Bias Against Mormonism?

[wenglund]

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.

The reason that I used the word "bias" is because that is the term used in the news article and presumably the Vanderbilt study.

I suppose I could have used the terms "prejudice" or even "bigotry", but I believe those terms tend to be inflammatory and thus an impediment to reasoned discussion.

These terms are also narrower in their valid application, and I prefer to look at the whole spectrum of aversion.

Whatever the case, I believe you are correct about it being a "choice". The question, though, is whether it is an efficacious or corrosive choice in terms of any or all the parties concerned. I happen to be of the opinion that certain forms of bias are detrimental to all, but mostly to those harboring the bias.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I think those who look mostly for change in those towards whom the bias is directed, may not have a developed or accurate understanding of the nature and cause of bias, and are looking in the wrong direction. But, I could be wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncle Dale]

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 father’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: “now you have both the testimony of a Mormon bishop and the testimony of a Baptist preacher that …[my father] will be resurrected and we will be reunited with him.”

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.

True -- I also have experienced many discouragements among the Christians --- they are seldom happy

to hear that I do not profess myself to be one of them. But, once that ice is broken, and they hear my

testimony of Jesus and his gospel, things usually get better.

And, sometimes I need not even give my testimony, to get past the initial discouragements. In fact,

sometimes I do better just by listening.

Nobody said that the good path is an easy one.

Your Uncle Dale

.

[thesometimesaint]

Uncle Dale:

What type of accommodations are you suggesting we make?

[wenglund]

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.

While I dispute your supposed "fact", I do agree that "fear" is often at the very heart of the "bias" that exists in the world--whether had towards LDS or whomever else.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[juliann]

Does anything else even need to be said? http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/...ormon.roots.cnn

You have to get past the ad and to the last quarter of the video to see a scrooge lookalike snarl at Romney and refuse to shake his hand because he is a Mormon.

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale:

What type of accommodations are you suggesting we make?

Here are some ideas:

1. Eliminating all claims to be the one true church from public media and from missionary discussions.

Address the subject when others bring it up, but retire it as an advertising message (explict or implicit).

2. Accepting at least some of the other Christian groups as brethren in the gospel, regardless of differences

over exclusive ordinances, etc. And in that accepance, making a strong effort at joint cooperation in

addressing social problems in the shared community. Set up exchange programs by which some LDS and

some non-LDS could work in each other's church media departments and other fields.

3. Engaging in high-level meetings with the heads of other denominations and/or religious groups (such

as President Kimball did when he met and broke bread with RLDS President W. Wallace Smith in 1977).

4. Sharing in public prayer occasions, even if crosses or pictures of the Pope, or whatever are displayed,

Singing Christian hymns (at least those parts of the lyrics not offensive to LDS dictrine). Running programs

for kids of cooperating religious groups to share summer camp experiences and similar encounters.

5. Producing articles, videos, etc. in which the shared aspects of Christianity are explotred and celebrated;

such as exhibits of old stained glass art, stories of faithfulness in times of oppression, publication of

shared interest in discoveries such as the Dead Sea scrolls (which is already happening).

Few of these types of accomodations involve any substantial change in LDS teachings -- they are more

a matter of expressing toleration, cooperation, brotherhood and good will; leaving to God's judgment

which differences are really problematic.

Not all Christian groups would be willing to enter into such cooperation with a more friendly and more

accepting LDS Church ---- but some groups would, and that could be a good start.

I am amazed that Mormons here are not compiling better lists than I am able to do.

Let's let them make some positive suggestions at how to reduce bias.

Your Uncle Dale

[wenglund]

I am amazed that Mormons here are not compiling better lists than I am able to do. Let's let them make some positive suggestions at how to reduce bias.

Your Uncle Dale

Forgive me for repeating this, but I think those who look mostly for change in the people towards whom the bias is directed, may not have a developed or accurate understanding of the nature and cause of bias, and are looking in the wrong direction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[koakaipo]

Alot of this has to do with the fact we are a new religious movement. We are becoming more established and less marginalized socially, but we will have a long way to go. And so we will usually be seen with a somewhat curious if not supsicious eye. That's normal, that's the natural course of development for any group or movement that's relatively young. It takes time for society to get used to you. Like a couple centuries.

I think the main thing Mormons can do along the way is just be pretty open and welcoming to non-Mormons, both individually and as groups. Don't take it too personally when folks are suspicious, and even when they are insistent on being suspicious. We aren't the first or the last people to be pre-judged in such a way. Chances are we've done the same thing to other groups we prejudge, so there you go. Just take it like a champ and kill people with kindness-it's always the best revenge.

[Smith]

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.

UD,

Are you seriously suggesting the church do this or are you just listing it as a possibility?

[Uncle Dale]

UD,

Are you seriously suggesting the church do this or are you just listing it as a possibility?

Two answers --

In terms of individual LDS, I am offering it as a potentially good idea.

In terms of the LDS leadership, about the best I can suggest is that there are people like myself

who would be interested in engaging in joint discussions and joint prayer, to see if it would be a good

idea for the entire Church.

I think that's about as far as I can go. There will be bias even if several very good programs of

cooperation do eventually get going. I suppose we all realize that, and will have to live with it.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

Now you are misrepresenting me.

Perhaps so, but in the context of my stated opinion. And in the sort of dialogue we engage in

here, you have a good opportunity to correct my opinion and demonstrate better options.

If you had similar dialogue with mainstream Christians, Evangelicals, Catholics, etc., don't you

think that would also open up opportunities to correct their opinions and perhaps lessen their bias?

UD

[thesometimesaint]

Uncle Dale:

Thank you for your time used to answer my question.

1. I don't know as any church would claim that every other church is true just like theirs. Why bother to join their particular church if they are all true?

2. We readily claim that all other churches have some truth. Just as we claim some have more truth than others. For a personal example: If it could be proven that the LDS were wrong. I'd be more interested in the Greek Orthodox church than say the Southern Baptist Convention. If Christianity were proven false then I'd probably go back to my Agnostic roots.

3. Though we come for differing religious histories I feel a closer kinship to the RLDS than most other churches. But I see little point in meeting with representatives of a church that teaches that I'm damned to Hell simply because I am a Mormon. Or uses movies like "The God Makers" to defame me, and my chosen Church.

4. It is not so much that we won't do those things. It is others will not recognize us as a Christian church, and thus refuse to do those things with us.

5. We already do that. I can go down to my local LDS bookstore and find literally hundreds of such things.

Go down to your local "Christian" bookstore. Try and find a BoM. If you find anything LDS related 99 out of 100 times it will be some Anti-LDS tome on how LDS Temple spires are designed to pierce Jesus' flesh as He returns.

I'm all for tolerance. The world is in desperate need of more of it. Religious tolerance does not mean agreement with any particular belief, nor does it mean to meet with people antagonistic to your beliefs. It does mean however to allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. How very Mormon of us.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I'm all for tolerance. The world is in desperate need of more of it.

...

Me too --

It's the radical Islamic terrorists that I keep tripping up with -- I can't summon up much toleration there.

What would Jesus do?

UD

[thesometimesaint]

Uncle Dale:

Jesus seems to have avoided the Samaritans.

[ed2276]

Perhaps so, but in the context of my stated opinion. And in the sort of dialogue we engage in

here, you have a good opportunity to correct my opinion and demonstrate better options.

If you had similar dialogue with mainstream Christians, Evangelicals, Catholics, etc., don't you

think that would also open up opportunities to correct their opinions and perhaps lessen their bias?

UD

I have had and continue to have just such dialogue geared toward mutual understanding , not only in fellowship with those Christians , Evangelicals and Catholics you mention who are willing to asscoiate themselves with a Mormon , but with Jews and Muslims as well. While still a Mormon , I dated an African American , Presbyterian woman for 1 1/2 years and an Iranian American , Muslim woman for over three years. My best friend is a Word of Faith Evangelical and I continue in fellowship with Christians of various denoms online , in Bible studies , in listening to sermons and in just sharing the ordinary events of our lives that have meaning to us. All the while , I maintain that the LDS Church has the fulness of the Gospel (is the One True Church) and that creedal Trinitarianism is incorrect. We agree to disagree , sometimes quite sharply , but focus more on areas of agreement.

I think that our misunderstanding here stems from miscommunication. In my initial reading of your suggestions , I equated "dropping" the claim of the LDS Church as the One True Church with abandoning the claim , that is abandoning the belief , as the claim is based on the belief and "accomodating" creedal Trinitarianism with accepting it as true. This was obviously not what you intended , but just in reading what you wrote I didn't know better. I think you know that I cannot drop my own claim nor can I accept creedal Trinitarianism as true , which I now understand is not what you were suggesting in the first instance , but what I can do ,and what I in fact do , is accept that others reject my claim and believe creedal Trinitarianism and allow them that privilege , while embracing the person for who they are , a son or daughter of God and human beings with feelings.

[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!

What about some cooperation and fellowship with the Quakers or the Mennonites?

Both groups know what it is like to be ostracised and persecuted, and they both make it a point not

to treat other religious groups in the bad ways they themselves have been treated in the past.

I attended an RLDS General Conference several years ago, at which a Mennonite leader was one of

the guest speakers. He was very respectful of our traditions and practices, and even found a few

words in our Book of Mormon that he managed to work into his talk in a friendly, constructive way.

Community of Christ has had other exchanges and cooperative programs with the Mennonites; and I

do not recall ever hearing one bad word spoken about all of that -- not even by the fundamentalist

RLDS groups who still claim to have the "only true priesthood," etc. and who are often rather distrustful

of non-Saint Christians.

Would you "give a hang" if somebody from that church were willing to engage in some discussions

and possible cooperative efforts with Mormons?

UD

[urroner]

Some time ago, I was in on a group conversation about how the Mormon Church and some Evangelical Church could get together and just work things out. The people didn't realize I was Mormon. I just happen to be sitting with the group and they thought I must have been Evangelical. So, they went on and on about all the changes those Mormons had to make in order to be accepted by them. Now, remember, this conversation was about what the two different religions could in order to get along better.

So, after hearing about all the changes us LDSers had to make, I asked them what changes they were willing to make. I was met with blank stares. "So," I commented, "it's not about what the two different groups should do in order to get along better, it's about all the changes we Mormons have to make in order to appease you. I hope that none of you have this attitude in your marriage if you're married."

Basically what Unk Dale seems to be wanting is for us LDSers to act like there is no difference between us and them or even to ignore the elephant that is in the room.

As far as I know, no group has any desire to change doctrinally in order to get along with us LDSers, rather it's our onus to make all the changes. It's always easier to have everybody else change. Problem is, if we were to make certain distortions to what we believe, the only thing we will probably hear is clamoring for more accommodations and then we won't be happy because we will be the only ones changing and those who are screaming for more change won't be happy since we are like them. Nobody wins in this scenario.

The Mormons' "The True Church" stance is no different from the Evangelical "Your Jesus Ain't Our Jesus and You're Going to Rot In Hell If You Don't Accept Our Jesus" stance.

I agree with there being more cooperation between the different groups, but does it required that we have to change what we believe to be true?

The Church is the One True Church and as such, is the only religion with the priesthood. What would the missionaries say if they weren't suppose to say that the Church is the One True Church when they are asked by investigators why should they join the Church? Because it is the One True Church and is the only religion with the priesthood of God. But I guess we should say what we are because somebody might be offended and we sure wouldn't want anybody offended. That attitude sure makes a miserable life.

As far as having public prayers with other groups, I haven't heard of an incident where a ward or even a stake refuse to participate, though I have heard many cases where only groups refused to participate if the Church was involved. Picture of the Pope or crosses have never been a hindrance. I did plenty of prayers during my mission in Mexico with pictures of the Pope, the Virgin Mary, or other images and pictures all over the place and I have never been told to not do so.

As far as high level meetings happening, with very few exceptions, the higher ups in other religions have often expressed an opinion that they were going to go to SLC and put those Mormons in their place. They were going to make all sorts of accusations and then demand all sorts of changes frin the Church while not willing to make any changes themselves. What would the purpose of those type of meeting do? Basically, it would be a meeting to give the critics of the Church a bully pulpit. This type of attitude in a marriage would rip the marriage apart.

[ed2276]

What about some cooperation and fellowship with the Quakers or the Mennonites?

Both groups know what it is like to be ostracised and persecuted, and they both make it a point not

to treat other religious groups in the bad ways they themselves have been treated in the past.

I attended an RLDS General Conference several years ago, at which a Mennonite leader was one of

the guest speakers. He was very respectful of our traditions and practices, and even found a few

words in our Book of Mormon that he managed to work into his talk in a friendly, constructive way.

Community of Christ has had other exchanges and cooperative programs with the Mennonites; and I

do not recall ever hearing one bad word spoken about all of that -- not even by the fundamentalist

RLDS groups who still claim to have the "only true priesthood," etc. and who are often rather distrustful

of non-Saint Christians.

Would you "give a hang" if somebody from that church were willing to engage in some discussions

and possible cooperative efforts with Mormons?

UD

I am not opposed to that at all. My post you quoted above was in defiance of trading our beliefs for acceptance , which is what I thought at the time you were suggesting. If it were the case that I could maintain my beliefs and claims and still be accepted by those you mention and that I could allow that they could hold fast to their beliefs and claims while still fellowshipping and cooperating with them in making the world better I would not have the least bit of hesitation in joining in such relationships.

[Uncle Dale]

I am not opposed to that at all. My post you quoted above was in defiance of trading our beliefs for acceptance , which is what I thought at the time you were suggesting. If it were the case that I could maintain my beliefs and claims and still be accepted by those you mention and that I could allow that they could hold fast to their beliefs and claims while still fellowshipping and cooperating with them in making the world better I would not have the least bit of hesitation in joining in such relationships.

Sounds good -- must go, my wife is having eye surgery.

UD

[ed2276]

Sounds good -- must go, my wife is having eye surgery.

UD

I hope all goes well and the surgery is a success.

[urroner]

Sounds good -- must go, my wife is having eye surgery.

UD

Best to your wife Unk.

[thesometimesaint]

Uncle Dale:

Best wishes to you and her. May she have a speedy recovery.

[wenglund]

If you had similar dialogue with mainstream Christians, Evangelicals, Catholics, etc., don't you think that would also open up opportunities to correct their opinions and perhaps lessen their bias? UD

Perhaps you arent' aware of the collaborations between Evangelicals and LDS such as Blomberg and Robinson or Johnson and Millet, as well as other efforts intended to already do what you propose. Unfortunately, from what I have seen, these efforts have tended to engender more divisiveness (particularly within the Evangelical community) rather than unity or understanding. That is why I suggested that looking mostly at the people towards whom the bias is directed, is to look in the wrong direction. The nature and cause of bias too often will engender heightened bias in reaction to consiliatory and unifying efforts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

P.S. your wife is in my prayers

[Tsuzuki]

1. Eliminating all claims to be the one true church from public media and from missionary discussions.

Address the subject when others bring it up, but retire it as an advertising message (explict or implicit).

On the contrary, I think that is the absolute worst thing we could do. I do think we should elaborate on it to avoid confusion of the term, but to make any kind of accommodation in this area would be a form of suicide. Personally, I'm in favor of us getting our act together as members so that we can more loudly proclaim the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth, with which the Lord is well pleased.

This passage describes the position that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in.

"If the Pope were to concede, in principle, liberty of conscience, he would declare that, to him, his truth was doubtful. Now, to him, truth does not belong to a system, it does not belong to a sect, it does not belong to an imaginary religion, it belongs to believing humanity, it belongs to Hermes and Moses, to Jesus Christ, to Saint Paul, to Saint Augustin, to F