The “issues” issue was handled quite badly. It was only a tiny bit off-topic for a thread on secrecy in Mormon Temple ceremonies, but you dealt with it as if Grimpixie tried to talk about deboning fish. And then there’s this:
Which is what, it seems to me, that Grimpixie was doing - as phrased by pldennison.
And since we’re on the subject of “issues”… While Temple secrecy certainly doesn’t affect anyone outside the LDS Church directly, you seem to think that nothing about the Church affects anyone else, which is simply naive. As a matter of fact, it seems obvious to me that the LDS Church has “issues” with everyone who is not a member. This is demonstrated quite well by the missionaries knocking on my door every couple of months, and interrupting a small part of my life. Since I cannot get those minutes back, I have “issues” with the way the Mormon religion is “constructed.” Valid issues, not “wallpaper” issues.
Monty also wrote:
So agreeing or disagreeing on the validity of descriptions of religious practices is now a religious practice in itself?
And now, suddenly, talking about how the descriptions of Temple rituals available on the Internet are probably incorrect for various reasons becomes an attempt at justifying Temple violation? Good grief, Monty, Ian was merely talking about the stuff he’d found on the Internet. He did not even imply that because the stuff was out of date or incorrect we should all storm the Temples to find out what’s really going on in there today.
And then there’s:
And this 154-year-old order (which was given by nobody posting on the SDMB today - and I’m sure plenty of non-Mormons are just hearing about it for the first time) justifies treating almost all discussion of LDS beliefs by non-believers as offensive or anti-Mormon? If http://www.lds-mormon.com/tmpc.shtml is the least little bit correct about what led to that “extermination order,” it seems that Mormons have had plenty of “issues” with non-Mormons. Your holier-than-thou attitude is simply ridiculous.
Dave W. http://members.aol.com/psorsite/
“My dream is of a day where every SDMB poster will have a quote of mine in their sig.” - Arnold Winkelried
Dave, I have taken the liberty of amending the title to this topic, and editing in an intro sentence to help people stumbling in on this. Hope that’s OK with you. – Dex
[Edited by C K Dexter Haven on 06-08-2001 at 07:33 AM]
First off, your thread title isn’t very descriptive.
Second…
And it seems obvious to me that this comment is horribly flawed. First off, you use 1. your personal experiences to 2. draw sweeping generalizations about a large group of people.
I think what you have “issues” with is your own overly-sensitive self. “Oh, horrors, someone knocked on my door! I’ve been violated!”
Thirdly…
This is a painfully absurd statement. It should be drug out to the street and shot.
For a second there, I thought you were talking into a mirror.
Nope, but that’s what I get for being fumble-fingered.
Absolute baloney. Missionary work is of great importance to many Mormons. Try reading up on it: http://www.mission.net/en/main_missionfaq.html Or do you think that my soul is the only one they’re trying to save?
You’ve completely missed the point. Monty’s position appears to be that the way his religion is “constructed” doesn’t affect me, a non-believer. It does, period. He should know this.
Yes, it was an absurd question in response to Monty’s absurd response to Ian. Get it?
Although Spoof has done a thoroughly excellent job in refuting the OP, I think I’ll take a stab at it also.
That’s your opinion. And as I kind of consider PLD to be a friend here, maybe I didn’t put enough information into my public comment to him to let you know I don’t despise him - and since I don’t automatically assume every poster on the board despises every other poster on the board, I din’t feel the need to do that. YMMV.
Again, that’s your opinion. I dealt with it as I saw it. And I think the content of grimpixie’s postings showed that not only was I not discussing deboning fish, but I was making apt and relevant comments on the topic. Perhaps you should try that.
Again, your opinion. My reading, and apparently C K Dexthaven’s reading, of the content of grimpixie’s postings showed that grimpixie had already dismissed the LDS POV out of hand.
And this comment of yours is simply asinine. Obviously I don’t think that or otherwise I wouldn’t have written the Staff Report in question.
Less in Logic Number One: “Seems to me” prefaces OPINION.
I’d venture to say they’re not the only ones knocking on your door, now are they? Perhaps you’d care to put up a tiny little sign that says “No Solicitors.” If it makes you feel better, I’ll send you the dollar for it.
Besides wasting about 3 minutes of your life, which btw they don’t know you value so much over not having anyone knock on your door because you apparently haven’t bothered to let folks know by putting up a tiny little sign - the offer of a dollar still holds, what issues are those?
No. I was addressing the fact that the LDS consider both the presence of an unauthorized person on temple grounds and the divulgence of exactly what happens in the ordinances conducted on temple grounds as desecration of sacred things. That you can’t or won’t understand that doesn’t mean the points I made aren’t valid.
Reread my responce in the original thread. You just might notice where I mentioned that descriptions from both sides of the issue may have to be taken with a grain of salt.
I neither said nor implied that. However, peoples do tend to pass on their memories of very devasting events in their people’s history. One of those was an order authorizing the murder of people for the sole reason that they were LDS.
I think you’ve glossed over a lot of what I, and others, said in the original thread and that you are incorrectly applying to me an attitude that I don’t hold. But that could be because of how you form your opinions.
Oh, and the link to the site that attempt to even partially justify the extermination order - that’s beneath contempt. Somehow I suspected better of you.
I know quite enough about Mormonism, thank you, having been one for eighteen years.
Except the flaw in this line of reasoning is that you getting “bothered” every few months (horror of horrors!) isn’t a characteristic that’s unique to Mormonism. Seeing as how anybody in the public realm has an implied permission to ask you for a moment of your time (just as you have the right to say “hell no”), I don’t see how you can equate the visitation of couple of Missionaries every few months as “bothered” unless you’re hypersensitive.
In other words, you’re grasping at straws to try to make a resounding argument.
No, I don’t get it (no pun intended). Monty said that someone else’s religion is valid despite what you may or may not think about it (generally). You responded with the wild-eyed assumption that “Hey, this must be a religious practice in and of itself!” This is known as a TREMENDOUS leap in logic.
Perhaps you’d like to explain how “describing a religious practice” is a “religion”, based on Monty’s statements.
Without saying that I agree with the whole OP, which I do not, I did think that bringing up the extermination order was a bit over the top in this context. We don’t generally let African-Americans get away with a permanent chip on their shoulders towards all white people because their g’g’g’grandparents were enslaved - I don’t see why Mormons get to maintain their “siege mentality” without comment. (Note - I do not necessarily believe that Mormons do have a siege mentality; I don’t know enough of them to know. But Monty seemed to concede the point by bringing up the extermination order instead of responding to the substance of the accusation).
And yet the article linked to was about someone carrying out, essentially, an invasion of the temple. Care to explain how that doesn’t qualify as a siege?
I think it’s on point just as it’s 100% correct for someone to be called on it if he or she attempts to justify slavery.
And nowhere did I say I had a grudge against all non-mormons.
Yes, but instead of saying, “a siege mentality is appropriate when people really are storming your stronghold,” you said, “we’re allowed to have a siege mentality, because 150 years ago, our predecessors were unjustly hounded by the government.” I don’t respect African-Americans who blame their personal problems on slavery (as opposed to more recent discrimination and injustice), and I don’t see how the appalling actions of the state 150 years ago justify this kind of attitude among today’s Mormons.
Attempting to justify the extermination order is ludicrous and reprehensible, just as are justifications of slavery. But that doesn’t mean that the present-day descendants of those unjustly treated in the past should get to blame their current attitudes on injustices perpetrated on their ancestors.
I was born and raised in a devote LDS family and then later, through a lot of research, questions, and soul-searching, I quit the church. I have very strong reasons why I do not have faith in nearly all of their practices or beliefs, but out of respect I will not go into detail. I will not debate the issue of religion on a message board.
Anyone who thinks the Church doesn’t affect non-believers should move to Utah. That’ll show ya.
DaveW, give it up. You may not know it, but most Mormons get bent way out of shape when you imply ANYthing could be wrong with their religion; even though theres many sites which tell the truth about it.
Dianne: In the original thread I did not say that the religion did not affect anyone else regardless. I said that what went on inside the temple, and of course who was allowed therein, really didn’t affect the person asking why the secrecy. I also pointed out that this could be considered a matter of semantics.
Heck, I lived in Germany in a predominantly Roman Catholic state and the “church holidays” affected me during the regular US military working days. And those living in Georgia can’t buy beer on Sundays (the last time I was there was in 2000 and that’s the way it was then) so obviously that affects people too.
It seems to me that if Montyhas explained that revealing Temple secrets is sacriligious, that ought to settle the matter. Polite people would excuse themselves and move on. It’s not like the LDS folk are conducting human sacrifices or having orgies in the Temple; their ceremonies are private and, while being full of ritual significance to Mormons, really have no interest for Gentiles.Mormons are,
mostly, very nice people, and what they believe and how they worship is nobody’s business but their own. Would you pester a synagogue to let you rifle through the Torah? Would you walk into a Catholic church and sneak some hosts out of the tabernacle for a snack? If not, then why does it seem open season on the LDS?
I will comment that for the most part, the affect the LDS Church has on non-members is good (at least here in Utah, where they affect everything from the government, community, business, etc). Their beliefs may be very different than my own and I may strongly disagree with “some” member’s attitudes towards the non-believer, but as a whole, they are a very generous, family oriented, wholesome organization. However, I have to admit to some resentment in the way they force their beliefs onto the general public, in particular the liquor laws passed by a Mormon dominated State government. The 2002 Winter Olympics will be interesting.
On more personal experience, although I am no longer a practicing Mormon, the members of my Church have always (in the 18 years I have live here) been there for me. They know my feelings about their religion but that has never stopped them from helping me when a huge tree fell in my yard, they surprise me with a plummer when a pipe froze, they brought me food when I had surgery and when I had babies. I’ve had presents show up on the door at Christmas time (Santa even came in person when my kids were smaller), helped when I had a new roof put on. All without excepting a dime for their effort and I never had to ask them for help, they were just there. They have never pressured me to attend church or to send my kids.
I could go on forever about the kindness they have shown and even though I realize there are always the bad in any group of people and even though I strongly disagree with their doctrine, as a whole they are wonderful people.
Oh, and I hope you knocked on wood after you mentioned Brian Bunnyhurt.
In order to avoid confusion, I meant to say “the members of the Church in my area” instead of “my church”. The only church I belong to is the Church of Diane.
Just wondering what those of you in the “desecration” camp think about Cecil’s column today on Richard Francis Burton visiting Mecca. Should we condemn him too for surreptitiously going to a place where a nonbeliever is not supposed to go? If not, what’s the difference between that act of sacrilege and sneaking into a LDS temple, as discussed in the Staff Reports thread?
Since both you and SPOOFE appear to be missing at least some of the points, I think “thoroughly excellent” is a bad description.
You know what, Monty? Had they not been my opinions, I don’t think I would have written those things. Good grief. It’s my OPINION that your (apparent) habit of calling things “opinions” is little more than a method of blowing things off.
When did I ever even come close to implying that you despise PLD? This is illustrative of your complete lack of understanding of what I am (and have been) talking about.
<Dave smacks forehead>
I believe I am. I am making apt and relevant comments about what’s pissing me off. You and SPOOFE are the one who are bringing up irrelevancies.
I don’t see that at all. CK Dexter Haven wrote:
I didn’t see any name-calling or religion-baiting from Grimpixie, and Dex left plenty of ambiguity in that message that it can be read many ways. If Dex would like to clear it up, he’s more than welcome.
Obviously? I don’t think the staff report has anything to do with whether or not your religion has any effect on other people’s lives. I think you graciously sated the curiosity of someone outside your faith, but I wouldn’t count “curiosity” as an “effect” of the LDS Church, really. Also, you appeared to agree quite readily with the flawed “wallpaper” analogy, which made the thread jump from the specific (Temple ordinances) to the general (anything about anyone’s religion). The implication being that you think that nobody should have any “issues” with anyone else’s religion at all because it doesn’t affect them. It does. Missionaries knock on my door. Acts between two consenting adults are illegal. The State of Israel. The Crusades.
That misses the point completely.
What, as if there wasn’t one there already? As if a little tiny sign would work on Mormons as garlic works on vampires?
But that’s not at all what Ian was talking about. He was talking about the validity of the descriptions, not the validity of the religion. Describing the ordinances is desecration. So, if you’ll allow me the luxury of inventing a term, would talking about whether or not those descriptions are accurate (without actually discussing any of the details themselves, as Ian didn’t) be a ‘meta-desecration’?
Same goes for you, buster. Look, I honestly do agree with you about many of the specific points you’ve made. My problem is that you’ve made them in somewhat nasty ways, and with leaps of logic or thought you’re telling few people about, and I’m only beginning to glimpse here.
Which is completely irrelevant to the point that after Ian said he thought that the descriptions are probably inaccurate, you told him, after a tremendous leap of logic, that that doesn’t justify violating the Temples. You’re absolute correct in that it doesn’t justify such action, but the response was not only a fairly abrupt non-sequitor, but fairly rude.
Well, it sure looks like you’ve got a “siege mentality” when it comes to outsiders discussing your religion or comparing it to others. I’m not even talking ordinances here, it’s the whole “it’s my religion and it doesn’t affect you so bug off” attitude.
No, I agree with much of what you and others said in that thread. I consider Temple desecration to be not just unethical, but immoral. What I’m annoyed by is your treatment of others who, it seemed to me, had honest questions. Instead of politely answering or refusing to answer, you chose to take the questions as a personal insult and respond in kind. Perhaps, as with PLD, there’s a history of which I am unaware, and the personal attacks were merited - I can’t tell.
Hey, if I remember correctly, I typed “+mormon +state +extermination +order” into Altavista and that was the first page listed that gave me any clue as to what you were talking about. I was pressed for time, and I didn’t think one bit about whether or not it would offend you. For that omission of action on my part, you have my sincere apologies.
SPOOFE wrote:
And the flaw with this rebuttal is that that’s been my point all along. Monty appeared to believe that Mormons uniquely don’t affect other people’s lives. His claim to the contrary in response to me seems like so much air.
No, just attempting to illustrate with situations that many people have encountered, instead of other, less-well-known things like what Diane refered to when she joked, “Anyone who thinks the Church doesn’t affect non-believers should move to Utah. That’ll show ya.” The liquor laws in Utah, which she later mentioned, are actually one of the things I was thinking of. Of course, you seem to be arguing that the magnitude of the “issues” I’m discussing has a bearing on whether or not my overall annoyance-fest at Monty has any merit, but I’ve never said that the LDS Church affected my life a lot. I agree quite readily that neither the missionaries nor the Utah liquor laws have any great effect on my day-to-day life, but the fact that the magnitude is small doesn’t mean it’s zero.
I thought I made that clear. The tremendous leap of logic was Monty’s, when he replied to Ian’s post about the validity of descriptions of religious practices with a comment about the validity of those practices themselves. Monty is absolutely correct that Ian’s agreement isn’t needed to validate his religious beliefs, but that’s not at all what Ian was agreeing or disagreeing with.
A less-religious analogy, perhaps: we have a pile of textbooks about, say, quantum physics. Analogy-Ian says, “I disagree only slightly that these textbooks are invalid because their authors disliked Einstein.” To which Analogy-Monty would reply, “Your agreement isn’t necessary to validate quantum physics.” Does Analogy-Ian’s viewpoint about the validty of the descriptions (textbooks) have anything whatsoever to do with validating actual quantum physics? Of course not. Analogy-Monty (and real Monty) appear to be, to use your term, hypersensitive.
Dex wrote:
That’s absolutely fine with me, thanks for the helping hand.
Vanilla wrote:
Oh, no. You’re the last person I’d wanted to chime in on this thread, because 1) you’re obviously just trolling for Mormons, 2) you’ve also missed the point (I’ve never even thought that there’s anything wrong with the LDS religion, much less said any such thing), and 3) I’m now afraid that I’ll be pegged as “anti-mormon” by “guilt through association” after this post of yours. <shudder> Might make my upcoming trip to Salt Lake City more difficult.
Goboy wrote:
And it did settle that matter. This is a different matter.
Of course, since you’re at least the fourth person who’s missed my points, then perhaps I really should just give this whole mess up. Either I’m communicating extremely badly, of the whole of the SDMB operates on a tilted conceptual plane with which I am not accustomed. I doubt the latter, since I follow many of the threads quite easily…
Well, if four (now five, because I’m not sure what your point is) miss your point, that’s not their fault. That’s your fault for not expressing yourself clearly enough.
Well, since LDS Missionaries are strongly discouraged in this day and age to go door to door, or “canvas”, then the few that do do that would probably stop if you had a “no solicitors.” Believe it or not, all the LDS Missionaries do know how to read. Have you ever actually talked to any of them? Or do you just dismiss them out of hand for being militant converters?
I think what Burton did when visiting Mecca is just as tacky and disrespectful as if he had tried to vist the Temple. I’m sure he meant no harm, but that’s beside the point. When it’s clear that there are certain rituals that are sacred and not meant to be attended by just anybody, then people should respect that.
And, vanilla? I won’t pretend to know everything that happened in your life, especially your time in Utah, but really, get over it. We’re all tired of hearing about it. (Or reading about it, as it were)
