Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read this as, "My religion's tenets are fluid, and adjusts as needed".
Again, I see a difference in how we're using our terminology to be an issue here. If by "tenet" you mean what I would refer to as a "policy," then yes, you are right. If, on the other hand, you mean what I would refer to as a "doctrine," then no.
Quote:
Which the LDS church does, albeit very slowly and reluctantly at times. Smith and Young would probably not recognized it today.
Oh, trust me, they very much would recognize it today. They understood, far better than most people, that revelation is always an ongoing thing. I am quite certain that both of these men fully anticipated that a lot of policy changes would be made over time, and that perhaps a clarification concerning a misunderstanding of doctrine might also be revealed.
I'm a bit reluctant to post this here, as it could arguably be a new thread. However, in trying to stay with in the topic, I would suspect the actual teachings of the LDS church would not support rape.
Obviously.
Quote:
However.
However, it seems to take a position that is not much different than the Catholic church does when it's own leaders are involved in sexual impropriety. This video was taken this weekend, so it's brand new. How can a church be reformed from the inside, when it is clear that this particular one for sure, wants nothing to do with the accusation. It'll be interesting to see what the follow-up is. This information being out in the wild would suggest it can't be whitewashed, like many other instances recently have been. The faithful, whether Mormon, Catholic or other MUST pressing immediate action, not talk, not platitudes, but immediate and forceful action.
Unless that happens, what is all the other talk about what a church teaches worth anything?
Yeah, it's probably a topic for another thread, but I'll respond here anyway. I agree that this incident is horrendous and reflects very poorly on the Church. As I understand it, it is currently under investigation. I really don't know what else I can say.
(As an aside, (1) a missionary training center, (2) a meetinghouse or chapel and (3) a temple are three completely different things. Not that it would have mattered much to the woman, but she was not raped in a temple. She was raped at a missionary training center.)
Yeah, it's probably a topic for another thread, but I'll respond here anyway. I agree that this incident is horrendous and reflects very poorly on the Church. As I understand it, it is currently under investigation. I really don't know what else I can say.
(As an aside, (1) a missionary training center, (2) a meetinghouse or chapel and (3) a temple are three completely different things. Not that it would have mattered much to the woman, but she was not raped in a temple. She was raped at a missionary training center.)
It is very disappointing how the church has responded so far. Does this comport with teachings? The Book of Mormon? Dogma? Policy or???
Quote:
A statement by Mormon church spokesman Eric Hawkins said members who have personal grievances should find other ways to communicate those without disrupting church services.
"It is disappointing that anyone would interrupt such a worship service to bring attention to their own personal cause," the statement said. "Recording and posting of these disruptions on social media to seek public attention and media coverage, sadly, shows an unfortunate lack of respect for others."
Does the LDS church teach that the first reaction to a rape victim accusing a clergy member of the church be accusing that victim of disruption (after all, the podium is there for the testament of church members), and the second reaction is to complain about lack of respect by that victim?
I'm certain there are many Mormon's who find what the church officials did and said objectionable, but I'm also sure that there are many who agree with them. In fact, one of the rape victims friends had a camera knocked out of their hands during her testimony.
It is time that churches address the sexual predators in their midsts, and rather than downplaying it, hiding it or protecting the perpetrators, to step up and actively help prosecute them.
I don't see that happening in the LDS church, the Catholic church, nor many of the evangelical ones. My only question is, how can any member continue to financially support these entities when they clearly don't care about their faithful. I'm beyond disgusted and infuriated, as there is nothing I can do but complain on venues like this, or keep highlighting the incidents. I, as an atheist, never have and never will be exposed to a potential abuse.
It is very disappointing how the church has responded so far. Does this comport with teachings? The Book of Mormon? Dogma? Policy or???
None of the above, actually. Tragically, people don't always practice what they preach.
Quote:
Quote:
A statement by Mormon church spokesman Eric Hawkins said members who have personal grievances should find other ways to communicate those without disrupting church services.
"It is disappointing that anyone would interrupt such a worship service to bring attention to their own personal cause," the statement said. "Recording and posting of these disruptions on social media to seek public attention and media coverage, sadly, shows an unfortunate lack of respect for others."
I'm kind of torn on this. I don't go to church to hear accusations like this. I believe the woman was telling the truth, but suppose she wasn't? Is a church really the place for people to make accusations of this source? On the other hand, she obviously felt she wasn't getting her message across, and so she did something she might not have done had somebody listened to her in the first place.
Quote:
Does the LDS church teach that the first reaction to a rape victim accusing a clergy member of the church be accusing that victim of disruption (after all, the podium is there for the testament of church members), and the second reaction is to complain about lack of respect by that victim?
To be perfectly honest, I don't know that there is a precedent for this kind of thing. In other words, I don't think the Church "teaches" anything about what anybody's "reactions" should be to having something like this occur.
Quote:
I'm certain there are many Mormon's who find what the church officials did and said objectionable, but I'm also sure that there are many who agree with them. In fact, one of the rape victims friends had a camera knocked out of their hands during her testimony.
Knocking a camera out of someone's hands was probably out of place. But was filming this drama as it unfolded any more appropriate?
Quote:
It is time that churches address the sexual predators in their midsts, and rather than downplaying it, hiding it or protecting the perpetrators, to step up and actively help prosecute them.
I couldn't agree more.
Quote:
I don't see that happening in the LDS church, the Catholic church, nor many of the evangelical ones. My only question is, how can any member continue to financially support these entities when they clearly don't care about their faithful. I'm beyond disgusted and infuriated, as there is nothing I can do but complain on venues like this, or keep highlighting the incidents. I, as an atheist, never have and never will be exposed to a potential abuse.
When I contribute financially to my church, I do so in order that it can continue to do all of the good it does around the world. Yes, I understand that there are times when the needs and rights of its individual members are compromised or ignored, and I find it appalling when that happens. But if I were to stop contributing to it and if all of its other members stopped, all of the good we are able to accomplish with those funds would also stop. As an atheist, you probably see the bad as outweighing the good. As a believer, I see it differently.
None of the above, actually. Tragically, people don't always practice what they preach.
I'm kind of torn on this. I don't go to church to hear accusations like this. I believe the woman was telling the truth, but suppose she wasn't? Is a church really the place for people to make accusations of this source? On the other hand, she obviously felt she wasn't getting her message across, and so she did something she might not have done had somebody listened to her in the first place.
To be perfectly honest, I don't know that there is a precedent for this kind of thing. In other words, I don't think the Church "teaches" anything about what anybody's "reactions" should be to having something like this occur.
Knocking a camera out of someone's hands was probably out of place. But was filming this drama as it unfolded any more appropriate?
I couldn't agree more.
When I contribute financially to my church, I do so in order that it can continue to do all of the good it does around the world. Yes, I understand that there are times when the needs and rights of its individual members are compromised or ignored, and I find it appalling when that happens. But if I were to stop contributing to it and if all of its other members stopped, all of the good we are able to accomplish with those funds would also stop. As an atheist, you probably see the bad as outweighing the good. As a believer, I see it differently.
I know in other posts I have stated that as there are a lot of Mormon's in my area, I know and respect them as people. They truly practice a lot of what our society values; they are family people, work hard, give freely of assistance, and generally are an asset to the community. I've stated before that I believe the faith is as wacky as any, including Scientology, but generally the actual people in that faith are wonderful individuals.
However, and I do mean this, how can those same individuals continue to support a church financially, unless and until it actually addresses it's issues with sexual predators. That financial pressure can only come from inside, the moral persuasion from the outside. The Mormon church, and the Catholic one, do not make the efforts to live the moral teachings they purportedly teach, and they need to held accountable for that.
How do we know when that happens? It happens as soon as they are just as systematic in turning over those in the ecclesiastical positions to law authorities as they have been in systematically covering those crimes and protecting the perpetrators.
It is one thing to teach, it is another to actually practice, as an institution, what is taught.
When will Mormons, members of the LDS church, start insisting on those that do the crime to be turned over systematically? Or does the LDS church teach that cover ups are a good thing? They certainly are acting that way. What does the LDS church teach in that regard, and do they mean it and can they live it?
I know in other posts I have stated that as there are a lot of Mormon's in my area, I know and respect them as people. They truly practice a lot of what our society values; they are family people, work hard, give freely of assistance, and generally are an asset to the community. I've stated before that I believe the faith is as wacky as any, including Scientology, but generally the actual people in that faith are wonderful individuals.
Okay, I know this isn't the man crux of your post, but this is what I'm going to focus on because this comparison to Scientology actually does relate to the OP. Since you think we're good people but that our religion is "as wacky as Scientology," why don't you give me two or three specifics -- things you think we believe -- that rank up there with Scientology.
Quote:
However, and I do mean this, how can those same individuals continue to support a church financially, unless and until it actually addresses it's issues with sexual predators. That financial pressure can only come from inside, the moral persuasion from the outside. The Mormon church, and the Catholic one, do not make the efforts to live the moral teachings they purportedly teach, and they need to held accountable for that.
How do we know when that happens? It happens as soon as they are just as systematic in turning over those in the ecclesiastical positions to law authorities as they have been in systematically covering those crimes and protecting the perpetrators.
It is one thing to teach, it is another to actually practice, as an institution, what is taught.
When will Mormons, members of the LDS church, start insisting on those that do the crime to be turned over systematically?
I don't know. Soon, I hope.
Quote:
Or does the LDS church teach that cover ups are a good thing?
Of course that's not what the Church "teaches."
Quote:
They certainly are acting that way. What does the LDS church teach in that regard, and do they mean it and can they live it?
Most live it. Some do not. It's the "some who do not" that get the press and who give the "most who do" a bad name. Normally, crimes of this sort are prosecuted. The Church doesn't engage in a systematic cover-up as a matter of course, but cover-ups obviously do happen from time to time and when they do, it's despicable.
Quote:
What does it really teach?
Well, I think I've already answered this question. And I think the Mormons you have known personally are evidence that this is the case.
(By the way, in case this statement got lost somewhere along the way, I'd welcome your thoughts on our "wackiness," for the simple reason that I think that most of the doctrines you'd consider "wacky" are not what we believe at all, but are merely caricatures of our actual beliefs.)
Trans you are an evangelist.
and becoming more evangelical all the time.
the more evangelical you become (which you are)
the more people tune you out (which they are)
a person can paper windshields with ads, public restrooms with religious tracts, or an online forum with hundreds of posts
people dismiss them with the same disregard
you are talking at people Trans. that is not a conversation. that is not a discussion. it is you being an evangelist, a zealot, and people walking away, just like they do with the guy on the street corner who talks at people and barrages others with words, but does not engage in any meaningful interaction, connection, engagement, or dialogue.
That's possible. I believe it is so in your case. I have set out my stall as it were and let others look at what i set out or not. The videos i posted in fact make a better case than I did.
There's no point in pretending that I want a discussion where points are ignored (Book of Abraham) dismissed (not interested in the archaeology), dropped when the objections don't stand up (Aztec and maya pictograms being nothing like hebrew) and finding unacceptable that i question that Genetic drift can explain where no trace of hebrew DNA is found.
In short, there isn't a lot of point in a discussion which is limited only to what you want to talk about. I'll leave that to others and I'll carry on trying to find something to settle whether genetic drift can eliminate haploid markers - a suggestion that i have found nowhere else.
I see a mention was made above of a comparison of LDS with Scientology. There is of course the way that God, Jesus, Satan and all their race seem to be aliens interfering with earth - rather like Hubbard's Thetans. But that may be unfair. The alternative American history smacks rather more of Dainiken and the Atlantean -believers. But then Creationists are not to far from that.
Evangelist - I wouldn't deny that. I would only assert that what I'm evangelising is a better model of reality than any religion. That's what the debate is always going to be about, rather than comparing religious notes.
That's possible. I believe it is so in your case. I have set out my stall as it were and let others look at what i set out or not. The videos i posted in fact make a better case than I did.
There's no point in pretending that I want a discussion where points are ignored (Book of Abraham) dismissed (not interested in the archaeology), dropped when the objections don't stand up (Aztec and maya pictograms being nothing like hebrew) and finding unacceptable that i question that Genetic drift can explain where no trace of hebrew DNA is found.
In short, there isn't a lot of point in a discussion which is limited only to what you want to talk about. I'll leave that to others and I'll carry on trying to find something to settle whether genetic drift can eliminate haploid markers - a suggestion that i have found nowhere else.
I see a mention was made above of a comparison of LDS with Scientology. There is of course the way that God, Jesus, Satan and all their race seem to be aliens interfering with earth - rather like Hubbard's Thetans. But that may be unfair. The alternative American history smacks rather more of Dainiken and the Atlantean -believers. But then Creationists are not to far from that.
but that's exactly what you are doing.
that's what an evangelist does.
a barrage of words.
talking at people.
that is why people walk off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Evangelist - I wouldn't deny that. I would only assert that what I'm evangelising is a better model of reality than any religion. That's what the debate is always going to be about, rather than comparing religious notes.
it's not even a debate. talking at people is not a debate. there is not even a conversation.
and i am going to state the obvious. it is not a "better model of reality" to utterly ignore what others have to say. there is no listening, there is no exchange. evangelizing is not a better model of reality, nor is it a desirable form of communication.
think Trans about how you don't like being preached at, having Bible quotes thrown at you, being bulldozed and steamrollered by walls of text and religious videos. is it effective or does it leave you annoyed?
that is what you are doing.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-04-2018 at 07:54 PM..
8,000 hit a day says they don't. But even if they do, I just have to play it how I see it. I feel this has really been a matter of making some points which didn't need much arguing and that was it. A few handy vids to counter some of your claims (LDS is not losing membership hand over fist) and underline some of my own.
Okay, I know this isn't the man crux of your post, but this is what I'm going to focus on because this comparison to Scientology actually does relate to the OP. Since you think we're good people but that our religion is "as wacky as Scientology," why don't you give me two or three specifics -- things you think we believe -- that rank up there with Scientology.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
