An Acceptable Prejudice?

[TAO]

I'd agree with Cobalt and StormRider... I don't think it's really envy. More often, I think it's just we defy what they think is 'obvious'. Mormons stand out as different in a lot of ways, and that we do so happily, well, I'd say it surprises people a bit.

[blueadept]

The statistics show that of all Christian faiths, LDS are the best example in having youth and young couples retain and know their faith the best and Catholics are the worst at passing along the faith to their youth.

So in other words, LDS do not need to change a thing in regards to living the Gospel in their homes.

The Catholic bishops, in different dioceses, are attempting to address this issue by giving the the necessary resources to parents to empower them to help reverse the trend. The study showed that LDS members felt their church helped them tremendously in strengthening their youth with the faith while parents of other faiths, especially Catholics, didn't feel they got the same support from their respective churches. Last week, my Catholic parish held a meeting amongst our active lay ministers in addressing the study and what we needed to do to change the culture of our parish and change the tide. A few questions got brought up in regards to what Mormons are doing right and so that we can learn from it. While there was a couple of individuals who held their tongues in considering the LDS church a cult, I was able to share a few positive ideas such as every home having the priesthood and the affects of that, That all the members have a calling, as well as the support system in regards to HT/VT. Someone asked about broken families and I described how those families were normally given a HP or bishop as a HT.

So you all don't need to change a thing and allow the rest of us to catch up. IMO, those that didn't consider you a cult at that meeting were envious of your success in bringing your faith within your home and how well your youth retain their faith.

Edited May 30, 2012 by blueadept

[Buzzard]

The statistics show that of all Christian faiths, LDS are the best example in having youth and young couples retain and know their faith the best and Catholics are the worst at passing along the faith to their youth.

So in other words, LDS do not need to change a thing in regards to living the Gospel in their homes.

The Catholic bishops, in different dioceses, are attempting to address this issue by giving the the necessary resources to parents to empower them to help reverse the trend. The study showed that LDS members felt their church helped them tremendously in strengthening their youth with the faith while parents of other faiths, especially Catholics, didn't feel they got the same support from their respective churches. Last week, my Catholic parish held a meeting amongst our active lay ministers in addressing the study and what we needed to do to change the culture of our parish and change the tide. A few questions got brought up in regards to what Mormons are doing right and so that we can learn from it. While there was a couple of individuals who held their tongues in considering the LDS church a cult, I was able to share a few positive ideas such as every home having the priesthood and the affects of that, That all the members have a calling, as well as the support system in regards to HT/VT. Someone asked about broken families and I described how those families were normally given a HP or bishop as a HT.

So you all don't need to change a thing and allow the rest of us to catch up. IMO, those that didn't consider you a cult at that meeting were envious of your success in bringing your faith within your home and how well your youth retain their faith.

I agreee, and yet one of the most discussed topics in every leadership meeting and ward council I have been in has been about retaining youth in activity as they mature and enter adulthood. I'm glad that statistics show that we retain more than other denominatons, but feel regret and a sense of failure every time a wonderful young person has other prioritites enter his/her life and drifts away from activity.

[The Nehor]

Really? Abraham was wealthy and powerful in his time. David while he was righteous became a powerful leader. Even the early saints had a period of prosperity before the trek west. I don't see the scriptures indicating that true saints can't live successfully in the world as long as they remember the Lord. When the people fail to live successfully it's because they start disobeying the prophets.

Abraham was kind of wealthy. He was a wealthy vagrant though as he never had land. He was semi-powerful but owned no land and was in constant danger everywhere he went.

David was righteous but power was his downfall. I do suspect that a lot of the glory around David and Solomon came from later editors and they may not have been as rich and wise as the records suggest.

The saint's prosperity in Nauvoo came because they were willing to colonize a swamp no one wanted and turn it into a paradise. Once it was a paradise they lost it.

I don't see the scriptures indicating that true saints can't live successfully in the world as long as they remember the Lord.

\

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."

-Jesus

When the people fail to live successfully it's because they start disobeying the prophets.

If you define 'success' as living the gospel then yes. If you define it as wealth and a comfortable life then I disagree. Some get it. Some do not and I see no correlation with faithfulness. Lehi lost everything to become a wandering nomad when they followed the prophet. Amulek started living the gospel and lost his family, friends, and wealth. The saints of the last dispensation died off persecuted. The converted Lamanites were slaughtered for their conversion.

[blueadept]

Due to our secular society, people have approached living it like a shopping list where you cross it off once that item has been accomplished. While it's a bigger issue with the RCC, it's still a small issue within the LDS members as well.

In the RCC, it's all about receiving the sacraments of the church. A newborn......get a baptism......check. You don't see the kid until first communion at age 7 (but requires 2 years of CCD).....check. Next step is confirmation at the age of 16 in our diocese.........check. What's obvious in many cases is that the only reason the kid is there is for the parents checklist and it's obvious the faith is not practiced in the home, but the checklist is done......sad.

In a few LDS homes, I've seen similar checklists. For guys, it's something like get your Eagle Scout, go on a mission, and get married in a Temple. While I believe the issue isn't as critical in the LDS church, becoming a checklist society doesn't always mean they are living a Christian life which is something we are trying to strive for always.

[The Nehor]

Imparting of one's substance does not mean that one does not "deserve" the substance he or she has. If one gets rich, of course he may 'deserve" his riches.

King Benjamin seems to disagree. So does the Parable of the 12 Sons. God in the D&C seems to think wealth is a gift he gives not something people deserve.

This does not mean that he has a "right" not to use it for good. He may have a legal right to keep it as far as I'm concerned but not necessarily a moral one. The sum of your argument is that to be morally good, government must enact redistribution. I disagree and more poignantly, there is no Book of Mormon teaching which says anything of the sort. Not even King Benjamin advocated government redistributing but that people as individuals whose faith is in Christ, would do so:

That isn't the sum of my argument. It isn't even a part of my argument. I lean more towards the conservative side of the political spectrum. I am pointing out that there is no prohibition in scripture against some kind of government social safety net. I would prefer it to be as small and inexpensive as possible and provide as much help to people as it can with what it has. I would argue that how it works can and should vary from state to state, nation to nation, and from year to year. I just rebuke the idea that somehow any government redistribution of wealth is somehow opposed to the gospel.

I think helping the poor is important and I think government has a part to play in fulfilling that need. I think churches have a part to play. I think charities have a part to play. I think individuals and families have a part to play. It's this weird either/or dichotomy that if we individually have any responsibility then government should stay out of it that I find so illogical.

There's no indication of government being used to force equality. This is a morality taught to individuals.

Yes, and I am not advocating government enforced equality. I also do not see all government social programs as inherently evil. Some function well. Some are a waste. Some are too little and some are too big.

I prefer Consecration enforced equality and in the D&C Jesus makes it clear in the parable I mentioned that he will not be pleased with us collectively until we make that happen. Until then I think the best we can hope for is to find a comfortable middle ground 'a sweet spot' between capitalism and socialism. I think Europe has gone too far towards the latter and that we (in the U.S.) are too far towards the former.

This is not welfare, nor is it unconservative. This is akin to the modern-day veteran's system which I strongly support. Compensating people (and their loved ones) for having served their country is a moral good. It is based upon individuals who did their job for their country and receive their compensation. There hardly a conservative alive who opposes this. Limhi's requirement to take care of the widow is not based upon their being poor and therefore have some sort of right to recieve other people's wealth. This is based uponthe fact that their husbands performed a service to the country and therefore stand in just need for compensation. Yes, like all policy, thisi s based upon morality. My main point is that Limhi's "goverment welfare" is not based upon taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. It's based upon doing a job and getting paid for it.

I don't see policy as primarily based on absolute moral principles. It should be guided by moral principles but not stuck in moral absolutism like:

Socialism is evil

Capitalism is evil

The Free Market should be left alone in all cases

Government welfare is theft

Taxation is theft

etc.

Instead we should focus on practicality. Will this work? Is the cost worth the gain? Will this policy help more people then it hurts? Even if only a minority of the people are hurt by it is what they will endure be worth the gain?

[Daniel Peterson]

A blog entry referencing yet another academic's interesting take on the question of anti-Mormonism among professors:

http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/2012/05/professorial-prejudice-against-mormons.html

[mrmandias]

The statistics show that of all Christian faiths, LDS are the best example in having youth and young couples retain and know their faith the best and Catholics are the worst at passing along the faith to their youth.

So in other words, LDS do not need to change a thing in regards to living the Gospel in their homes.

No offense, but we have our sights set on something higher than just beating the Catholics.

[The Nehor]

No offense, but we have our sights set on something higher than just beating the Catholics.

I don't know about you but I won't be content till we can beat the Jainists. Then maybe one day we can beat the Sikhs but that may be aiming too high.

[Storm Rider]

A blog entry referencing yet another academic's interesting take on the question of anti-Mormonism among professors:

http://dcpsicetnon.b...st-mormons.html

He had some interesting points, but it stuns me at how many ignorant people seek to share an opinion when they obviously have no knowledge. I still am awed by how ignorant the public really is about Mormonism and yet how confident they are in their opinion about something of which they know nothing.