Bias Against Mormonism?

[Wizzle]

Given those options, I choose #1.

There is no satan, There is no "true church". Cummon...yer a doctor, already!

[Uncle Dale]

Unless they specifically mentioned the verse, it would not change my keeping of Jude 1:3. Nor would it change the fact of Matthew 10:34. However, all these items in your list can easily be keep while still expressing LDS doctrine.

Let's take the scenerio one step further.

Suppose the President of the Church shared with the members the contents of a revelation in which

it was shown that the LDS Church and the Church of Christ Temple Lot would soon begin to cooperate,

in doing the Lord's work in Zion, and that the members were henceforth invited to fellowship and share

in the Lord's blessings as one people, but with two independent priesthoods.

Would you leave the Church over such counsel?

It sounds as though some others here would, as some seem to be saying that they will never join so

closely with other Christians.

Your thoughts?

UD

.

[juliann]

No that is not true. I have found United Methodists, American Convention Baptists, Disciples of Christ,

Evangelical Lutherans, United Church of Christ, and even some Roman Catholics who are no longer

pushing their old "one true church" message. There has been a great growth in non-denominational

and independent churches who do not preach such stuff -- except in reference to the entire Church

Universial -- the Communion of Saints -- the Church Invisible.

This is so obvious I'm not going to argue it anymore....and I don't think there is a person outside of their circle who doesn't get it immediately. Anyone not a part of their "Church Universal" or whatever they call the line they are drawing you are out of the "true church". Does this really need to be said? Otherwise, why not go Muslim. Their mosques look cool.

[Uncle Dale]

This is so obvious I'm not going to argue it anymore....and I don't think there is a person outside of their circle who doesn't get it immediately. Anyone not a part of their "Church Universal" or whatever they call the line they are drawing you are out of the "true church". Does this really need to be said? Otherwise, why not go Muslim. Their mosques look cool.

I think that if you really took the trouble to investigate, you would find a variety of viewpoints

and a variety of interpretations of what the "community of saints" entails. Some Christians will

say that it is in God's hands, and that they know not at what point along the path any particular

person will enter through the "narrow gate" that is Jesus Christ.

In fact, I've even encountered some mention of the possibility of that happening after death --

which is a precept that Mormons should appreciate.

Of course, if you simply do not wish to ever draw closer to any non-LDS Christians, you can find

multiple reasons for avoiding that contact. As for myself, I have found it a richly rewarding experience.

Uncle Dale

[Mudcat]

Vanderbilt study showing that: "Twenty percent of the population is more biased against Mormons than against women and blacks....With evangelicals, (bias against Mormons) rivals bias against atheists."

Does this suprise anyone? (It suprised me. In spite of the level of animus I have personally witnessed against the Church on variuos internet discussion boards I have visited, I figured it was the rare exceptions, rather than the rule.)

What do you think about this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

At least in the case of evangelicals, Im not surprised at all.

Athiests believe there is no God and the Bible (other than a moral proof, in some cases) is a worthless document. To them heaven and hell are ludicrous ideas. There is no afterlife, and Jesus' ressurection was a hoax.

LDS believe Jesus wasn't a hoax..but the Bible is distorted and the Bible by itself won't get you to the best place. They have a solution..and their solution is the only way to the "good" heaven. If you don't want to believe them...oh well....thats too bad. But, you probably had it coming, cause you were weak in the pre-existence. Guess you'll just be one of their ministering servants while they "kick it" in the Celestial kingdom.

To me...both concepts are very offensive.

[Daniel Peterson]

But, you probably had it coming, cause you were weak in the pre-existence. Guess you'll just be one of their ministering servants while they "kick it" in the Celestial kingdom.

To me...both concepts are very offensive.

I agree that the latter concept would be offensive if any significant proportion of Latter-day Saints ever taught it.

But, in my experience at least, they don't.

[Mudcat]

I agree that the latter concept would be offensive if any significant proportion of Latter-day Saints ever taught it.

But, in my experience at least, they don't.

Well, what do you think, then?

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, what do you think, then?

I draw absolutely no conclusion about anybody's status or condition in pre-earth life from his or her rejection of the gospel. Such a thought has never so much as entered my mind. I don't believe I'd ever heard of it until you mentioned it here.

Nor have I ever felt any rush at the thought that non-Mormons would be my "ministering servants" in the celestial kingdom. In fact, that thought hasn't really crossed my mind, either. Nor have I ever heard any Latter-day Saint boasting of such a prospect.

[Mudcat]

I draw absolutely no conclusion about anybody's status or condition in pre-earth life from his or her rejection of the gospel. Such a thought has never so much as entered my mind. I don't believe I'd ever heard of it until you mentioned it here.

Nor have I ever felt any rush at the thought that non-Mormons would be my "ministering servants" in the celestial kingdom. In fact, that thought hasn't really crossed my mind, either. Nor have I ever heard any Latter-day Saint boasting of such a prospect.

Ok, let me ask you this?

It has been relayed to me through people that are LDS, that the mentally challenged, are actually blessed in some way. That they were some of the most spiritually valiant supporters of God's plan in the pre-existence.

Do you believe there is any truth to that?

I have also heard that those (pernicious souls) that are condemned to Hell were most likely at the very edge of committing to Satan's plan in pre-existence, but chose to remain silent and sit on the fence.

Do you believe there is any truth to that?

[maklelan]

2. The people have some reason for their bias, and the LDS could lessen it by more eccumenism,

positive public relations, dropping their "One True Church" claims, and at least making some minimal

accomodation to creedal Trinitarianism.

Yeah, it's probably our fault. After all, we're the only ones who think that we're right and other people are wrong.

[Uncle Dale]

2. The people have some reason for their bias, and the LDS could lessen it by more eccumenism,

positive public relations, dropping their "One True Church" claims, and at least making some minimal

accomodation to creedal Trinitarianism.

Yeah, it's probably our fault. After all, we're the only ones who think that we're right and other people

are wrong.

Isn't is possible for Mormons, as a group, to be wrong about what constitutes good public relations?

I mean, at least now and then?

Isn't it possible that Mormons would encounter less bias, if they had a reputation for eccumenism and

constructive cooperation with other Christians on a whole range of socially useful endeavors?

Why is it that no Mormons here will even begin to consider close cooperation with other denominations

or religions? I have found Unitarians, the Society of Friends (Quakers), and United Methodists very open

to such cooperation, community service, and fellowship.

Are the current LDS leaders telling their people NOT to closely associate with other Christians or with

people of other religions, such as Jews?

What has been the latest apostolic counsel on such potential outreach?

UD

.

[Zemah]

[speaking of the accommodations made within the RLDS (or Community of Christ) church, Uncle Dale saidâ?¦]

â?¦the accomodations made with the Protestants have not always been doctrinal onesâ?¦and (we) seldom tell them they are in the "wrong church" these days.

Just THAT much accomodation has worked wonders. Find a hundred Evangelicals or mainstream Christions who actually know what an Reorganized LDS or CoC member is, and I'll predict you'll get 99 postive answers. They may not like all of our beliefs, but they accept us much, much more than they ever would Mormons.

From what I have seen and experienced, that has been a good and godly improvement.

UD

I didn't know that acceptance was the goal.

Perhaps Abraham could have eliminated that minor surgical procedure and been more acceptable to the Canaanites.

Compromise may be admirable in politics toward accomplishing a common interest, but in the things of God and Christ it only signals the end of a covenant: â??I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.â? (D&C 82:10)

You think it is â??a good and godly improvementâ? because you have a tentative peace with your fellow Christian. I think I see a plow hitched with a cow and a jackass trying to make a straight row with a crooked philosophy.

Evangelicals do the same when they take their beast and hitch it with the goats of a Christless people.

Zemah

[sean0scott]

Ok, let me ask you this?

It has been relayed to me through people that are LDS, that the mentally challenged, are actually blessed in some way. That they were some of the most spiritually valiant supporters of God's plan in the pre-existence.

Do you believe there is any truth to that?

I have also heard that those (pernicious souls) that are condemned to Hell were most likely at the very edge of committing to Satan's plan in pre-existence, but chose to remain silent and sit on the fence.

Do you believe there is any truth to that?

I don't speak for Dr. Peterson...

Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to voice my thoughts on those "doctrines."

First of all, relayed information is only as good as it's weakest link.

Second, those are not doctrines, they are opinions, wishes, conjecture, or worse.

Though many have the desire, none may know the state of another's eternal progression.

Since there has been scant authoritative revelation and an abundance of vigilante dogmatism, one must study and pray for his or herself...

As for there being any truth in them, I believe so, but not to the extent to make them true statements.

[Zemah]

I imagine Esau's soup also tasted good.

Perfect summation!

[solomarineris]

Does this suprise anyone? (It suprised me. In spite of the level of animus I have personally witnessed against the Church on variuos internet discussion boards I have visited, I figured it was the rare exceptions, rather than the rule.)

What do you think about this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why do you call this a "bias"?

I say it is a "Choice". As an individual was I biased when I if I did not vote for a "Republican" or would not cast my vote for a "Woman".

The "animus" you perceive comes from the information people precess and act accordingly.

There is nothing "right" or "wrong" about it.

This is United States of America, one of the few places masses can vote freely.

[Aquilifer]

Why do you call this a "bias"?

I say it is a "Choice". As an individual was I biased when I if I did not vote for a "Republican" or would not cast my vote for a "Woman".

The "animus" you perceive comes from the information people precess and act accordingly.

There is nothing "right" or "wrong" about it.

This is United States of America, one of the few places masses can vote freely.

Yes, it is right or wrong. If I vote for or against someone for the simple reason that the candidate has more estrogen than I do, that is wrong.

If I refuse to help a black client on the basis that I don't like his race, that is wrong.

If I decline to hire a Jewish applicant because I want my firm to maintain its Christian identity, that is wrong.

Yes, we process information and act accordingly. But to claim that these decisions take place in a moral vacuum is silly.

[solomarineris]

Yes, it is right or wrong. If I vote for or against someone for the simple reason that the candidate has more estrogen than I do, that is wrong.

If I refuse to help a black client on the basis that I don't like his race, that is wrong.

If I decline to hire a Jewish applicant because I want my firm to maintain its Christian identity, that is wrong.

Yes, we process information and act accordingly. But to claim that these decisions take place in a moral vacuum is silly.

So, are you going to bring a lawsuit against me if I do not hire you, if you were black or white? Seeing that all I have is Latino employees? How about this McDonalds or Wendys I go all employees are black, should I report it?

How about if I publicly say "I will not vote for a woman" or "I will not vote for a Libertarian"?

I think you are mixing personal choice and the Law. It is solely my choice for whom I vote.

It is called "Discrimination" "Bias" anything you name. It is a vote, free of yours or anybody's influence.

[ed2276]

Who needs their acceptance? If the only terms on which we LDS will be accepted by others is that we drop our "One true church" ( that is fulness of Christ's Gospel ) claims and adopt creedal Trinitarianism then I want nothing to do with their acceptance! Let them rail and rage against us all they want. I don't give a hang!

[gadianton]

In an article in the Deseret Morning News, mention was made of a recent Vanderbilt study showing that: "Twenty percent of the population is more biased against Mormons than against women and blacks....With evangelicals, (bias against Mormons) rivals bias against atheists."

Does this suprise anyone? (It suprised me. In spite of the level of animus I have personally witnessed against the Church on variuos internet discussion boards I have visited, I figured it was the rare exceptions, rather than the rule.)

What do you think about this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

People are generally afraid of the unknown. The fact that no prominent Mormon ever comes out and honestly addresses tough questions could be part of the reason why such a larch % are biased against Mormons.

Just a thought.

[Uncle Dale]

Who needs their acceptance? If the only terms on which we LDS will be accepted by others is that we drop our "One true church" ( that is fulness of Christ's Gospel ) claims and adopt creedal Trinitarianism then I want nothing to do with their acceptance! Let them rail and rage against us all they want. I don't give a hang!

Is there any special reason you choose to misrepresent what I said?

I never advised you to "adopt creedal Trinitarianism" -- now did I? Am I a Trinitarian? Have you ever

once on this board heard me say a single word in favor of creeds?

What I advised, is that the LDS manifest some minimal accomodation to those types of Christians --

like, perhaps quit calling them "Gentiles," and start calling them "brother" and "sister."

As for "one true church" claims -- did I ever say that you must stop believing that yourself, or stop

teaching it to your children? No, I said nothing of the sort. I said to drop those claims, not to drop those

beliefs. Believe what is true for you. temple content removed----- but you do not need to go about in the world advertising that new name and

you need not go about in the world confronting other Christians and telling them their church isn't true.

If you'll go back and read what I said, it was centered in creating a better public image and reputation

for Mormons. With Romney in the White House you will have a golden moment -- an 8-year window of

opportunity to work against bias.

But what I now think is that YOU DO NOT WANT THINGS TO CHANGE FOR THE BETTER.

You wish to say that we non-members are persecuting you and that proves your church is true.

A bad policy --- a very, very bad policy, in my opinion.

UD

.

[thesometimesaint]

Uncle Dale:

We use the term brothers and sisters in two senses of the word. First all people are brothers and sisters in that we all children of the same God.The second sense is that as members of the Church we are brothers and sisters in the Gospel.

I'm a convert to the Church and what drew me it is the distinctive Doctrines, the Book of Mormon, the Temple, Continuing Revelation, Etc.. Take those away and we would be like any other Christian church, and more than likely better accepted, but I would no longer be a member.

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale:

We use the term brothers and sisters in two senses of the word. First all people are brothers and sisters in that we all children of the same God.The second sense is that as members of the Church we are brothers and sisters in the Gospel.

I'm a convert to the Church and what drew me it is the distinctive Doctrines, the Book of Mormon, the Temple, Continuing Revelation, Etc.. Take those away and we would be like any other Christian church, and more than likely better accepted, but I would no longer be a member.

Where did I (or others contributing to this thread) tell you to take away anything?

My advice is to allow more diversity of personal conscience and work towards better public relations,

by fostering better interactions with other Christians. If St. Paul could be all things to all people, I would

think that the LDS could take at least a few small steps in that direction, by ADDING, and not by taking

away. Add more individualism -- work against all appearances of being cultlike -- encourage religious

leaders of other groups to learn and endorse the Saints' good efforts in the community.

When somebody mentions "Christians feeding the homeless," the first image that comes to my mind

is that of the Salvation Army.

What if ------> what if, for the world at large, that first image were the Latter-day Saints?

Do you honestly believe THAT sort of image would not help counter the bias LDS are complaining about?

Uncle "Why do Mormons call me 'Bro. Dale' -- but do not extend the same love to the creedal Trinitarians?" Dale

.

[Zemah]

Their is no doubt that people of non-mormon churches will be bias. By claiming to be the only true church means that all the other churches are false. The LDS church has a big claim to prove.

The body of Christ is larger than the LDS Church, but the Bride of Christ is only one Church of latter-day saints whose children can truly be called Israel because they have made all the covenants required of that family title.

Show me where the Catholic church has ever called itself Israel. Tell me how the protestant or orthodox branches of the RCC can claim to be Israel if the parent church never did. Only the LDS Church has the doctrine and the authority to determine who is counted in Israel.

The hundreds if not thousands of denominations of Christendom is the proof that these are the creations of men and are not of God and Christ. They are false because they do not have the whole truth, they do not have the mandate of the priesthood of Christ, and they do not have living revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost.

This is not to say that the faith of those in their congregations is not worthy of salvation. But when their corrals are spoiled by Christ in exposure of their false doctrines, the sheep should follow Him to the well watered pastures of His Israel in Christ; even as Judah did upon there departure from Babylon.

Zemah

[ed2276]

Is there any special reason you choose to misrepresent what I said?

Misrepresent? I read what you wrote and interpreted according to my understanding of what you wrote. Why do you feel it necessary to accuse me of intentionally misrepresenting you (knowing what you in fact intended and then purposefully representing your intention as something other than what it was)? If I didn't get your meaning it is because you didn't provide it.

I never advised you to "adopt creedal Trinitarianism" -- now did I? Am I a Trinitarian? Have you ever

once on this board heard me say a single word in favor of creeds?

I had only what you did indeed write to go by. You did not go into any detail about what it was that you were in fact advizing. Thus , you left what you wrote open to interpretation , which I did based on my own point of view.

What you did write was :

2. The people have some reason for their bias, and the LDS could lessen it by more eccumenism,

positive public relations, dropping their "One True Church" claims, and at least making some minimal

accomodation to creedal Trinitarianism.

You did not distinguish "beliefs" from "claims" in your writing. For me , this claim and belief are one in the same. Why in the world would I make a claim in which I didn't believe? So , if I understand you correctly , you are advizing me to keep my beliefs , but keep them to myself.

What I advised, is that the LDS manifest some minimal accomodation to those types of Christians --

like, perhaps quit calling them "Gentiles," and start calling them "brother" and "sister."

No , what you advized was not "like , perhaps quit calling them Gentiles , etc." That may have been what you intended , but that is not what you communicated.

If the perhaps of it is what you meant , perhaps you might have written out what you meant by "making minimal accomodation to creedal Trinitarianism" rather than being irritated that I didn't discern your intended meaning from the scrap you provided.

As for "one true church" claims -- did I ever say that you must stop believing that yourself, or stop

teaching it to your children? No, I said nothing of the sort. I said to drop those claims, not to drop those

beliefs. Believe what is true for you. If you believe that you receive a valid new name in the endowment,

then belive that also ----- but you do not need to go about in the world advertising that new name and

you need not go about in the world confronting other Christians and telling them their church isn't true.

Since you take exception to my making inferences about what you did and did not write , perhaps you would do me the courtesy of not ascribing to me such conduct as going out in the world "advertising that new name" (whatever the heck that means) and "confronting other Christians and telling them their church isn't true" when you have absolutely no idea of what my relationships with other Christians are nor what my conduct in the world is.

If you'll go back and read what I said, it was centered in creating a better public image and reputation

for Mormons. With Romney in the White House you will have a golden moment -- an 8-year window of

opportunity to work against bias.

I went back and read what you wrote. Based on what you wrote then I am of the opinion now , as I was then , that you were making suggestions for the purpose you wrote of above. If I misunderstood what you meant about dropping the one true church claim and making accomodation for creedal Trinitarianism I think that not to have been my fault , rather your lack of specificity left open to my own interpretation what your intention was. Now that you have taken the time to lay out the "perhaps" of what you intended I have a clearer view of your meaning.

But what I now think is that YOU DO NOT WANT THINGS TO CHANGE FOR THE BETTER.

Now you are misunderstanding me.

You wish to say that we non-members are persecuting you and that proves your church is true.

Now you are misrepresenting me.

[Sleeper Cell]

Then again, we might ask ourselves why it is that some religious groups do not suffer from such a

large amount of bias. I gave two basic possibilities on the negative side -- but you have provided

some additional details.

In working with diverse cultures "overseas," I have confirmed to myself that one way that bias can

be reduced is by our helping different sorts of people come together and cooperate in ways that they

might not otherwise -- in ways that might seem going against their peer group's "party line."

I've seen the good results outweigh the bad many times over -- with Hindus, with Buddhists, with

sectarians, with Christians, and with at least one group of Muslims.

It's worth a try, don't you think?

UD

.

Absolutely. We have to keep trying, even when the results are discouraging. I have never understood why disagreements over religious doctrine should prevent people from working together to achieve common goals. I agree that there is considerable merit in trying to find less offensive terminology to express religious differences; however, I do not expect others to compromise (even by omission) any part of their beliefs in doing so. Another possible approach is to occasionally discuss areas of doctrinal agreement.

My fatherâ??s funeral was jointly conducted by an LDS bishop and a Southern Baptist preacher. In their talks, each expressed the basic doctrines of their respective faiths (including some areas of doctrinal differences), but they also emphasized the common points of agreement. The Southern Baptist preacher concluded by saying, in substance: â??now you have both the testimony of a Mormon bishop and the testimony of a Baptist preacher that â?¦[my father] will be resurrected and we will be reunited with him.â?

Far from detracting from the funeral, their expressions of doctrinal differences on other matters (and the way they were expressed) actually made their testimonies of Jesus Christ and the reality of the resurrection much more powerful.