Mormonism Under Attack?

[why me]

Compared to evangelicals, catholics, muslims and many other faiths, we are still being largely ignored. The worst is yet to come so hold on to your seats cause we are in for a rocky ride.

Any faith that goes against the flow will be under criticism from the mainstream media. The catholics are criticized because they are also conservative on social issues. There is no reason why mormons will get an exemption.

[Jeff K.]

Keep it in perspective. Nobody with any prominance is attacking Mormonism anywhere close to, say, how Rush Limbaugh attacks Sandra Fluke.

Perspective is an interesting word. Non religious attacks like those against Fluke and Sarah Palin will eventually focus on the church (by the way Palin and her daughters were attacked much more harshly with worse words - though I am no fan of hers).

The church doesn't seek to justify sin or avoid calling something wrong as being wrong. There will be a time when members and non members alike will have to choose whether or not they truly do believe in the the doctrines of this church and that it is being led by a prophet.

[bluebell]

Keep it in perspective. Nobody with any prominance is attacking Mormonism anywhere close to, say, how Rush Limbaugh attacks Sandra Fluke.

I would imagine that Bill Maher has as much prominance as Rush Limbaugh.

And Rush did apologize for his choice of words at least.

[maxrep12]

We are experiencing growing pains.

The church is experiencing history pains

The media has finally noticed that the lds church exists.

Not true. The media has always been aware of Mormonism, just indifferent to it.

We are in the big leagues now because of Harry Reid, John Huntsman and Mitt Romney.

Harry Reid, John Huntsman and Mitt Romney are in the big leagues. They give interviews and answer questions without throwing persecution tantrums.

The lds church will be taking a lot of punches in the next year...hopefully, the injuries will not be serious and the church will come out stronger and a better fighter from the experience.

He he, buckle up .

[BlueDreams]

Your question begging, aside, the church isn't content to just "share" things. They pressure. Ask a number of people who can't seem to get the home teachers to stop visiting them. When I was on my mission we were told to commit the person to baptism after only two of six discussions. Last week the sister missionaries came over and explained to us that now they are expected to commit them to baptism after the first "visit"; apparently the Church has decided to rid the mission field of the numbered "discussions."

Pressure is way overstated. When we were out (I got back about 8 months ago) we were encouraged to commit to baptism in some fashion on the first lesson. But 1.) it wasn't mandatory and 2.) it didn't mean we had to set a date. Usually we'd say something along the lines of "if you come to know these things are true, will you be baptized?" It wasn't to play a number on them psychologically, it was for them to understand where we were headed in our lessons. Openness and clarity as to our purpose was strongly encouraged. Due, in part to the nature of the structuce of the lessons, sometimes people would think we were coming over to have a nice conversation. Had two different times where a previous missionary-investigator relationship had become nothing more than a friendly get together in the mind of those that were being taught. So explaining this cleared it up pretty quickly.

If anything, a good missionary was working to make sure a person wasn't doing it just because they promised us they would. You wanted them to do it because they'd come to believe and love the restored gospel, nothing less, nothing more. Investigators that were doing it from some form a pressure or push from the missionaries or from some form of social obligation rarely lasted. Plain and simple.

Our purpose was to invite...not to push and pressure. You did so by earnestly teaching them the things that were right. We weren't the JW's in that we had not expectation. We did. But we certainly weren't out to grab and go. Any tactic that tried to force a person's agency is, was, and will be wrong. Plain and simple.

Also, the people in mormon.org vids are largely not professional actor. Unless of course you were watching some vid on a historical event, they vast majority of the people presented are average members who's stories are presented or are presenting their distinct beliefs.

With luv,

BD

Edited March 4, 2012 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

People think it is weird because of how it is being presented in the media. When we only had Mo Udall, no one thought it weird. And since it is being presented as weird, why would weird be popular?

It has always been considered weird in my experience, even when it's missionaries or me presenting the information. I remember getting questions as a kid and a teen as to how many wives my dad had, whether he had horns, garments have always been joked about. Gold plates were laughed about, Jews crossing the ocean, having a prophet, etc. etc. The belief that we can become as God ranked way up there as weirdness among my teen acquaintances. Also being chaste until marriage, not drinking or smoking.

The question is not whether or not it is weird, it is whether it is too weird so that it enters the territory of danger or insanity.

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

All are alike unto God has been the doctrine of the Church since its beginnings. How could we apologize for what is doctrine?

Have there been Saints that have mistaken ideas about the doctrines of the Church? That's a given. They alone and not the Church is responsible for those ideas. If you want an apology get it from those responsible.

Have there been Saints who have said hateful and wrong things. That's a given. They alone and not the Church is responsible for those ideas. If you want an apology get it from those responsible.

BRM has already apologized for his lack of understanding. Did that end your continued involvement with the issue? That is a given.

Edited March 4, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Analytics]

Perspective is an interesting word. Non religious attacks like those against Fluke and Sarah Palin will eventually focus on the church (by the way Palin and her daughters were attacked much more harshly with worse words - though I am no fan of hers).

Mr. Limbaugh called Fluke a whore and dedicated much of his show for three days focused on that. Not meaning to derail the thread, who attacked Palin's daughers "much more harshly with words" than that?

The church doesn't seek to justify sin or avoid calling something wrong as being wrong.

I disagree. With regards to the priesthood ban, individual faithful Mormons have a wide variety of conflicting views, some of which must be wrong. Rather than clarifying the issue and stating which beliefs are false, the church makes vague references to not knowing everything and to things not being “official doctrine.” It doesn’t clarify what is known and what is official doctrine. It has said that “racism” by individuals is wrong, but it doesn’t provide any guidance with how that applies to the past racist policies of the church.

[Calm]

Compared to evangelicals, catholics, muslims and many other faiths, we are still being largely ignored.

Very much agree. If we had been paid much attention before now, there wouldn't be as much shock value in what is now being printed.

[why me]

The church is experiencing history pains

.

If it wasn't for Mitt and John, the media would not care about the priesthood ban or proxy baptisms. it comes with growing pains and not history pains. Now that mormons are in the big leagues politically, more interest is displayed in the lds faith.

[Analytics]

Analytics:

All are alike unto God has been the doctrine of the Church since its beginnings. How could we apologize for what is doctrine?

All are alike unto God, but if you are a faithful male Latter-day Saint whose daughter turns eight before 1978, the color of your skin determines whether or not you are eligible to baptize her.

All are alike? You are equivocating.

If you believe the church is perfect and has nothing to apologize for, that is your prerogative. The question was asked about what the church should do, and I answered the question.

Imagine modern Catholics saying the inquisition was no longer Church policy, but defeneded the historical inquisition as being from God or possibly being from God (i.e. "It is not known precisely why the inquisition began, but what is clear is that it ended decades ago..."). That would be unsettling and would make the issue hard to put at rest.

I think Pope John Paul II was extraordinarily honorable when he made detailed and sweeping apologies on behalf of the Catholic Church for the Church's various sins.

[why me]

Harry Reid, John Huntsman and Mitt Romney are in the big leagues. They give interviews and answer questions without throwing persecution tantrums.

He he, buckle up .

Mo Udall also ran for president and he was mormon. No problems from the media but then again, Mo was not a serious candidate in 1976. It is different now. No reason to buckle up. It comes with growing pains and backyard bullying by the media.

http://www.library.a...exhibits/udall/

http://www.library.a...ll/prescam.html

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/udall/udalljpgs/msformo-small.jpg

Edited March 4, 2012 by why me

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 04 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Perspective is an interesting word. Non religious attacks like those against Fluke and Sarah Palin will eventually focus on the church (by the way Palin and her daughters were attacked much more harshly with worse words - though I am no fan of hers).

Mr. Limbaugh called Fluke a whore and dedicated much of his show for three days focused on that. Not meaning to derail the thread, who attacked Palin's daughers "much more harshly with words" than that?

Lets see, the attacks on Palin's handicapped child I think is much worse. Palin's daughter was called a prostitute, it was implied she was loose, this would include Bill M. as well as Keith Olberman as well as others, one would consider some of them serious newsmen. You really don't remember all the attacks, the parodies, the invented rumors, unsubstantiated books, and unnamed sources? Amazing, really. I don't like such attacks on anyone, I have yet to hear apologies from Olberman, Mahar or others, Limbaugh on the other hand did go over the line and apologize. The others apparently don't feel they have anything to apologize for.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Jeff K.

[why me]

It has always been considered weird in my experience, even when it's missionaries or me presenting the information. I remember getting questions as a kid and a teen as to how many wives my dad had, whether he had horns, garments have always been joked about. Gold plates were laughed about, Jews crossing the ocean, having a prophet, etc. etc. The belief that we can become as God ranked way up there as weirdness among my teen acquaintances. Also being chaste until marriage, not drinking or smoking.

The question is not whether or not it is weird, it is whether it is too weird so that it enters the territory of danger or insanity.

Religion is weird in general. Burning bush, parting of the red sea, Buddha gaining self-enlightenment, a couple dying because they cheated on their tithing, the feeding of the multitude with a basket of fish, etc. Or a rising of the dead. weird. I wouldn't worry about weirdness. I would worry more if mormonism wasn't weird.

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

Being of a certain race has not been a qualifier for membership in the Restored Gospel. All are alike unto God.

Nope. I'm just reinterating what the Church has always said and recently repeated.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

The Church is perfect, but the individual members? Not so much.

Considering the Catholic churchs' doctrine, and its millenia long treatment of those that didn't believe in Catholicism. I'm fine with the Popes apologies. However The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never had such doctrine, and anyone that violated(s) the doctrines can and is subject to Church discipline.

[Analytics]

Lets see, the attacks on Palin's handicapped child I think is much worse. Palin's daughter was called a prostitute, it was implied she was loose, this would include Bill M. as well as Keith Olberman as well as others, one would consider some of them serious newsmen. You really don't remember all the attacks, the parodies, the invented rumors, unsubstantiated books, and unnamed sources? Amazing, really. I don't like such attacks on anyone, I have yet to hear apologies from Olberman, Mahar or others, Limbaugh on the other hand did go over the line and apologize. The others apparently don't feel they have anything to apologize for.

I don't watch much cable news, so I don't know much about this. I just did some Internet searches on this, and I found a clip of Olbermann laughing at the irony of Bristol Palin being a spokesperson for abstinence. I found Maher calling Palin "the leader of a strange family of inbred weirdos straight out of 'The Hills Have Eyes.'" Poor taste? Wrong? Sure. Much more harsh than Rush? You've got to be kidding.

Limbaugh called this girl a slut and a whore, and then dedicated multiple segments over the next three days repeating and emphasizing the insult. He didn’t issue an apology until after four major sponsors dropped him.

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

It wasn't an apology. He said it was a "wrong choice of words". The thought(lack there of) that motivated his slut comments, and fantacizing(putting on the internet so he can watch her engage in sex) about her sex life still remain.

Especially given that her testimoney was about her friend that needed The Pill to control ovarian cysts, the woman finally lost one of her ovaries to cysts.

He is a thoroughly disgusting excuse for a human being.

Edited March 4, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[wenglund]

Your question begging, aside, the church isn't content to just "share" things. They pressure. Ask a number of people who can't seem to get the home teachers to stop visiting them. When I was on my mission we were told to commit the person to baptism after only two of six discussions. Last week the sister missionaries came over and explained to us that now they are expected to commit them to baptism after the first "visit"; apparently the Church has decided to rid the mission field of the numbered "discussions."

Traditionally the missionary conversion effort relied on a very sophisticated system that was carefully developed by professionals from the psychologists employed by the Church. Missionaries would cover just the basic stuff during the first two discussions. Things like the atonement and the restoration. But after getting the person to commit to baptism, they come back to teach the tougher doctrines of the Church, such as tithing, law of chastity, word of wisdom, temple worthiness, etc. If that person decided to back out of the baptismal commitment, then the Elders would naturally remind him/her that he/she has already made a commitment and they use the usual testimony bearing tactics in an effort of trying to prove to that person that God is the one who wants him/her to get baptized.

So saying the Church only "shared" something and then moves along, is ridiculous. That would me more along the lines of what the Jehovah's witnesses do. They've given me their pamphlets on a number of occasions and then left it up to me to contact them if I was interested.

You always have such a loving, fair-minded, and edifying way of stating things. It gives you immense credibility when discussing politically and socially sensitive issues in relation to your former faith. You are the perfect example of graciousness and understanding, which is why everyone on all sides find you so endearing. If only cloning were possible.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

He is a thoroughly disgusting excuse for a human being.

The best way to speak out against insulting and inflammatory rhetoric is to use insulting and inflammatory rhetoric.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 5, 2012 by wenglund

[Jeff K.]

I don't watch much cable news, so I don't know much about this. I just did some Internet searches on this, and I found a clip of Olbermann laughing at the irony of Bristol Palin being a spokesperson for abstinence. I found Maher calling Palin "the leader of a strange family of inbred weirdos straight out of 'The Hills Have Eyes.'" Poor taste? Wrong? Sure. Much more harsh than Rush? You've got to be kidding.

Limbaugh called this girl a slut and a whore, and then dedicated multiple segments over the next three days repeating and emphasizing the insult. He didn’t issue an apology until after four major sponsors dropped him.

It was significantly worse. No apologies ever came from them. Or when Mahar thought a conservative woman should be raped. He didn't apologize then either. Hypocrisy is a two way street, and umbrage tends to be taken only when its a pet ideal.

One could argue that mandating everyone else pay for her sex life is wrong (the cost is almost insignificant). Limbaugh went too far with the characterization, but as I have mentioned, I have heard much worse than that from the left side of the aisle and the silence ranged from no response to agreement.

[wenglund]

Special Update: Mormonism is not the most popular religion and lots of people think it's weird. More at 6.

Is it the church that is weird, or the people who think the church is weird?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Buzzard]

Is it the church that is weird, or the people who think the church is weird?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The church is a peculiar people, and that's not the same as wierd.

[wenglund]

wengland:

The irrational hatred of the type exemplifiied by Mr. Limbaugh may be thought appropriate within some circles, but I have no wish to engage Mr. Limbaugh, or his ilk, in any discussion on any subject. This country and the world would be better off if his type of thinking(No Think) was relegated to the dustbin of history.

This certainly justifies your hypocrisy. Your intolerance for opposing views may now stand as an exemplary model for pluralist discourse.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

The reason the Church is getting attacked is because it is politically and culturally advantageous to do so.

That is the only reason.

The Church was "dealing with its own past so poorly" a year ago, five years ago, and ten years ago.

The attacks on the church is simply the fulfillment of prophecy, and it will get worse. The G&A building will not go away.

I personally find it rather invigorating. Who enjoys being ignored? I keep passing out those "I'm A Mormon" pass along cards.

Edited March 5, 2012 by cdowis

[why me]

He is a thoroughly disgusting excuse for a human being.

I think that it is difficult to be on the radio or TV today making commentaries and opinions. One must be careful about one says in such positions. But the most successful personalities are the ones that go unscripted on the air and it is here that mistakes are made with misspeak. The point is: a mistake is inevitable because we all misspeak and get our facts wrong. It comes with imperfection and with such a job that these people have.