Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 9, 2012 Author Posted January 9, 2012 The criticisms and attacks directed at mormons pail in comparison to those directred at Muslims, Jehovahs Witnesses and Christian Scientists. I think of the congresswoman who said that mormonism scares her but, in so many words, not as much as the muslim faith. She appologized to the mormons but not the muslims, and there was hardly an outcry that she made no appology to the latter. LDS buildings do get vandelized from time to time, but muslim mosques get burned. Perhaps ones perspective or experience depends on where they live, but this is what I have observed in the media and in my own experience.Islam is at war with itself more than any other. Again I am not keeping score…I am a Mormon speaking about the issue on a Mormon website and out of personal experience. I can only view it from my experiences, I have no other way to do so.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 9, 2012 Author Posted January 9, 2012 Santorum said a very similar thing in December 2007:Caution: moderators dislike politics in the forums! Yes please no politics. I would truly like to discuss this without it.
The Nehor Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 I have the opposite concern. I am concerned we are too well liked. It makes me wonder what we are doing wrong. Maybe the Lord just gave us this season of relative peace to help missionary work? I don't know.
thesometimesaint Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Lehi:Heavens forbid if someone were to be confused about my positions. I know full well what Apostles, and Jesus the Christ has said about the troubles the Saints did, do, and will face. However I believe God, and I would like it to be different.
Freedom Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Islam is at war with itself more than any other. Again I am not keeping score…I am a Mormon speaking about the issue on a Mormon website and out of personal experience. I can only view it from my experiences, I have no other way to do so.And all I can do is speak from my perspective. The attacks on Muslim mosques have not been from other Muslims, it has been by Christians. Also, the attacks on our religion have been largely vilified by the media, however the attacks on Islam is not. At least not to the same extent. At least, that is my perspective.
Nominee Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) I agree with Lehi all the way through this thread and I am sure it is Lehi that I am agreeing with. The hatred for Christ and his followers is as prophesied and will only get worse. There may be times in each individual's life where things seem more peaceful for that soul then they may have been in his/her past but as a body we face an agressively evolving hatred. The bigger picture is... not what the unprepared want it to be. This should not come as a surprise to any saint. We have been told ~prepare, prepare, prepare. I firmly believe spiritual preparedness will make all the difference. We are required to endure to the end. Endure.en·dure Verb: Suffer (something painful or difficult) patiently.Tolerate (someone or something).Synonyms: bear - stand - suffer - tolerate - sustain - undergo Edited January 10, 2012 by Nominee 1
Sky Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I've noticed that critics of Mormonism dislike it when Mormons mention that they feel persecuted. It's not really that bad, and other people have it worse, and it's really just their persecution complex anyway, they say...
california boy Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I find it almost insulting to the early saints to say Mormons are persecuted today. I mean when is the last time you heard a Mormon killed or driven from his home because of his faith??
selek1 Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 While you make a strong case for Mormons not being treated fairly, couldn't you say the same thing about a host of minorities. This is a false dichotomy. No one is pretending that others are not persecuted.We are contending that persecuting Mormons is currently a socially acceptable prejudice.Jews certainly qualify your criteria. 6 million pails in comparison to what has historically happened to Mormons. Blacks certainly qualify with all the lynching and intolerance shown to them and to some extent still is shown to them. So whether injustice is to be tolerated or excused is solely a matter of raw numbers?Are you really arguing that there is a threshold number of events below which abuse, bigotry, and the violation of civil rights can be ignored? There were those that also stated that if a black man became president they would rather die. Race-baiting aside- has anyone HERE made such that idiotic argument?This kind of extreme comparison is not only foolish on its face, it is also a violation of Godwin's Law. Even the Irish Catholics have a history of being brutally raped, murdered and persecuted when they came to this country. The protestants also had their stories of brutality. It just happened longer ago. I would say it still happens in areas of the world where they are a minority. None of which contradicts the contention that persecuting Mormons qua Mormons appears to be not only acceptable, but fashionable. Muslins are attacked regulary simply because they are Muslins. I had no idea that the textiles industry was so violent.Now days, Mormons are not murdered very often simply because they are Mormons. But there are still minority groups in this day and age that are brutally murdered because of who they are or belief. None of which contradicts the contention that persecuting Mormons qua Mormons appears to be not only acceptable, but fashionable.This is also the second time (in this thread) that you've argued that bigotry and prejudice are acceptable so long as they don't reach a vague and arbitrary threshold level of violence.Perhapse what we as followers of Christ should consentrate on is fighting ignorance and brutality no matter what group it is directed towards. That would, manifestly, require us to stop looking the other way when the ignorance and prejudice is directed towards Mormons.Which flatly contradicts your previous statements.It is not a Mormon thing, it seems to be a human thing. None of which contradicts the contention that persecuting Mormons qua Mormons appears to be not only acceptable, but fashionable. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I've noticed that critics of Mormonism dislike it when Mormons mention that they feel persecuted. It's not really that bad, and other people have it worse, and it's really just their persecution complex anyway, they say...And by the way, there's no such thing as an anti-Mormon, it's just a slur and a pejorative and blah blah blah.
Calm Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I find it almost insulting to the early saints to say Mormons are persecuted today. I mean when is the last time you heard a Mormon killed or driven from his home because of his faith??Not that long ago according to a missionary from the Phillippines, IIRC.
Storm Rider Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 This is a false dichotomy. No one is pretending that others are not persecuted.We are contending that persecuting Mormons is currently a socially acceptable prejudice.So whether injustice is to be tolerated or excused is solely a matter of raw numbers?Are you really arguing that there is a threshold number of events below which abuse, bigotry, and the violation of civil rights can be ignored?Race-baiting aside- has anyone HERE made such that idiotic argument?This kind of extreme comparison is not only foolish on its face, it is also a violation of Godwin's Law.None of which contradicts the contention that persecuting Mormons qua Mormons appears to be not only acceptable, but fashionable. I had no idea that the textiles industry was so violent. None of which contradicts the contention that persecuting Mormons qua Mormons appears to be not only acceptable, but fashionable.This is also the second time (in this thread) that you've argued that bigotry and prejudice are acceptable so long as they don't reach a vague and arbitrary threshold level of violence. That would, manifestly, require us to stop looking the other way when the ignorance and prejudice is directed toward Mormons.Which flatly contradicts your previous statements.None of which contradicts the contention that persecuting Mormons qua Mormons appears to be not only acceptable, but fashionable.I really appreciate clear thinking. Thank you for the analysis. I doubt CB was consciously trying to belittle or derail the thread, but it is wonderful how you clearly were able to set those points aside effectively. I am not sure that Mormons have a persecution complex so much as they have unconsciously accepted the fact that they can be marginalized and ignore it. I am not sure this is bad or wrong, but just a way of being or dealing with those constant reminders that our citizens are afraid of Mormons in positions of authority, Mormons are not "real" Christians, Mormons are in a cult, etc., etc., etc. These types of consistent influences from the communities in which we live may easily make some of us more insular and rely more heavily on relationships with fellow LDS. We learn to NOT talk clearly or completely about our Sunday activities or those things that deal with our religion. I am babbling; thank you again. Cheers,
california boy Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) This is a false dichotomy. No one is pretending that others are not persecuted.We are contending that persecuting Mormons is currently a socially acceptable prejudice.So whether injustice is to be tolerated or excused is solely a matter of raw numbers?Are you really arguing that there is a threshold number of events below which abuse, bigotry, and the violation of civil rights can be ignored?Race-baiting aside- has anyone HERE made such that idiotic argument?This kind of extreme comparison is not only foolish on its face, it is also a violation of Godwin's Law.None of which contradicts the contention that persecuting Mormons qua Mormons appears to be not only acceptable, but fashionable. I had no idea that the textiles industry was so violent. None of which contradicts the contention that persecuting Mormons qua Mormons appears to be not only acceptable, but fashionable.This is also the second time (in this thread) that you've argued that bigotry and prejudice are acceptable so long as they don't reach a vague and arbitrary threshold level of violence. That would, manifestly, require us to stop looking the other way when the ignorance and prejudice is directed towards Mormons.Which flatly contradicts your previous statements.None of which contradicts the contention that persecuting Mormons qua Mormons appears to be not only acceptable, but fashionable.I guess I have a different definition of persecution verses annoying remarks prejudice, and ignorant statements. Because yeah, I definitely see a difference between extermination, lynchings, murders, rape etc. And that Selek was the point of my post. Edited January 10, 2012 by california boy
Kemara Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) I guess I have a different definition of persecution verses annoying remarks prejudice, and ignorant statements. Because yeah, I definitely see a difference between extermination, lynchings, murders, rape etc. And that Selek was the point of my post.So when exactly does it stop being annoying and become persecution? Is there a magic line that needs to be crossed? Is there a magic event that needs to occur? Is there a magic number of annoying things that when combined meet the requirements for persecution? Does blood have to be spilled, if yes how much exactly, is one drop enough or does there have to be a decent flow? How is the difference between annoying and persecution qualified and/or quantified? You claim to see a definite difference so I am sure you can give us a definitive qualification and/or quantification and a well reasoned justification for your position. As a bit of side issue I for one would find persecution rather annoying.I wonder if everything that occurs leading up to a lynching should be considered just a bit of annoying rough housing and not until the the noose tightens and the actual lynching occurs should it then be considered persecution. All this reminds me of a question that has perplexed me since 1992 - how many cows are required to be running directly at me before it can be considered a stampede? Is there a minimum? Edited January 10, 2012 by Kemara
LeSellers Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) And that Selek was the point of my post.Is there another "Selek" that you must specify which one? And, if any Selek was the point of your post, it would be against board guidelines, since personal topics and post are forbidden.LehiP.S.: And, california boy, the point of this post is to show that a couple of commas (like this: "And that, Selek, was the point of my post.") would have made this sentence much easier to understand. (Even if it would not make the post itself intelligible.) LS Edited January 10, 2012 by LeSellers
frankenstein Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Other than other religions mentioned in the OP, where is the evidence that persecuting the LDS is socially acceptable.No one has shown anything other than from other religions. So it does seem a persecution complex to claim persecuting LDS is socially acceptable. by and large outside of religiious circles there is no persecution, much less socially acceptable persecution.
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 frankenstein:If even one Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Brahman, LDS, Zoroastrian, or what have you is mistreated in any way, disparaged in public, or demeaned because of their religion then that is religious persecution. Numbers are irrelevent.
Storm Rider Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Other than other religions mentioned in the OP, where is the evidence that persecuting the LDS is socially acceptable.No one has shown anything other than from other religions. So it does seem a persecution complex to claim persecuting LDS is socially acceptable. by and large outside of religious circles there is no persecution, much less socially acceptable persecution.Oh, I don't know. How about 20% of the population being absolutely comfortable admitting they could never vote for a LDS for President? Seems pretty socially acceptable or does it need to be 50% to qualify? I keep getting confused where the magic line in these discussions. Edited January 10, 2012 by Storm Rider
Jeff K. Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Other than other religions mentioned in the OP, where is the evidence that persecuting the LDS is socially acceptable.No one has shown anything other than from other religions. So it does seem a persecution complex to claim persecuting LDS is socially acceptable. by and large outside of religiious circles there is no persecution, much less socially acceptable persecution.You have to be living in an isolated compound in Utah not to know it is open season on Mormons these days in American popular culture. Broadway’s number one hit musical spoofs their holy book and their lifestyle. The HBO series “Big Love” and popular reality TV shows have highlighted the tiny minority of Mormons who practice polygamy. A car dealership in northern New Jersey owned by former New York Giants football player Brad Benson even included a joke about Romney shopping for new wives in a radio commercial aimed at convincing people to buy Hyundais.As bad as that might be, what’s even worse is that expressing open contempt for the Mormon faith, unlike other forms of religious hate speech, does not generally bring down opprobrium on the speaker. When a pastor who supported Rick Perry denounced the Mormon faith and said evangelicals should not vote for a Mormon for president, the resulting firestorm did not generate much outrage from other Republicans. But liberals are just as bad. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd responded to that kerfuffle with a column in which she actually far outdid Pastor Robert Jeffress in terms of heaping abuse on the Mormon religion and its adherents. Just as it is impossible to imagine a Broadway theater being the home of a musical version of “The Koran” rather than one heaping scorn on “The Book of Mormon,” so, too, is it hard to envision Dowd, or any other Times writer getting away with discussing Islam or even Judaism in the same manner.These attitudes are also not confined to the elite. A Gallup poll released in June reported that more Americans asserted they would not vote for a Mormon for president than those with similar reservations about any other faith. The 22 percent who admitted to this bias is more than double the number who would not vote for a Jew or a Catholic. In an era where religious pluralism has become the norm, this relic of the ostracism and persecution faced by Mormons in the 19th century is puzzling, especially since it is doubtful most Americans are all that aware of the history of the period when Mormons were polygamous or fought against the federal government.http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/11/18/mormon-pr-campaign-religious-hatred/Lets get out of that compound
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 10, 2012 Author Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) I have the opposite concern. I am concerned we are too well liked. It makes me wonder what we are doing wrong. Maybe the Lord just gave us this season of relative peace to help missionary work? I don't know.I think that is spot on...Sadly the hurricane winds will one day move over where the eye is now sitting. And it will be the internet and anti-Mormon rhetoric that will be the force that drives it. Edited January 10, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 10, 2012 Author Posted January 10, 2012 And all I can do is speak from my perspective. The attacks on Muslim mosques have not been from other Muslims, it has been by Christians. Also, the attacks on our religion have been largely vilified by the media, however the attacks on Islam is not. At least not to the same extent. At least, that is my perspective.This has not been my experience. Islamic mosques her in Atlanta do just fine. I personally inspected the largest in the Southeast on 14th street. I have never seen a protest, I have never known an incident. I one the other hand have experienced many...at the building of my Ward building...at the building of the Atlanta Temple and the rebuild. I was here for all...at the groundbreaking and the dedication of each.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 10, 2012 Author Posted January 10, 2012 I've noticed that critics of Mormonism dislike it when Mormons mention that they feel persecuted. It's not really that bad, and other people have it worse, and it's really just their persecution complex anyway, they say...As have I...the question is why does it anger them, and why the need to draw comparisons as to has it or had it worse. The simple fact is they rage against the light. Or rage against the dying of their own light and influence. It is all about the control of information and the control of those who follow. We just want to worship our God in peace.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 10, 2012 Author Posted January 10, 2012 This is a false dichotomy. No one is pretending that others are not persecuted.We are contending that persecuting Mormons is currently a socially acceptable prejudice.So whether injustice is to be tolerated or excused is solely a matter of raw numbers?Are you really arguing that there is a threshold number of events below which abuse, bigotry, and the violation of civil rights can be ignored?Race-baiting aside- has anyone HERE made such that idiotic argument?This kind of extreme comparison is not only foolish on its face, it is also a violation of Godwin's Law.None of which contradicts the contention that persecuting Mormons qua Mormons appears to be not only acceptable, but fashionable. I had no idea that the textiles industry was so violent. None of which contradicts the contention that persecuting Mormons qua Mormons appears to be not only acceptable, but fashionable.This is also the second time (in this thread) that you've argued that bigotry and prejudice are acceptable so long as they don't reach a vague and arbitrary threshold level of violence. That would, manifestly, require us to stop looking the other way when the ignorance and prejudice is directed towards Mormons.Which flatly contradicts your previous statements.None of which contradicts the contention that persecuting Mormons qua Mormons appears to be not only acceptable, but fashionable.Very well said, Selek!
california boy Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) <p>So when exactly does it stop being annoying and become persecution? Is there a magic line that needs to be crossed? Is there a magic event that needs to occur? Is there a magic number of annoying things that when combined meet the requirements for persecution? Does blood have to be spilled, if yes how much exactly, is one drop enough or does there have to be a decent flow? How is the difference between annoying and persecution qualified and/or quantified? You claim to see a definite difference so I am sure you can give us a definitive qualification and/or quantification and a well reasoned justification for your position. As a bit of side issue I for one would find persecution rather annoying.I think I answered your question already. I definitely see a difference between extermination, lynchings, murders, rape etcYes there is prejudice and bigotry by some against the Mormon church. But if you are going to take bigoted remarks against the church as some kind of fulfillment of prophesy that in the latter-days the saints will be persecuted, then you would have to also include Jews, blacks, Catholics Muslims etc as being Gods choosen people. Otherwise there is nothing UNIQUE to bigotry against Mormons that isn't experienced by other minorities throughout the world. Does that make it right? Of course not. I wonder if everything that occurs leading up to a lynching should be considered just a bit of annoying rough housing and not until the the noose tightens and the actual lynching occurs should it then be considered persecution. All this reminds me of a question that has perplexed me since 1992 - how many cows are required to be running directly at me before it can be considered a stampede? Is there a minimum?Are you really trying to make a case that Mormons are in danger of being lynched?? And that if that happened, there would be no outrage by the American people??? Edited January 10, 2012 by california boy
frankenstein Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Jeff and stormrider neither shows socially acceptable. 22% without knowing sample size and other demographics is hardly "social acceptance" And some article claims open season that article does not prove open season or social acceptance.I assert that some of the claims of social acceptance are a persecution complex weakly founded in inconclusive data. Edited January 10, 2012 by frankenstein
Recommended Posts