No, only when an ex-member of a particular church returns to wreak havoc. This guy and his family left/were pushed out of this very church - not the Mormon Church, this specific church in Visalia in the 80s, then they came back, then they drifted away again, then this.
I have no reason to believe current practitioners and especially the victim were in anyway involved in the shooter’s past. But their Church certainly was a part of his life at one time in its history.
Similar patterns have repeated in other places, such as the RCC, I am pretty sure. That decades pass before something happens is not unusual.
Where there has been smoke, there has often been fire.
One of the hallmarks of a cult is redefining commonly understood language. For example, the mormons refer to all nonmormons as “gentiles,” :dubious: which raises some eyebrows when they use that term in the presence of Jewish people. There are a lot of other insider-speak terms that mormons use that have completely different meanings to the rest of the planet.
A traditional mormon marriage, for example, used to consist of one man and however many virgins he could convince the first wife to allow him to marry. (See also, mormon scripture. I am not making this up.)
I just heard an audio clip on the news of the 911 call where the killer called and told police where he was. He gave a phony name, but sounded positively cheerful as he told the dispatcher, “I just shot the Mormon Bishop.”
Mormon ministry would be considerd “Lay” by any commonly used definition. They are not permanent (they usually serve for a few years), they are not full-time (they work other jobs), and they are not paid. I don’t know how this could be construed as anything other than “Lay”.
Funny how in your first post in this thread you decry the rumors and innuendo that occurred in this case, and then spend the rest of your posts using innuendo.
I agreed with your first post that it was irresponsible for people to speculate that this was the work of someone in the Gay community. I would also argue that it is irresponsible to speculate that it is the result of abuse or some other type of improper behavior.
When the first definition applies exactly to the situation, you do not use the second one. Lay first and foremost means not a member of the clergy. It has been extended to other professions, but when you are talking about lay in terms of religion it means not part of the clergy.
Second, “not paid” does not mean “not professional”, at least it doesn’t mean so in the sense we are talking about in terms of “lay”. If a friend asks me medical advice and I say “I’m just a layman, you need to go see a professional”. I do not mean “go pay $5 at Bob’s world of doctoring”, nor do I necessarily mean “you must go and pay someone who works as a Doctor”. What I mean is that he needs to go see someone who is trained in the practice of medicine. If LDS Bishops are significantly trained in the practice of being LDS Bishops they are professional and not lay.
Nope. That’s not the way how dictionary definitions work has been explained to me at every level of education I’ve had, including all the way through to getting my Linguistics degree.
It seems to me that sane people try to find a rational explanation for the behavior of insane people. I guess that’s how we want the world to work. The problem is that insane people don’t have rational explanations for their irrational acts. It’s sad, but it seems to be true.
ETA: The person I’m referring to here as insane is the guy who killed the bishop. I most definitely am not saying not_alice is insane. Quite the contrary–I’m saying she’s a sane person trying to find a rational reason for the insane murder.
News reports say Ken Ward (the killer) was a veteran of the first Iraq war and his family blames his illness on post traumatic stress from his military days. While I’m certainly not a psychiatrist and never met the guy and while he may have had PTSD I would be very surprised to learn that PTSD was the extent of his mental illness.
I know the definition of lay. I also know the definition as it’s used in my own church regarding the members of the priesthood of said church. Obviously, a number of other posters here, even those not members of that church, know it also.
Yes. You are exactly right. And LDS bishops are NOT significantly trained in the practice of being bishops. They do not attend a Seminary or divinity school or anything like that. I am LDS. My bishop is an investment banker. He has NO formal training. He will do this for 5 years, and then someone else, who also has no traning, will replace him. I think this fits the definition of Lay Clergy.
Dictionary definitions aside, most people understand the definition of “lay clergy” to mean unpaid non-professional ministers, except with much fewer syllables and thus a perfect word to describe the situation.
Treis’s symptom of a cult seems inconsistent with the way most people would describe a cult. I am not a Mormon apologist. In fact, I am frequently described (incorrectly) as a vitriolic anti-Mormon. There are good reasons to criticize the LDS, but this one is just plain silly, and odd in a thread about a devoted church volunteer being randomly killed by a PTSD sufferer. Stick to the facts, and show a little respect for the families of both of the deceased.
I am not so sure of that. S/he described as “one of the hallmarks”. I think if “most people” would look at what separates a cult from a non-cult, and describe it sufficiently, they will find there is a lot of effort put in to separate “us from them” and keep them separated. One way to do this is to redefine common language so insiders have a different understanding of the terms than outsiders do.
That is not to say that all groups that do that are cults - it is only one of the hallmarks after all - but I bet a close look at actual cults will show that almost all, if not all, of them do that in some way, shape or form.
Any community of people will end up having an in-language that differs from the way that outsiders speak. If you’re going to say that jargon is one of the hallmarks of a cult, then you might as well say that having members is a hallmark of a cult.
