Subject:
|
Re: Mormon bashing again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Mar 2000 22:16:09 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JSPROAT@IOstopspam.COM
|
Viewed:
|
492 times
|
| |
|
|
Chris,
Sorry I took so long on this; I needed to get a few facts straight before
responding.
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > In fact, legislating morality goes against the concept of free agency, which
> > is core to our beliefs.
> What is this?
It was something of a response to a select few loud and closed-minded people
on Slashdot (who'll probably never read this, oh well) who were bashing Utah
and Mormon culture in general. They were giving totally bogus examples of
people hiding their morning coffee because they were in fear for their jobs,
of alcohol and tobacco only being available on the Nevada border, of state
morality police crashing in on unmarried couples, etc. This stuff happens
daily -- in La-la Land.
Back in the real world, my church provides rules and guidelines for its
members, and then steps back and lets people govern themselves. Not even the
bishop can determine better than you whether you've made good or bad
decisions. And I am honored to say that unlike many other churches, my
church's involvement in politics -- of any kind -- is minimal; actual cases of
using its influence to determine governmental policy or to sway votes are very
few and far in between.
> I had a couple of very charming young women come to my apartment door a couple
> of weeks ago and ask if I'd ever heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of
> Latter-Day Saints. [...] I had to blow them off (and I knew they'd
> eventually want to talk about God), but I actually have some questions. Maybe
> you'll field them?
I'll do my best; perhaps the questions I can't answer can go their way.
> > Still, because I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
> > Saints, I am marked as a zealot
> Anyone who discusses their religion is a zealot, right?
Good question.
The American Heritage Dictionary describes a zealot as someone who is a
fanatically devoted person, originally used to describe members of a Jewish
socio-political movement against Romans in 1st-century Palestine.
However, Webster's identifies anyone who engages warmly in any cause as a
zealot.
Erm, so I guess I'm a zealot by Webster's definition, as is the majority of
LUGNET. :-,
> > I'd really love to
> > have a rational discussion about this with anyone who harbors negative (or
> > neutral) feelings towards Mormons.
> OK, well, I mostly have positive feelings, so maybe you're not interested, but
> here goes anyway.
> Smith revealed the doctrine of celestial (and multiple) marriage at some point,
> right? It was divinely inspired and harkened back to some pretty well
> documented tradition from the old testament. It was - to put it mildly - a
> difficult (personally and politically) thing for the church. Substantially
> later, Young reversed this policy, right? Did the Lord change his mind, or
> what? Was one of the prophets wrong?
Judaism and Christianity are quite visible in some parts of Egypt. Was the
Lord wrong to cause all kinds of grief and panic in order to get His children
out of Egypt, only to allow some to return? The decision to get the Jews out
of Egypt wasn't wrong; it was correct *at that time*.
There were several reasons why polygamy was useful, especially considering the
effects that persecutions and subsequent cross-country migrations were having
on the Mormon population.
Polygamy wasn't rampant, either; the polygamous marriages were conducted with
the legally binding power of the temple marriage ceremony, and only after
going through all the other messy pre-marriage stuff like dealing with future
in-laws, etc. (Note that the state of Deseret was *not* in the U.S. at the
time, but rather in the Mexico frontier; and Mexico didn't see fit to bother
the church about these things. I contend that no laws were broken.)
> (Is it correct that any president of the
> church is considered to be a prophet?)
Yes. It's sort of a prerequisite for the job.
> One of my friends is a born-again Christian who grew up in a rural area not far
> SW of SLC. Some of his siblings are LDS. He feels that the church actively
> encourages members to turn away from and almost shun non LDS friends and loved
> ones. Is that your (or anyone else's) experience? Do you approve?
It is a stance of my church that all people are assumed to be worthy of good
treatment. However, it has been my experience that some people can be real
jerks, especially to other people. These people who shunned their non-LDS
friends have made a concious decision to do so.
Personally, I can't see any benefit of turning away someone because they don't
believe in what I don't believe in; rather, I can see many reasons to *not* do
so. So no, I do not approve.
> What about all the weird stories that (I think) appear in the BOM? Joseph's
> discovery of tablets, magical translation glasses, Jesus in the new world with
> native cities of gold, etc? Are these assumed to be true verbatim, or do you
> take some kind of allegorical stance on them?
Well, if you use those words, of course it sounds goofy. It's like saying
that the United States was founded by a bunch of spoiled, renegade lawyers
'cause they were tired of being the best-treated English colony. (And I guess
there are those who think that way. :-)
Yes, these items from the Book of Mormon are taken to be true ver batim.
(Except for the cities of gold; I'm not sure if I've read about that one in
the Book of Mormon. It's possible you're mixing in the El Dorado story
Columbus took back and mesmorized Cortes with.) There were witnesses to the
golden plates and the "magical translation glasses", and none have ever
recanted on their testimony of what they saw.
> How does mission success compare inside and outside the US?
I don't have numbers for this; I would suspect that international reception to
my church is higher right now than it was ten years ago. Egad, I don't even
know where to ask. I'll start with my brother; he served his mission
recently.
I hope I've answered most of your questions to your satisfaction. Lemme know
if you have any more.
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com> ~~~ http://www.io.com/~jsproat/
Card-carrying member of the Star-Bellied Sneech Preservation Society
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) which (...) So, church members are free agents in that they're allowed (encouraged, or required) to make their own decisions about stuff? (...) That's and interesting explanation. It seems conveniently coincident that the recall of polygamy (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
