I’d like to change the above to just. “No”
I appreciate your support of a separation between church and state, Abby. But how do LDS families reconcile what is taught in the church vs what is taught in the school? That must be awkward.
In fact, many public schools in some parts of the country DO teach creationism as opposed to evolution. I was at an elementary school in Oklahoma once where the Lord’s Prayer was recited at the beginning of class each day. Since everybody supported this, there wasn’t any dissent.
I think we’ve exhausted the GQ part of this topic and we’re moving into Great Debates territory. So I’m moving this to Great Debates.
Off to Great Debates.
DrMatrix - GQ Moderator
No not awkward. I would suppose that many families “reconcile what is taught in church vs. what is taught in the school” the same way families in any other of the thousands of world wide religious groups do. Why would my answer be any different than the answer of a Roman Catholic, an Orthodox Jew, a Buddist or a Muslim? We live in a world where there as many versions of history as there are people in it. I’m surprised you haven’t figured that out yet.
Our children (just like most) are generally clever enough to learn to give the teachers the answers they want at a fairly young age.
Your comments and questions lead me to feel that you seem to think most or all members of the church are in Utah. Not all LDS families are in Utah, in fact, there are more members of the church outside the U.S. than inside now and Utah doesn’t even have the highest concentration of members per capita.
Where does anyone in this thread day they don’t? In fact why are YOU bringing up a GD topic in a GQ thread?
I truly don’t know what other families have said to their children with regard to the creation vs. evolution. My conversations with my oldest on these type issues are cherished, enlightening and thought provoking for both of us. I love the fact that he wants to discuss such things with me and share his insights and thoughts and ask for mine.
Dude, why else do you think they’re knocking on yoru door? They’re trying share their beliefs in an attempt to convert you.
I have no objection to this, mind you. I have no problems with people trying to convert other people. Let’s just not pretend that this isn’t what’s happening here.
I am curious if any of the LDS Dopers have read Jon Krakauer’s book, Under the Banner of Heaven? I haven’t read it yet (I’m on the library waiting list), but from the reviews I’ve read, it deals specifically with murders committed by two Mormon polygamists (who are NOT affiliated with the main branch of the LDS) and then delves into the history of the early church.
Oops. I see that while I was composing a reply the thread was moved to GD.
I really did try not to give GD answers. I didn’t even address faith and prayer as reason’s for the answer to the last line of Squirebob’s op. We read the Book of Mormon. Contained within is a promise found in Moroni chapter 10 verses 3 through 5:
So Squirebob what makes them think that people from Middle east sailed to South America? Because they read the book. They decided to act on the promise. They prayed with real intent, asking their Father in Heaven if it be truth. Those that believe it, believe they got an affirmitive answer from God through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Gobear I haven’t read it yet.
Gobear, I have not yet read the Krakauer book. But! For your reading pleasure, I hereby submit
the LDS Church’s response to the book
Krakauer’s response to the response
a few media responses (you may wish to note that Terryl Givens wrote By the hand of Mormon, the latest academic study of the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church).
And I continue to be surprised at the defensive, touchy tone in responses to my questions that are just questions. I’m really not trying to debate, but to understand how all this works for you.
Here is why I am curious about these issues: I grew up in a Christian church whose historical teachings were not incompatable with what is taught in science and history classes in school. Many, many Christian groups (including most Catholics individuals I know) support the teaching of evolution, the idea that the earth is millions of years old, and that indigenous Americans came to North and South America via the Bering Strait - not by boat from the Middle East in 600BC. We accept that DNA studies establish that Native Americans are not related to the Israelites. I think it is a fair question to ask how Mormon parents reconcile the radically different teachings of the church.
I was taught by my parents to give teachers the correct answers - not to “give teachers the answers they want.” If my/our family answers contradicted what was taught in school, I was encouraged to give those answers and to support them. I didn’t face the dilemmas you in the LDS (and many fundamentalist faiths) face in this regard, which is the root of my curiosity.
I am well aware of this. But I know that there are some towns in Utah that are almost 100% LDS believers. I wasn’t aware of this kind of LDS concentration anywhere else, which is why I used it as an example. I did not mean to suggest that Mormons don’t live elsewhere.
I naively thought that my questions were general questions. The responses I got from you and Monty were a bit defensive and bristly though, so perhaps the topic does belong here.
Well, first, you might want to understand that we aren’t fundamentalists. Fundamentalists can’t stand us. Second, the LDS Church has no position regarding evolution; members generally make up their own minds on that point. I don’t know any Mormons who believe in a 6 24-hour-day creation, though there are probably a few, but from there the opinions cover a wide range, and no one cares.
As for American history, since public schools just say that Native Americans migrated to the Americas over a long period of time, we have no beef with that, or with much else taught in schools. We also aren’t suprised that DNA tests don’t show obvious Hebrew markers, for a number of reason which I’ve covered here before–I’ll look for the thread.
When I said in parentheses “(and many fundamental faiths)”, I meant as well as. I did not mean to suggest that Mormons are fundamentalists.
The account of the history of Native Americans in the Book of Mormon is widely disparate from what most scientists, anthropologists and historians hold to be true.
Well, here is the ancient thread where we talked over all that.
Other items of interest include this article, part 2 of the article, and this one here.
At any rate, some Mormons are interested in these things, and others aren’t. We figure everything will come out in the wash, and there’s a lot we don’t know yet. The confirmation of the Spirit is the important thing about the Book of Mormon; other evidence is nice, too. Meanwhile, new things are being found out every year, both my mainstream archaeologists and by LDS academics.
I continue to be surprised at your misunderstanding of the content and tone of my posts. For your information I am showing them to a doper friend that is not a member of the LDS church prior to posting to make sure that I have answered what the two of us think you are asking since your questions are only related to the op in terms of the fact that they are about members of the church.
So did I.
I will repeat what I said the first time. I do not understand why you think how I handle such questions from my sons would be any different than anyone else. Just as genie said. This is not as big a deal to us as it seems to be for you. If for example an elementary class is learning about dinosaur periods, they study and learn what the teacher presents. If it occurs to a child to ask if dinosaurs were on Noah’s ark, then my response was generally something like, “What a great question. The scriptures don’t say specifically, but won’t that be a neat thing to learn in the next life?”
If a middle school student is learning some part of American history that is linked with church history and the version the teacher presents is incomplete or incorrect, then my kids were encouraged to speak up and offer resources with more thorough information for the teacher in private. I only happened once and his teacher was receptive, particularly since what she’d said, was not part of the curriculum. And what was in the curriculum as accurate. As you can well imagine, no teacher takes kindly to being told by a child that their information is wrong or incomplete in front of the class. Just such a thing happened to me about the 6th grade. I went home and discussed how to handle it with my Mom. We gathered the resources I needed to support my comments. In my case it was something to do with the number of Saints in the Mormon Battalion and the omission of the Missouri extermination order by Gov. Boggs and the fact that it still had not at that point been rescinded. I met with the teacher and showed her my resources. She never addressed these things with the class, but I had done all I felt brave enough to do at 10 or 11 years old.
As genie said, the church has no position on evolution. I like genie don’t know any members of the church who believe that the earth was created in 6 24 hour periods. The time frame of the creation is just not that important to us. Our belief that the earth was organized under the direction of God the Father for our benefit, is just not all that wrapped up in whether or not it was created in 6 24 hour periods.
Answered above.
Noted.
As I said at the start, I continue to be surprised as well, by your apparent misunderstanding of the tone and content of my posts, particulary since I took the extra step of having a friend on the board the read and my replies before posting to be sure I addressed your concerns since they didn’t seem directly linked to the op.
I don’t have a horse in this race, except for having lived in SLC, being familiar with the Church and the faith, and thinking Monty’s a helluva guy.
But it really does seem to me that BooksWoods is being straightforward and honest, and not at all accusatory or condemning. Every word s/he has been jumped on for in this thread so far has been unworthy of ire. Now, it might well be that BW is not expressing him/herself clearly. But I think there’s an equal likelihood that Abby and Monty might be seeing offense or attack where none exists.
'Cos y’all seem a bit touchy to me as well. Justifiably, perhaps, given the number of people out there dedicated to jumping on Mormons with spiked shoes, but . . . it seems premature and unnecessary here.
So, for the record: BW did not call Mormons fundies. Nor did BW accuse anyone of denying past polygamy. And near as I can figure, BW did not accuse anyone of dishonesty. And I don’t see where BW questioned anyone’s faith. Asking questions about a faith is not rhetorically equivalent to questioning that faith. IMO.
So, can this proceed in a civil fashion with the assumption that there really aren’t any Mormon-bashers around?
I appreciate the compliment, andros.
What I think’s really happening here is that BW isn’t exactly reading the entirety of Abby’s posting. She has expressly stated that the myths she was talking about are the myths that surround the former practice of multiple marriage in our church’s history. BW seems to have interpreted that as Abby saying that the practice itself was a myth. She expressly stated that was not the case.
So, are we done with this hijack or not?
You know, I have to admit I harbored a low-level prejudice against the LDS for years (as a child - obviously it didn’t come up much and was expressed mostly as a silent contempt ) because the first experience I ever had with LDS missionaries also happened to be my first experience as a child with a casual but virulent racism.
Having spent my first several cognisant years in multi-cultural NYC and San Francisco, moving to a lily-white, working-class suburb of Detroit right before fifth grade was a bit of a cultural shock. And in my first week there, a couple of LDS missionaries came calling when nobody else was home. Young men, genuinely friendly. But when I noted I had just moved there from SF, the off-handed response ( said in a caring voice with a warm, sincere smile ) of “Oh, moved here to get away from all the niggers, huh?”, traumatised me a bit. I still remember it being like having a bucket of cold water dumped on my head - I had literally never heard such sentiments before, though I knew what the word meant. Of course that was just intro #1 to my new environment. I heard much the same soon afterwards from my new peers ( “Ride the bus to school? Only niggers ride the bus” ).
But that one encounter did stick with me for awhile. In fact it obviously remains etched on my brain. Thankfully by my late teens, when I had actually got to know several Mormons and become friendly with them ( and was back safely in the bosom of the “ultra-liberal” Bay Area ), I finally managed to shrug off my reflexive anti-LDS bigotry.
By contrast, I always had quite the opposite reaction to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their advocates always seemed to witness in multi-racial pairs or groups, which always cheered me to some extent.
- Tamerlane
JAYSUS!
Here is how it went:
Abby: “When asked I do not say Mormon, because it never fails someone mentions polygamy or some other derogatory myth.”
(my interpretation of what Abby said: “It is a myth that Mormons practiced polygamy.” Or maybe that she wanted to use a different name for her church to hide this part of their history?
Books “Don’t mean to question your faith, Abby, but which part of Mormon polygamy is a myth? It may not be condoned by the church today, but was very strongly encouraged and practiced by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and most of the early church leaders who promoted it as a revelation directly from God and a central tenet of the LDS church.”
(what I meant: “it isn’t a myth. It indeed used to happen, even though I know it doesn’t today.” Example: if I told you a “Greek myth,” would you think it was from the past or the present?
Abby: “I am fully aware of the history of the church with regards to plural marriage…(snip)…
The myth I was referring to is that people I have encountered tend to think it was practiced in every family and that it is still practiced in the church over 150 years later.”
(my interpretation of Abby’s statements: “I know it used to happen. I was referring to the myth some people hold that it still is part of church practice and belief, which it is not.”
Books "As I said, I asked also for clarification - not just to debate. I do NOT question your faith, Abby. I did question why you called polygamy a “myth” as it is very much a history of the LDS church. It bothers me when religious people deny unpleasantries in their histories, but it sounds like you had good reason to educate people about how the LDS behaves today as opposed to in the past."
I bolded this last part because it is where, after I questioned Abby’s use of the word “myth” to describe something that did indeed occur in the past, I acknowledged that I now realized that Abby was talking about the myth that polygamy is a current LDS practice, which I know it is not. I tried to communicate that I do understand what Abby means - that many people she meets seem to think polygamy is still part of LDS practice, which it is NOT. That I understand and empathise with her need to educate non-LDS people ABOUT THIS.
I was trying to recap that, but failed miserably, at least in my attempt to communicate with our LDS brothers and sisters here on the board.
After this is when Monty attacked me (in his bitchy way) for mis-reading Abby’s post and Abby agreed with him that I am not reading or understanding her posts. I hope this helps you two understand what I said and meant. I just need closure on that, and I’m done, because - nice missionaries aside - it’s too frustrating trying to talk to LDS believers on this board about their religion. Thanks anyway, folks.
And if I got the fucking coding right in this thing, I’ll be amazed.
Try to keep the personal attacks (and the lies) out of GD, why don’t you, Books.
See what I meant when I said every person’s version of history is different? Here is how it went:
Squirebob asked some questions. emilyforce posted some links. I answered the ops questions.
toadspittle made a good point about the op perhaps confusing mennonite or amish with and mormon.
emilyforce made a good point with regards to the difficulty of answering the ops questions in a GQ because the answers have to do with faith.
I agree with emilyforce and explain that my first replies to the thread were crafted without reference to prayer or faith so as not to irritate Manhattan since the thread was in GQ and not in GD.
Then I answered a question asked by emilyforce (not BooksWoods) about whether or not we prefer to identify as “Mormon” or something else.emilyforce apparently had no difficulty with my answer and did not take offense.
I posted some links to photographs of some members that might be recognized by the general public, to illustrate that we pretty much look like everyone else and are not “farmers in black”.
j66 posts about finding the missionaries pleasant. RyanD004 asks some more questions not related to the op. emilyforce apparently sees what I saw earlier and reminds him that its in GQ not GD. I answer the questions he posed.
AskNott posts something that doesn’t seem to pertain to anything. I figure it’s a wayward post that was intended for another thread.
** WeRSauron** posts another LDS viewpoint on LDS vs Mormon.
BookWoods says “Don’t mean to question your faith, Abby, but which part of Mormon polygamy is a myth? It may not be condoned by the church today, but was very strongly encouraged and practiced by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and most of the early church leaders who promoted it as a revelation directly from God and a central tenet of the LDS church.”
*My thoughts were: Yipes That’s a might condescending way to start a post addressing someone’s religious belief. Maybe I need to read that again. I read again and am thinking that I never said that polygamy never happened. I referred to the widely held myth that polygamy is still practiced by “Mormons” is the reason I personally prefer to identify as LDS. I’m thinking that he’s really twisted my words to imply I have something to be embarrassed about or hide.
Then sayeth BookWoods “Re. your earlier link to the Book of Mormon about the Lamanites killing off the good people, I didn’t see the part where the Lamanites became dark-skinned as punishment for their sins. That was in the Book of Mormon at least until the 1970s, as I recall.”
My thoughts were: Lemme re-read the op and my response, I don’t see the connection. The op said “But what about evidence, how did they complete this voyage? The peoples of south america have very little in common with those of the Middle east (at that time and for centuries) what about language ect?” My links were a direct response to the op and I saw no connection to what BookWoods posted. Since the last sentance made reference to changes to the Book of Mormon. I thought THAT is what he was getting at.
While I was composing a reply, norinew agrees with j66. Pepperlandgirl agrees with norinew and j66.
BookWoods posts “As I said, I asked also for clarification - not just to debate. I do NOT question your faith, Abby. I did question why you called polygamy a “myth” as it is very much a history of the LDS church. It bothers me when religious people deny unpleasantries in their histories, but it sounds like you had good reason to educate people about how the LDS behaves today as opposed to in the past. Steve Young, the football player you pictured earlier, is a descendent of such a family (I believe Brigham had dozens of wives).” *My thoughts were: He did question my faith. Not only that, he implied I don’t have a grasp on the history of my faith and that I was trying to deny “unpleasantries”. I’m not feeling good about polygamy being referred to as an “unpleasantry”. This guy clearly doesn’t understand many things about the doctrine, yet he’s posting as if I don’t know of Steve Young’s ancestry? *
Monty says something I agree with when he tells you that you are still misunderstanding me.
BookWoods posts again that I am making is sound as if I deny polygamy happened even though to this point I have said otherwise two or three times. *And now I’m wondering if he is not deliberately misunderstanding just so he can keep popping in and saying I denied polygamy’s existence in the early church. *
And now I’m wondering if you’re not deliberately misunderstanding just so you can keep popping in and saying I said something I didn’t say. So I respond with
“I don’t have an arguement. You are the one that keeps coming back and saying I denied that the early members of the church practiced plural marriage. I did not.”
Once again to reiterate that I did not say what you seem so convinced I said. Then I posted a link to provide a cite for my original use of the “myth” regarding the belief that polygamy is still practiced in the church. Perhaps I should have quoted it instead of linking it.
Another quote from the site that is relevant to this thread was
[quote]
Myth:
**The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is also correctly called the “Mormon Church.” **
The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This full name was given by revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1838.
While the term “Mormon Church” has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use.
The term “Mormon” is correctly used when applied to the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, which is named for a prophet of ancient America who compiled that record. “Mormon” is also acceptable when used in a title such as “Mormon Tabernacle Choir” or “Mormon Trail,” or as an adjective in such terms as “Mormon pioneers.”
The term “Mormon” is not objectionable when used to refer to a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, though “Latter-day Saint” is preferred."
Squirebob posts his satisfaction with the answers and thanks.
Monty posts an unkind reply and uses my name in the post.
BookWoods replies that he didn’t intend to hijack the thread but asks another question anyway.
I reply with a post that upon re-reading after hitting submit I regret. So I post again that I want to change the reply, so that it doesn’t have words that I think might have come across as sarcastic.
Bookswoods posts again and I realize that his question reveals he knows a lot less about the church and it’s doctrines than he seems to think he does. He’s thinking that there’s some big hoohaa about creationism vs evolution within the church.
With this remark, “That must be awkward.” I’m thinking he’s deliberately condescending. Particularly since he follows with “In fact, many public schools in some parts of the country DO teach creationism as opposed to evolution. I was at an elementary school in Oklahoma once where the Lord’s Prayer was recited at the beginning of class each day. Since everybody supported this, there wasn’t any dissent.” When 1) I didn’t deny that schools anywhere taught creationism. 2)I start to wonder if he’s older than I am though, because creationism and evolution were taught when I was very young, but by the time I was in middle school, I only recall evolution. 3) Why or what do his school experiences in Ok have to do with or lead him to believe that there is some huge obstacle in the LDS church with regards to evolution/creationism?
I reply saying there is no awkwardness and point out that I don’t see what religion has to do with differing views of history and why you would think it would be awkward for LDS and not any other faith. While I am composing the thread gets moved to GD.
Gobear asks about Krakauer’s book.
I realize the thread was moved and post a a response to Squirebob about the role of faith and prayer in the beliefs that he questions in the op. I would have liked to have said those things in the beginning, but didn’t feel I could because I was trying to be considerate of the forum. I responded to **Gobear[/b that I have not read the book. I do not mention that I am already aware that the the churches response to the book was that he’s made some errors.
I’m getting tired of this exercise and I’m sure everyone else is getting tired of reading it, if anyone has even bothered.
Here’s the bottom line for me: I’m feeling misunderstood by BookWoods inspite of my attempts to be sensitive to the forum and answer questions from him addressed directly to me that seem condescending in tone. The other posters up to this point do not seem upset or dissatisfied with my replies so I’m baffled at his insistence that I denied polygamy as a part of the early church. It never clicked for me (until his review that includes his thoughts) that he understood why I applied the term myth because he kept restating his original understanding.
That said, I apologize to BookWoods that he found by replies unsatisfactory and less than polite inspite of my attempts otherwise.
If a mod would be so kind as to clean up the coding I would appreciate it. I truly did intend to preview. It timed out the first three times I hit preview so I moved it to word to save it and try to get a new post reply screen. Then obviously I hit submit instead of preview. I apologize.