Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 I think its fair to say that most people who use the term "magic underwear" are using the term derogatorily.I think a better example would be an EV pointing out Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers.That too strikes me as offensive, because it is taking a truth out of context for polemical purposes. In other words, it is distortion.
Senator Posted October 31, 2011 Author Posted October 31, 2011 Again, the Golden Rule applies. A term like "magic underwear" seems, on its face, to be derogatory, and, imagining myself as an outside observer and without knowing more about it, I would not use that term in speaking of another's religious faith unless I were deliberately trying to be obnoxious.Well, obviously not everyone is going to be as well-heeled in the social graces as you, Scott.But that's ok. I choose not (and am not naturally inclined) to take offense at such things.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Well, obviously not everyone is going to be as well-heeled in the social graces as you, Scott.But that's ok. I choose not (and am not naturally inclined) to take offense at such things.It's not a matter of social graces, just common decency and civility.
Senator Posted October 31, 2011 Author Posted October 31, 2011 It's not a matter of social graces, just common decency and civility. What's common is in the eye of the beholder.
Jaybear Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 That too strikes me as offensive, because it is taking a truth out of context for polemical purposes. In other words, it is distortion.Polemic purposes? Nonsense. LDS teach that Jesus was the oldest, and Lucifer the next oldest spirit children of God ... brothers. The LDS doctrine regarding the nature and origin of Christ is the core reason that EVs don't consider Mormons to be Christian.
LeSellers Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 (edited) LDS teach that Jesus was the oldest, ...Yes, this is true.Lucifer the next oldest spirit children of God But this is false. We have no idea where Lucifer/Satan showed up in the family tree.brothers.Yes, just as we all are. But somehow this part of the teaching does not get transmitted well, if at all. It's far more complex than "Jesus and Lucifer are brothers.One of the parts that gets lost is that Satan divorced himself from the family of God, and that he is no longer Jesus' brother, that he is not considered a brother, at all. And it's his fault entirely.The LDS doctrine regarding the nature and origin of Christ is the core reason that EVs don't consider Mormons to be Christian.That may be true, but I'd say that the reason most Evangelicals do not consider us Saints as "Christians" is because they have heard their pastors tell them so, and they always believe their pastors. (Then they tell us we are mind-numbed robots.)Lehi Edited November 1, 2011 by LeSellers
Jaybear Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Yes, this is true.But this is false. We have no idea where Lucifer/Satan showed up in the family tree.That's what I was told. A quick google search confirms that beliefs. I suspect the current correlated teaching don't emphasize this point. Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 13:, p. 283 (Brigham Young - October 30, 1870)Look at the Christian world! How many times it was said to me, in my early career: "Oh, if the Lord had spoken to such a man, to such a divine that we have all confidence in; if the Lord had revealed His will to that man, we could have believed the whole thing." The Lord Almighty could not do it. Do you know the reason why? I do. I was acquainted with some of the best reformers that ever walked on the American continent, as good to all appearance as lived. They would say: "We have prayed, we have fasted, we have sought, we have believed, we have had faith that God was about to reveal something from the heavens, but He has not revealed it to us." That was the trouble. They had their way marked out before them, and if the Lord would not walk in that path they would not have anything to do with Him, and their conduct proved it. When men say: "O Lord, we are the clay, you are the potter! Fashion, shape and make us, and do with us as seems good in Thy sight, only let us know Thy will, we are here to perform whatever Thou requirest," it makes me think of that second person that came forth in the heavens when the voice went forth: "Who will redeem the earth, who will go forth and make the sacrifice for the earth and all things it contains?" The eldest son said: "Here am I;" but he did not say "send me." But the second one, which was "Lucifer, son of the morning," said, "Lord, here am I, send me, I will redeem every son and daughter of Adam and Eve that lives on the earth, or that ever goes on the earth."Yes, just as we all are. But somehow this part of the teaching does not get transmitted well, if at all. It's far more complex than "Jesus and Lucifer are brothers.Sure but you and I didn't participate in the framing the plan of salvation. So to say we are all brothers is a little misleading, as it serves to understate their close connection as the eldest and second eldest heirs.One of the parts that gets lost is that Satan divorced himself from the family of God, and that he is no longer Jesus' brother, that he is not considered a brother, at all. And it's his fault entirely.Well then it come up in a discussion, this is your chance to elaborate. I think its a fascinating story. That may be true, but I'd say that the reason most Evangelicals do not consider us Saints as "Christians" is because they have heard their pastors tell them so, and they always believe their pastors. (Then they tell us we are mind-numbed robots.) Who fault is it that most EVs don't understand this unique LDS doctrines. It would seem then the Lord's prophets are doing a very poor job of educating other "Christians" about the true nature and origin of Christ, and the plan of salvation. They seem to want to bury the story.
thesometimesaint Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Jaybear:Bury it? We've loadly proclaimed from the bginnings of the Church that we are all brother and sisters of Christ. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that all means everyone.
KevinG Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 OPAnxiety- no.But I'm getting a lot of articles sent to me by friends and relatives.
Sky Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Anybody who truly wants to educate themselves on the doctrine of Jesus and Satan being brothers is able to do so. There are good, reasonable answers out there that provide context as opposed to shock value. I will provide a couple of those answers here and here.I honestly don’t see why this is something worth quibbling about, or why this should disqualify Mormons from being Christians. This is a prime example of where anti-Mormons take more obscure, periphery doctrines rather than core doctrines in order to try to define what LDS doctrine is. It is usually accepted at face value without so much as even bothering to check with faithful LDS sources. Joseph Smith said:“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”
Jaybear Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Anybody who truly wants to educate themselves on the doctrine of Jesus and Satan being brothers is able to do so. There are good, reasonable answers out there that provide context as opposed to shock value. I will provide a couple of those answers here and here.I honestly don’t see why this is something worth quibbling about, or why this should disqualify Mormons from being Christians. This is a prime example of where anti-Mormons take more obscure, periphery doctrines rather than core doctrines in order to try to define what LDS doctrine is. It is usually accepted at face value without so much as even bothering to check with faithful LDS sources. Joseph Smith said:“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”My only point was that asserting that Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers, does not necessarily imply derogatory intent, as that fact serves to highlight a significant doctrinal divergence between Mormonism and traditional Christianity.From your response, it would seem that you think that anyone discussion Mormon Doctrine or history that does not adopt language which incorporates FAIR's approved sugarcoating, is a polemic. Jaybear:Bury it? We've loadly proclaimed from the bginnings of the Church that we are all brother and sisters of Christ. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that all means everyone.Asserting that you are all "brothers and sisters of Christ" conveys as much depth and substance to a very interesting issue as is saying the that Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God. Watering it down like this seems to suggest that one is apprehensive or anxious about discussing the details of LDS history and doctrine, as the OP suggests.
Sky Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 My only point was that asserting that Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers, does not necessarily imply derogatory intent, as that fact serves to highlight a significant doctrinal divergence between Mormonism and traditional Christianity.From your response, it would seem that you think that anyone discussion Mormon Doctrine or history that does not adopt language which incorporates FAIR's approved sugarcoating, is a polemic. I don’t see where FAIR sugarcoated anything. But to each their own. To me, it’s about accurately presenting and defining LDS beliefs and rather than letting our detractors having all the say in it. I provided a balanced, informed response. But you seem to refuse to accept it for no other reason than the fact that it comes from FAIR.Anyway, I’m done with this conversation and I respectfully bow out. I won’t get anywhere with you and I think I’ve already said all that I wanted to say. No sense to keep going in circles. 1
Garden Girl Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Who fault is it that most EVs don't understand this unique LDS doctrines. It would seem then the Lord's prophets are doing a very poor job of educating other "Christians" about the true nature and origin of Christ, and the plan of salvation. They seem to want to bury the story.Hello Jaybear...You make me chuckle... I guess that's why we send over 50,000 missionaries all over the world... to bury the story.GG
Garden Girl Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 I also think we can tend to be a little hyper-sensitive at times. Granted, there are people that intentionally use sensational terms motivated by their own bigotry. But there are also people who use such terms simply because they are matching the wording to the level of understanding they have. Why do we expect people to automatically know the proper terminlology that is used within the the circle? Someone may have heard somewhere that Mormons were special secret underwear that have special powers. That's all they know. So, "magic underwear" isn't exagerating there level of understanding. Why would we expect them to know to use the words "temple garments"?Sorry to belabor this, Senator, since others have commented on this, but it seems to me that a term such as "special undergarments" vs the "magic" would be more than sufficient... and respectfully polite.GG
LeSellers Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 (edited) it seems to me that a term such as "special undergarments" vs the "magic" would be more than sufficient... and respectfully polite."Magic underwear" is implicitly disrespectful, and I cannot think of an instance or situation where the user would have anything but disrespect in mind."Special undergarments" is completely neutral. It is at least polite whereas the other is not only impolite, but intentionally so, without exception.Lehi Edited November 1, 2011 by LeSellers
Jaybear Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 "Special undergarments" is completely neutral. It is at least polite whereas the other is not only impolite, but intentionally so, without exception.LehiHow about "sacred underwear." Is that okay?
KevinG Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 How about "sacred underwear." Is that okay?How about No.I refer to them as garments or sacred garments. If I ever invite someone to talk about my underwear they had better be my tailor, the lady at the Temple clothing shop or my wife.When people bring up the subject they are usually mocking my belief in a garment that protects modesty and reminds me of sacred covenants that do have power. Sometimes they have been the recipient of bad information from someone that mocks me in which case I will politely share that information.Otherwise I don't approach the subject of boxers or thongs in polite society. 2
Jaybear Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Hello Jaybear...You make me chuckle... I guess that's why we send over 50,000 missionaries all over the world... to bury the story.GGYou give me a chuckle too. When do the missionaries talk about Christ being the first heir, and his brother Lucifer being the second?
LeSellers Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 How about "sacred underwear." Is that okay?This one is less straightforward. "Sacred" can, and often does, take on a sinister or "weirdo" tone in many circles. In this case, I suspect that, without some modification or explanation, it would more often than not be seen in this light.Lehi
thesometimesaint Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Jaybear:Jesus is always refered to as the First Born of the Father, and rightfull heir to all that the Father has. Lucifer(before he became Satan) is refered to as the Son of the Morning(a position of great power and glory).
Senator Posted November 1, 2011 Author Posted November 1, 2011 We simply have differering viewpoints here.Again, if an individual came to me honestly inquiring "do Mormons wear a special, sacred, magical, <whatever> underwear, I would not take offense, nor would I immediately retreat into a defensive posture, assuming that the individual was intending to mock. I would simply take the opportunity to give better information and offer better terminology.
KevinG Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 (edited) We simply have differering viewpoints here.Again, if an individual came to me honestly inquiring "do Mormons wear a special, sacred, magical, <whatever> underwear, I would not take offense, nor would I immediately retreat into a defensive posture, assuming that the individual was intending to mock. I would simply take the opportunity to give better information and offer better terminology.The difference between a genuine question and an offensive mocking one is often found in the tone.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erUNb5oJXXA Edited November 3, 2011 by DaddyG 1
Calm Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 I Think the term "undergarment" conveys the technical aspect plus avoids more of the mundane connotations associated with "underwear" which tends, IMO, to not inform at all and sometimes confuses, which is sufficient cause IMO not to use the term. I am comfortable with using special, sacred or religious as qualifiers. A gentle correction is all that is needed for a sincere questioner and if someone continues to use more mundane terms, that helps identify his intent.
cdowis Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) How about "sacred underwear." Is that okay?What about a "sacred hat" for the Jews. Would that be ok? Sacred veil, sacred turban, a sacred beard for the Amish.Do you comprehend how offensive it is, to discuss someone's undergarments? Edited November 2, 2011 by cdowis
cdowis Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Again, if an individual came to me honestly inquiring "do Mormons wear a special, sacred, magical, <whatever> underwear, I would not take offense, nor would I immediately retreat into a defensive posture, assuming that the individual was intending to mock. I would simply take the opportunity to give better information and offer better terminology."I personally don't talk about underwear. Is that something you find interesting?"
Recommended Posts