Actually, I think the level of LDS discussion here is much better than what I see in real life. I have had countless people, many of whom should know better, ask me upon hearing that I am LDS, “so, you’re the ones who practice polygamy, right?”
Whereas here it’s questions about “silly underwear”.
Esprix’s post brings up something that I was thinking about. It’s possible that members of the LDS church get no worse treatment here than other minority groups, but those of you who have some sort of an involvement in the LDS church–be it through friends or your own experience–are more inclined to notice anything involving them. Just another thought.
Perhaps not any worse treatment (overall) than other minority groups as a whole. But compared to other religious (specifically Christian) groups? Yeah, I think they get more than their fair share.
yosemitebabe, have you read some recent Christian threads? If anything, because they’re a more prevalent religion, I’d say they get bashed more than Mormons - including here at the SDMB.
yosemitebabe, I don’t know… I see an awful lot of Christian bashing in general, as an atheist. From Christians I just see… misunderstanding about atheism/agnosticism. We’ve got some intelligent Christians here, and some spiteful atheists.
Mormons are Christians. At least they consider themselves Christians. When there is a Christian bashing thread, it bashes all Christians, including Methodists, Catholics, Mormons, Lutherans, and so on.
When a specific Christian denomination is singled out for bashing, it is more apt to be Mormon or Catholic (IMO). These faiths have unique qualities and histories which seem to make them easy targets. Also, some others in the Christian community may not consider Mormons “real” Christians, which may be why they get that extra dollop of bashing.
I remember going into at least one Christian bookstore, where there were booklets on how to “convert” Mormons to “real” Christianity. There are similar books targeting Jehovah’s Witnesses, and maybe a few others. I am sure Mormons go into Christian bookstores, just like any other Christian. How do you think it makes them feel to see such books?
I agree with andros. There are bookstores which specifically cater to the LDS community, just as there are bookstores which specifically cater to the Catholic community. I’ll bet that Mormons are as unlikely to shop at Christian bookstores as Southern Baptists are to shop at Catholic bookstores.
(No, I am not a Mormon. But I belong to an obscure but often misunderstood Christian denomination. I get sick of other Christians telling me what I believe. I have a lot of sympathy for the crap that Mormons go through.)
pl: Yes, I know, there are probably specific LDS bookstores. Does this mean that a Mormon never has stepped into a “regular” bookstore? There was one in my hometown of Glendale CA that catered to “general” Christianity (it had Catholic Bibles, etc.). This is where I saw the anti-Mormon books. I have NO doubt that some of my Mormon friends had stumbed upon that bookstore. It’s hard to miss—it’s a largish store.
Guin: Yes, add the fundies to the list. But—what demonination are all “fundies”? Aren’t fundies sprinkled through several (or many) Christian denominations? For example, there are more “fundie” types in my church, but I’m not one of them. There are probably “fundie” Mormons (but I didn’t think any of my Mormon friends were particularly “fundie”). I could be mistaken in this, but I think “fundie” is also a mindset.
When someone bashes Mormonism, they bash the whole lot of them, don’t they?
Yeah, you’re right, and that’s sad. I mean, there are aspects of Mormonism I disagree with, and I don’t believe in it. But, I suppose that’s why I’m NOT a Mormon. D’uh. It’s the same reason I’m not a Baptist or a Presbyterian or a Nazarean.
Just curious-what denomination are you?
Guin: Just like I don’t like to talk about where I currently live, I don’t like to talk about my specific denomination. It’s just me—ever paranoid and absurdly private.
Cartooniverse–You’re far too quick to assume bigotry and malicious intent. It’s not wrong that you challenge people to explain themselves. It’s the way you do it that’s inappropriate. Personal insults, capital letters (aka shouting), mad-face smilies, excessive punctuation, ridiculous demands for cites… It’s the message board equivalent of freaking out.
First of all, it makes it hard to take you seriously. You’re obviously intelligent and good-hearted, and you have a lot to contribute to this board. But posts like the OP and the infamous shelf-butt rant make me want to just dismiss you as a lunatic.
Secondly, well, it’s scary. I know you live in the NY area, and, frankly, I dread ever meeting you at a Dopefest, lest I do something to offend you and incur your wrath.
And you know what, I almost just deleted this whole post, because I’m afraid of getting The Cartooniverse Treatment[sup]TM[/sup] once again. Oh well. No guts, no glory…
(Aside to Abby: Upon re-reading the above-linked thread, I realize that I adressed you in a rude way. I apologize.)
Well, the LDS has very different views from mainstream Christianity of the nature and mission of Jesus Christ and the nature of God the Father (i.e., that God is made of flesh and blood, that good Mormons can become gods themselves, that Jesus came to North America…) Mind, I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, just different.
The biggest stumbling block with the LDS is the claims that America was peopled by Jews, and that Indians are Lamanites, whose brown skins are a curse from God for slaughtering the Nephites. And, no offense, guys, but the Book of Abraham is just an Egyptian funerary text, not an account of Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt.
No, I’m not poking any ant piles. I’m just saying that the LDS, whore lovely people, are not immune from a skeptical evaluation of their claims. The metaphysiial stuff is not really worth discussing, but their historical claims should be evaluated and either accepted or dismissed, based on the
Please excuse the poor typing of the previous post.
The LDS, who are lovely people, are not immune from a skeptical evaluation of their claims. The metaphysical stuff isn’t worth discussing, being outside the range of falsifiability, but their historical and anthropological claims should be evaluated, and either accepted or dismissed, based on the evidence. I don’t see why Joseph Smith should get a pass if L. Ron Hubbard does not.