Sounding the Retreat?

[Damien the Leper]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

By which you mean it stands looking out over the world and mocks those on a different path?
I think that is somewhat true of every religion.
But if we are going to use the symbols of that vision, even if we consider the Church to be as the great and spacious building, then we have to acknowledge that there is still one true path to follow by holding to the rod on the singular course to the tree of life.
We may disagree as to which Church that rod passes through and which Church is the great and spacious one, but there is still only one path.

We all have a little Rameumpton in us.  But that doesn't change that there are only 2 churches.  We may be prideful in thinking we are part of the true one, but that doesn't change the fact that there IS one true one.

You have yet to provide substantial empirical evidence that such a church exists. Perhaps those two churches you speak of are one and the same. This seems much more probable.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

You have yet to provide substantial empirical evidence that such a church exists. Perhaps those two churches you speak of are one and the same. This seems much more probable.

Faith and empirical evidences are not compatible.
Religion is a matter of faith, not evidence.

[Damien the Leper]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Faith and empirical evidences are not compatible.
Religion is a matter of faith, not evidence.

As Nietzsche astutely noted, "Faith means not wanting to know the truth."

[Kenngo1969]

20 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

As Nietzsche astutely noted, "Faith means not wanting to know the truth."

Some of us might think, his astuteness notwithstanding, that Nietzsche was just a tad bit too cynical.  I once wrote the following about optimism and pessimism, and I believe, with a slight alteration, that it is equally applicable here: Even faith that occasionally is betrayed is better than skepticism that is always rewarded.  So take that, Nietzsche!  

[Damien the Leper]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Some of us might think, his astuteness notwithstanding, that Nietzsche was just a tad bit too cynical.  I once wrote the following about optimism and pessimism, and I believe, with a slight alteration, that it is equally applicable here: Even faith that occasionally is betrayed is better than skepticism that is always rewarded.  So take that, Nietzsche!  

Nietzsche was a realist.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

Some would say that the LDS Church is a speck or an afterthought until it tries to trample on the rights of a group of citizens.

So it's a speck and an afterthought -- until you decide that it's a monster trampling on the rights of citizens.

It's a remarkable thing watching critics and antagonists speaking out of both sides of their mouths and ostensibly not realizing it.

[Damien the Leper]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So it's a speck and an afterthought -- until you decide that it's a monster trampling on the rights of citizens.

It's a remarkable thing watching critics and antagonists speaking out of both sides of their mouths and ostensibly not realizing it.

Any attempt to undermine or negate human rights should be annihilated. Religious "morality" should never dictate civil law. Such advocacy is abominable and amoral.

[Five Solas]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

...

And if the Church of Jesus Christ is nothing more than a "speck" or "an afterthought," I wonder why it is that the gay marriage juggernaut has lashed out so viciously against it.

You're effectively making the same point as "Jean-Luc Picard," Scott. 

In Seattle, where LDS have dramatically reduced their presence (as evidenced by a number of ward closures & consolidations over the past ~ 15 years, especially the UW affiliated YSA "singles" wards which have been cut in half) it really is nothing but an afterthought.  If it weren't for the musical - "The Book of Mormon" (and the occasional inquiry by a former member on "Savage Love") - Seattle's alternative weekly, "The Stranger" would scarcely know of your church's existence.  (And they do a fine job articulating the worldview of the Capitol Hill neighborhood.)  The above-noted exceptions notwithstanding, you pretty much have to go back to Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign to find anything about it.  

So no matter how things appear in Utah + a few adjacent states, outside of those hot-spots where LDS disproportionately hold elective office--the LDS Church *very* quickly falls off the radar.  They have to spend money to get anyone's attention.

Stay humble, Scott.

;0)

--Erik

____________________________________

If this isn't what you see
It doesn't make you blind
Yea, if this doesn't make you feel
It doesn't mean you've died

--Soundgarden (Chris Cornell 1964 - 2017)

Edited May 28, 2017 by Five Solas
spelling

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Any attempt to undermine or negate human rights should be annihilated. Religious "morality" should never dictate civil law. Such advocacy is abominable and amoral.

Yep - D&C 134

Working as a political action committee and uniting with other churches, the LDS Church had a fairly substantial impact.  In the end, they had chosen the wrong side of the cause and their efforts did more damage than good. 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, those "Mormon Moment" years were our last best opportunity to make an impact.  We squandered theme and I believe our influence as a church will continue to decline. 

[probablyHagoth7]

48 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

..."Faith means not wanting to know the truth."

On the contrary.  

Faith is a yearning/hope/conviction to find/incorporate/(share) truth, that inspires action to seek/pray/study/serve, and that shatters falsehoods along the way. A rough stone rolling.

Real faith goes beyond just finding truth, but immersing oneself fully in it until one internalizes and becomes true.

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, Valentinus said:

As Nietzsche astutely noted, "Faith means not wanting to know the truth."

Religion concerns truths that are NOT provable, at least not using empirical methods.
Doesn't make them any less true.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Valentinus said:

The LDS church isn't very relevant to American culture these days. It's just another religious institution that is not unique. What it does share with other theistic religions is that it is the great and spacious building made manifest.

And yet californiaboy sees that irrelevant institution as the "Mormon juggernaut."  Is it only huge and threatening when someone hates it enough?  Or is it simply an angry denunciation of it because of the hypocrisy of an institution which was once persecuted for odd marriage practices (plural marriage) now persecutes others for their odd marriage practices?  Does that automatically make of it part of an imaginary great & spacious building?  Just so one can find fault with it?  Is the LDS Church actually spending time and money mocking anyone?  Do its members actually have the same values as the world at large?

[Damien the Leper]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And yet californiaboy sees that irrelevant institution as the "Mormon juggernaut."  Is it only huge and threatening when someone hates it enough?  Or is it simply an angry denunciation of it because of the hypocrisy of an institution which was once persecuted for odd marriage practices (plural marriage) now persecutes others for their odd marriage practices?  Does that automatically make of it part of an imaginary great & spacious building?  Just so one can find fault with it?  Is the LDS Church actually spending time and money mocking anyone?  Do its members actually have the same values as the world at large?

The LDS church should just mind its own business and stay out of American civil law and policy. It's welcome to it's own opinion but should be silenced and dismissed as irrelevant the moment it attempts to meddle in affairs not under it's jurisdiction.

[Damien the Leper]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Religion concerns truths that are NOT provable, at least not using empirical methods.
Doesn't make them any less true.

Those are merely perceived truths not absolute truths.

[Damien the Leper]

4 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

On the contrary.  

Faith is a yearning/hope/conviction to find/incorporate/(share) truth, that inspires action to seek/pray/study/serve, and that shatters falsehoods along the way. A rough stone rolling.

Real faith goes beyond just finding truth, but immersing oneself fully in it until one internalizes and becomes true.

Sounds like Buddhist and mystic hogwash.

[probablyHagoth7]

16 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Sounds like Buddhist and mystic hogwash.

Perhaps, if such a hog soaked in pickle brine. 

There is truth in Buddhism. And truth in mysticism.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And yet californiaboy sees that irrelevant institution as the "Mormon juggernaut."  Is it only huge and threatening when someone hates it enough?  Or is it simply an angry denunciation of it because of the hypocrisy of an institution which was once persecuted for odd marriage practices (plural marriage) now persecutes others for their odd marriage practices?  Does that automatically make of it part of an imaginary great & spacious building?  Just so one can find fault with it?  Is the LDS Church actually spending time and money mocking anyone?  Do its members actually have the same values as the world at large?

Are you saying the members don't have the same values as the world at large? Then why can't the church keep that in mind and not control what is good for the rest of the world? I understand they want freedom of religion, I agree fully. But they at one time wanted to take the freedom to marry away and I believe this will be why the church will peak soon. (It's getting late, this post may or may not make sense.)

Edited May 29, 2017 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Are you saying the members don't have the same values as the world at large? Then why can't the church keep that in mind and not control what is good for the rest of the world? I understand they want freedom of religion, I agree fully. But they at one time wanted to take the freedom to marry away and I believe this will be why the church will peak soon. (It's getting late, this post may or may not make sense.)

Mormons worldwide seem to have values which the world simply does not share.  The world at large seems to have what we sometimes call "worldly" values, and we can see those exhibited in the sexual hook-up culture which emphasizes money, power, clothing, ostentation, recreational drug use, pron, etc., perhaps best characterized as "keeping up with the Kardashians," or maybe the Trumps.

In the midst of that, it is only a blip on the radar to observe that the LDS establishment forgot the persecution which they had suffered for their odd marriage practices, and failed to realize that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted to allow odd marriage practices (including same-gender marriage).  Should the LDS Church be condemned to outer darkness forever for that misstep?  A position which they no longer hold.  Is that the whole story of the Mormon people?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

The LDS church should just mind its own business and stay out of American civil law and policy. It's welcome to it's own opinion but should be silenced and dismissed as irrelevant the moment it attempts to meddle in affairs not under it's jurisdiction.

Is that your rational, logical side talking, or just a fit of pique?

[Damien the Leper]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Is that your rational, logical side talking, or just a fit of pique?

It's far from pique. The LDS church has no business in civil law and policy. It's ideals can government it's membership but should reach no further. Theocracy to the slightest degree is an enemy of the United States and should be subverted.

[Damien the Leper]

3 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Perhaps, if such a hog soaked in pickle brine. 

There is truth in Buddhism. And truth in mysticism.

Prove it.

[california boy]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you apparently disagree with feaux Jean Luc-Picard, then that "Once you leave heavily Mormon areas, the Church has very, very little influence on anything and is a speck of a church. For most people it is a little afterthought."

Seems like the critics can't agree among themselves whether the Church of Jesus Christ is an insignificant "speck of a church" or, as the scriptures put it, "terrible as an army with banners."

 

Outside of Utah, just what kind of influence do you think the church has?  Do you think it plays a role in politics when it isn't donating millions to an issue?  Do you think Mormons are overly represented in politics for their size?  Do you think people listen to what Mormons have to say about how they should live their lives?  Perhaps if you could tell us what kind of influence the Mormon church has outside of Utah, then we would discuss the merits of your beliefs.  

Anyone who spends 20 million dollars and 75% of the manpower to pass a proposition in California is going to have a major voice in that issue even if it is just one person financing the campaign and hiring the manpower.  That is how politics works.  Sure if the church continues to spend part of it's billions in passing political propositions, then of course it will have a major influence on politics  I don't think anyone would argue with that.  This political issue has little to do with day to day influence on the rest of California or any state or country outside of the Mormon corridors.  Maybe the church should become a super PAC. 

 

 

[california boy]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

By which you mean it stands looking out over the world and mocks those on a different path?
I think that is somewhat true of every religion.
But if we are going to use the symbols of that vision, even if we consider the Church to be as the great and spacious building, then we have to acknowledge that there is still one true path to follow by holding to the rod on the singular course to the tree of life.
We may disagree as to which Church that rod passes through and which Church is the great and spacious one, but there is still only one path.

We all have a little Rameumpton in us.  But that doesn't change that there are only 2 churches.  We may be prideful in thinking we are part of the true one, but that doesn't change the fact that there IS one true one.

I think you bring up a very valid point.  And for me the question becomes, just what is that rod.  Personally I believe it is Christ.  He is the way back to God.  Those that hold on to THAT rod are the ones progressing back to His presents.  And that rod can be grasped by anyone in any religion or even outside of organized religion.  

Amongst the people that I am close to outside of my family, very few are devout in any organized religion.  Yet amongst them, there are those that volunteer weekly to serve at the food banks, raise thousands of dollars each year for charities that they believe in and treat people with respect and kindness.  Or my boyfriend who left his job for months so that he could take care of his dying brother and then did the same thing when his father was dying..  They embrace the teachings and life that Christ taught.  I would say they are closer to holding on to that rod than many in organized religion.  

I would agree with you that most religions spend way too much time mocking others outside their religion from that spacious building than they have any right to.  In my opinion, singing songs and attending sunday meetings does not mean that one is holding on to the iron rod.  Religious dogma over the wrong color skin or whether someone is gay or whether polygamy was of God or how old the earth is or if there was a flood etc. has nothing to do with holding on to that rod back to God.  

For these reasons, people are walking away from all organized religions. Those that pit one group against another.  Those that are unwilling to serve someone because of who they are or what they do.  Those that forbid children.  Those that stand on their Rameumpton and declare that others are somehow less then them. They are the ones that inhabit that spacious building.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Outside of Utah, just what kind of influence do you think the church has?  Do you think it plays a role in politics when it isn't donating millions to an issue?  Do you think Mormons are overly represented in politics for their size?  Do you think people listen to what Mormons have to say about how they should live their lives?  Perhaps if you could tell us what kind of influence the Mormon church has outside of Utah, then we would discuss the merits of your beliefs.  

Anyone who spends 20 million dollars and 75% of the manpower to pass a proposition in California is going to have a major voice in that issue even if it is just one person financing the campaign and hiring the manpower.  That is how politics works.  Sure if the church continues to spend part of it's billions in passing political propositions, then of course it will have a major influence on politics  I don't think anyone would argue with that.  This political issue has little to do with day to day influence on the rest of California or any state or country outside of the Mormon corridors.  Maybe the church should become a super PAC. 

 

 

CFR on the alleged amount.

Here's a 2009 statement from the Church.

Quote

The value of the Church’s in-kind (non-monetary) contribution is less than one half of one percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the “Yes on 8” campaign. The Church did not make any cash contribution.

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR on the alleged amount.

Here's a 2009 statement from the Church.

 

Seriously Scott?  After ALL the discussions we have had on the role the church took in Prop 8 you really don't know how much members contributed to the campaign?  Or are you just trying to split hairs over whether members of the church are really connected to the Mormon church to try and make the church less culpable than it already is in it's role in taking away the civil rights of others.  It is these kinds of dodging the issue that I find so annoying by members of the church.  Why not just fess up to exactly the role the church played in passing Prop 8.  Trying to change the history of what the church did is not going to change the fact, especially in this internet age.  

Never the less, here is the link you requested in the CFR.  Hopefully this will be the last time you try this little maneuver to try and discount the church's role in passing Prop 8.

From Wikipedia

LDS members contributed over $20 million,^[83] about 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state.^[84] ProtectMarriage, the official proponent of Proposition 8, estimates that about half the donations they received came from Mormon sources, and that LDS church members made up somewhere between 80% and 90% of the volunteers for early door-to-door canvassing.^[85]

This, BTW is in addition to the amount given to Prop 8 directly by the church.  An amount that was also initially minimized until a law suit was issued against the church.  Then all the sudden they came up with the additional amount spent and in kind donations on the campaign that had previously not been reported as required by law.