed here. The LDS church is very clear on it's stance reguarding SSM. Anything that supports SSM goes against the beliefs of this DIR and should not be posted here. Please move this, and all other threads meant to debate SSM into the same faith debate area.

Please move this thread to either current events, or same faith debate.

Thank you.

[Apex]

Originally Posted by idea

Just FYI - I have asekd that this thread be moved into the same faith debate area as per #10:

10. Discuss Individual Religions Forums
The DIR forums are for the express use for discussion by that specific group. They are not to be used for debate by anyone. People of other groups or faiths may post respectful questions to increase their understanding. Questions of a rhetorical or argumentative nature or that counter the beliefs of that DIR are not permitted. Only posts that comply with the tenets or spirit of that Dir are permitted. The DIR forums are strictly moderated and posts are subject to editing or removal.


As per #10, anything that counters the beliefs of this DIR are not allowed here. The LDS church is very clear on it's stance reguarding SSM. Anything that supports SSM goes against the beliefs of this DIR and should not be posted here. Please move this, and all other threads meant to debate SSM into the same faith debate area.

Please move this thread to either current events, or same faith debate.

Thank you.

Are you serious? This thread is for discussion of the article. I did not even make this thread with the idea that there would be debate on the issue. Just discussion on what the article said. Please get off your high horse and join the rest of us down here in reality.

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by Apex

Are you serious? This thread is for discussion of the article. I did not even make this thread with the idea that there would be debate on the issue. Just discussion on what the article said. Please get off your high horse and join the rest of us down here in reality.

This sounds supiciously like what Robert D. Hales warned against in Conference:

Without guile, true disciples avoid being unduly judgmental of others’ views. Many of us have cultivated strong friendships with those who are not members of our Church—schoolmates, colleagues at work, and friends and neighbors throughout the world. We need them, and they need us. As President Thomas S. Monson has taught, “Let us learn respect for others. … None of us lives alone—in our city, our nation, or our world.”3

As the Savior demonstrated with Herod, sometimes true disciples must show Christian courage by saying nothing at all. Once when I was golfing, I barely brushed up against a large cholla cactus, which seems to shoot needles like a porcupine. Thorns from that plant stuck all over my clothing, even though I had barely touched the cactus plant. Some situations are like that plant: they can only injure us. In such instances, we are better off to keep our distance and simply walk away. As we do, some may try to provoke us and engage us in argument. In the Book of Mormon, we read about Lehonti and his men camped upon a mount. The traitorous Amalickiah urged Lehonti to “come down” and meet him in the valley. But when Lehonti left the high ground, he was poisoned “by degrees” until he died, and his army fell into Amalickiah’s hands (see Alma 47). By arguments and accusations, some people bait us to leave the high ground. The high ground is where the light is. It’s where we see the first light of morning and the last light in the evening. It is the safe ground. It is true and where knowledge is. Sometimes others want us to come down off the high ground and join them in a theological scrum in the mud. These few contentious individuals are set on picking religious fights, online or in person. We are always better staying on the higher ground of mutual respect and love.

In doing so, we follow the example of the prophet Nehemiah, who built a wall around Jerusalem. Nehemiah’s enemies entreated him to meet them on the plain, where “they thought to do [him] mischief.” Unlike Lehonti, however, Nehemiah wisely refused their offer with this message: “I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down: why should the work cease, whilst I leave it, and come down to you?” (Nehemiah 6:2–3). We too have a great work to do, which will not be accomplished if we allow ourselves to stop and argue and be distracted. Instead we should muster Christian courage and move on. As we read in Psalms, “Fret not thyself because of evildoers” (Psalm 37:1).

When we leave high ground we allow our standards to be swayed by the precepts of men and leave ourselves unprotected in the midst of turmoil.

[Watchmen]

Madhatter, idea judged Apex when she deemed she knew better than he where to put the thread. Do you serve any purpose other than bashing Mormons you don't agree with?