Still critics showing up at temple open houses?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

It seems to me that "Mormons aren't Christian!" energy has really waned over the last decade (I think its high water mark was the 80s and 90s and early 2000s). Most evangelical Protestants don't really feel like protesting Mormon events, in my experience. I think all conservative religious groups see the bigger threat as secularism, skepticism, and apathy/failure to launch among their youth --- much more so than the dreaded Mormon Menace. 

Until one runs for President of the US.

[Chum]

Just now, Navidad said:

Belittling the other, even to the point of the identification of the other as being in the service of Lucifer has been for too long characteristic of both groups under discussion. There are many examples of both, is there not? I know fundamentalists who have taught that LDS doctrine is of Satan; surely many thousands of LDS folks were taught about the sectarian pastor and his affiliation with Satan. I believe this tendency is happily lessening on both sides. I would love to see it disappear entirely from the dialogue, preaching, and teaching of both LDS and non-LDS Christians. I think that would please the Lord.

Okay so your intent here seems to be to say that both Evangelicals teachings and Church teachings are pretty much the same in spreading vitriol.

Lets assume that's true and check out the outcome.  Do you see regularly Church members organizing to protest other faiths? Have you witnessed (or heard about) any hit squad trainings in LDS churches, teaching people how to demean and degrade folks of other faiths?  How often to you see folks from the LDS church put on seminars, solely for the purpose of sowing disdain for other faiths?

Post all you have. We'll all be here.

Meanwhile consider the possibility that organized religious actions, targeting other faiths, are pretty much entirely of Protestant origin, primarily Evangelical - and never ever LDS. If that isn't true, evidence should be plentiful.

[Chum]

Just now, pogi said:

Until one runs for President of the US.

My best guess is it'll be a lot less than before.  I was tracking anti-LDS animosity long before Romney showed up and it really went off a cliff after that was all done.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

My experience is that those who embrace a doctrine of bashing other faiths - they ID as Evangelical more than any other stripe of Christianity. I've seen some notable hostility from Lutherans, which I didn't expect. 

I'm not particularly attached to the using the term evangelical, to group religious bigots. I use it because it aligns with my own history but I'm open to whatever.

The Missouri Synod of the Lutheran church is very conservative. It is somewhere in there in between fundamentalist and Evangelical. Chum, I think when they identify as evangelical, they mean they are committed to evangelization. That is not the same as claiming affiliation as an Evangelical which is a formally recognized group, primarily in the Anabaptist and Protestant tradition. I could say that I am an Evangelical who is not very good at evangelizing, therefore I am not a good evangelical. That would all be a true statement. I think they identify as an evangelical with a small e. That is very different than what I am talking about. Billy Sunday and Dwight Moody were evangelicals before Evangelicals ever existed. There was no Evangelical group prior to 1942 or 1943. That was the very earliest. The group began as a reaction to fundamentalism which had a pretty bad reputation. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are very different in many ways.

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I think when they identify as evangelical, they mean they are committed to evangelization. That is not the same as claiming affiliation as an Evangelical which is a formally recognized group, primarily in the Anabaptist and Protestant tradition. I could say that I am an Evangelical who is not very good at evangelizing, therefore I am not a good evangelical. That would all be a true statement. I think they identify as an evangelical with a small e.

I can go with small e. I'd be willing to edit my posts into a small e but that might make the thread confusing. I have no particular bone to pick with the big E's, whoever they may be.

[Navidad]

2 minutes ago, Chum said:

Okay so your intent here seems to be to say that both Evangelicals teachings and Church teachings are pretty much the same in spreading vitriol.

Lets assume that's true and check out the outcome.  Do you see regularly Church members organizing to protest other faiths? Have you witnessed (or heard about) any hit squad trainings in LDS churches, teaching people how to demean and degrade folks of other faiths?  How often to you see folks from the LDS church put on seminars, solely for the purpose of sowing disdain for other faiths?

Post all you have. We'll all be here.

Meanwhile consider the possibility that organized religious actions, targeting other faiths, are pretty much entirely of Protestant origin, primarily Evangelical - and never ever LDS. If that isn't true, evidence should be plentiful.

First, I don't have an intent. I am here primarily to ask questions and learn. Sometimes I read something here that motivates me to challenge. It is 99% of the time a claim about my faith made by one of you, not something about your doctrine. I don't get into specific doctrines except perhaps for the "onlys." You are setting me up here to get in big trouble. Perhaps I can answer your questions in another way by asking you some questions in return. How would you characterize the LDS position and doctrine of the validity of the rest of Christianity, its doctrines, practices, and yes the individuals who believe in them and practice them? If I told you I had to leave to go baptize someone right now, what would you think about that baptism? If I said I am indwelt with the fullness of the Holy Spirit,what would you say? If I said I was quite content with the validity of my baptism in a a non-LDS church, what would you tell me about that experience? Would I come away from that conversation having been affirmed or would I feel demeaned and degraded? Perhaps I will simply let you answer your own questions by answering mine. The evidence of your own responses to me should be plentiful. Thanks.

[poptart]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Once we went to the Manti pageant where we were confronted by busloads of anti-Mormon protestors. They all wore the same Mission to Mormons t-shirts. The Manti Institute had set up a small bleacher next to their building as a place for them to address interested people, but they preferred personal confrontation. I observed their tactics. They would corner single or small groups of young adults and started bombarding them with “gotcha” questions.

An older lady named Eadie (sp?) approached me. She was an ex-Mormon who had met Jesus in person in the desert outside Taos, NM. He told her the Mormons were wrong. She asked me, “Would it shock you to know there have been more than 5000 changes in the Book of Mormon?” I said, “No. Would it shock you to know there have been many more thousands of changes in the Bible?” At this point she gave some sort of signal and a gentleman in the t-shirt came over. Turns out he was Timothy Oliver, a person of some consequence, of the Watchman Fellowship. He took over for a while. We exchanged some questions and answers and e-mail addresses. Later we  had a brief e-mail correspondence.

This experience inspired me to create a fictional character named S. Heber Young, a Mormon zealot who travelled around the country organizing protests at Evangelical weddings, Passion plays, and church services, reversing some their tactics on them, but always with good humor. 

I was also around when Sonia Johnson and Ed Decker were doing their thing in Washington and at the Seattle temple. They were not pleasant people. 
 

Wow you are a saintly man, pun intended.

6 hours ago, Chum said:

So a bit of background. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school. I've spent years worshiping with a Methodist congregation. Was born again and spent years with a worshiping w/ Evangelicals from Baptist/Fundamentalist/AoG churches. Years later, I was baptized into the Church.

Of that Christian set, only Evangelicals actively taught me doctrines of disdain for other faiths and held classes of how to attack other Christians for their beliefs. I'm old enough to remember Catholics being a (waning) target but we were mostly taught hostility toward the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and Church members. I've read syllabus from Theological institutions that conducted classes in attacking faiths as part of their degrees. My brother attended anti-faith classes at his Wesleyan college.

There were multi-million dollar anti-faith industries led by guys like Walter Martin, Hank Hanegraaff, Bill Keller and Johnny Lee Clary. The latter was a former Grand Wizard who, after being born again, switched from attacking Black Australians to attacking folks of other faiths - because some skills are universal.

It is true that most Christian faiths have some anti-faith history or (at least) have had members who attack other faiths (plenty of anti-Muslim Church members sprung up after 9/11 taught them the existence is Islam). However, while most of those faiths were growing beyond their toxic religious bigotry, Evangelicalism widely embraced and nurtured it.

To clarify, the above time line extends up until about the Mitt Romney nomination. Religious bigots had brought their hostility into full sunlight, where it didn't receive the welcome they had hoped. Bill Keller was an especially useful idiot in exposing this dark part of Evangelicalism. Post-Romney, Evangelical bigotry seemed much more muted.

I was hoping the last decade brought some reformation and a turning away from attacking other faiths but if Temple protests are still a thing, that doesn't seem likely.

Was baptised Lutheran as an infant in Hawaii, Catholic later on.  One thing I learned real quick after moving to the lower 48s at 13, Christians here really aren't Christian in general.  That and the ones who are the most vocal tend to be the most rotten.  It's interesting to watch Evangelicals and Baptists push for a lot of the horrible legislation thats being pushed through in the Midwest/South.  Real smart, voter suppression and heartbeat bills that do nothing to address family disfunction, poverty and domestic abuse while making criminals out of providers who can and will continue to leave due to covid, politics and cost of living going up while wages stagnate.  You've probably seen some of the posts I've made, esp about Islamic charity and been thinking i'm preaching to the choir.  Something else I wonder if you see (I think you do), the long term consequences from all this.  I have friends getting ready to leave the Midwest, it's not the same anymore.  Millenials have just had it and are dropping out of society as much as they can while still being able to maintain a living.  Churches, fraternies, you name it we're leaving.  One thing, I keep my political and social opinions to myself.  I have a few throwaway social media accounts and when I see the stuff some people I knew post nowadays it makes me sick.  If it wasn't for them having friends/family in high places they'd be unemployed.  Here's the thing, the same people have kids/grandkids and assume white society will always come to their rescue like their parents always did.  I'm waiting for the rude awakening to kick in, when it does it's going to be ugly.  THis is anther reason why I think a lot of us who can are just dropping out, none of us want to be around/known when things really do start to get bad.

2 hours ago, Chum said:

My experience is that those who embrace a doctrine of bashing other faiths - they ID as Evangelical more than any other stripe of Christianity. I've seen some notable hostility from Lutherans, which I didn't expect. 

I'm not particularly attached to the using the term evangelical, to group religious bigots. I use it because it aligns with my own history but I'm open to whatever.

If it's the Missouri or Wels synod no surprise there.  The Missouri synod chose to play politics in the 70s and it cost them, to this day the focus of leadership is to get as many well off whites in as possible while shunning those they deem unworthy.  That's what it was like for me as a kid.  Also, a lot of Lutherans in the USA are quite power hungry and are all about climbing the social/political ladder.  Besides numbers that was a big reason why the ELCA has had communion with the Episcopal church, besides being able to swap clergy they went from the church of the lower to middle class (decades upon decades ago) to middle/upper middle class.   Basically, they want to attract people from certain incomes/classes while not dealing with the stricter rules say a lot of Catholics have to deal with (In some places...).  They're not quite as good at it as the Episcopals, outside of places like WA and HI they still have a much more homogenous population while a lot of Episcopal churches can be quite diverse and accepting.  Besides mom, friends and family a big reason why I happily cheer and defend members of the LDS church, the politics you guys have is kinda small potatoes compared to the nonsense other people here stateside have pulled.  Thing is, since they had the power for the longest time they got away with it.  Will be real interesting to see how that unfolds as millenials continue to leave churches and become in nones.  

Good (and kinda hard to find) book, Church Polity: How the Clergy Run the Church by Marion R Winkler.  Highly recommend it, explains the history past and present (up to the 80s) of how church politics were in the Missouri synod.  Very interesting read, the kind of stuff that's pretty hard to find unless you know someone familiar with Lutheran history and politics in the USA.

 

BTW, thought i'd share these, posted a few before but they're nice reference links.

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has New Strategy to Reverse Membership Declines: Focus on Northern European Americans! – Escaping Christian Fundamentalism (wordpress.com)

HARRISON BLAMES WOMEN FOR DECLINING MEMBERSHIP - Congregations Matter

What kinda started it all.  Fled Saxony, came here and became the corrupt monster German Lutherans were trying to get rid of.

Martin Stephan - Wikipedia

Edited September 1, 2021 by poptart

[Navidad]

34 minutes ago, Navidad said:

First, I don't have an intent. I am here primarily to ask questions and learn. Sometimes I read something here that motivates me to challenge. It is 99% of the time a claim about my faith made by one of you, not something about your doctrine. I don't get into specific doctrines except perhaps for the "onlys." You are setting me up here to get in big trouble. Perhaps I can answer your questions in another way by asking you some questions in return. How would you characterize the LDS position and doctrine of the validity of the rest of Christianity, its doctrines, practices, and yes the individuals who believe in them and practice them? If I told you I had to leave to go baptize someone right now, what would you think about that baptism? If I said I am indwelt with the fullness of the Holy Spirit,what would you say? If I said I was quite content with the validity of my baptism in a a non-LDS church, what would you tell me about that experience? Would I come away from that conversation having been affirmed or would I feel demeaned and degraded? Thanks

 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

It seems to me that "Mormons aren't Christian!" energy has really waned over the last decade (I think its high water mark was the 80s and 90s and early 2000s). Most evangelical Protestants don't really feel like protesting Mormon events, in my experience. I think all conservative religious groups see the bigger threat as secularism, skepticism, and apathy/failure to launch among their youth --- much more so than the dreaded Mormon Menace. 

Yep. We have common antagonists and should learn to hang togetherMoreover, I think we loose more members to attacks from disgruntled members than we ever lost to anti-Mormon evangelicals.

BTW, the Catholic Church also sponsors(ed) anti-LDS literature and events. 

Edited September 1, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Chum]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

First, I don't have an intent. I am here primarily to ask questions and learn. Sometimes I read something here that motivates me to challenge. It is 99% of the time a claim about my faith made by one of you, not something about your doctrine. I don't get into specific doctrines except perhaps for the "onlys." You are setting me up here to get in big trouble. Perhaps I can answer your questions in another way by asking you some questions in return. How would you characterize the LDS position and doctrine of the validity of the rest of Christianity, its doctrines, practices, and yes the individuals who believe in them and practice them? If I told you I had to leave to go baptize someone right now, what would you think about that baptism? If I said I am indwelt with the fullness of the Holy Spirit,what would you say? If I said I was quite content with the validity of my baptism in a a non-LDS church, what would you tell me about that experience? Would I come away from that conversation having been affirmed or would I feel demeaned and degraded? Perhaps I will simply let you answer your own questions by answering mine. The evidence of your own responses to me should be plentiful. Thanks.

This isn't that complicated. It's written into our doctrine that is isn't cool to design, coordinate and launch endless attacks on other faiths. I would hope that we wouldn't need to be told that but it's there nonetheless. The point is we honor that (excepting boneheaded members following 9/11 but we were repeated scolded to knock it the hell off).

Conversely, evangelical Christians attack lots of other faiths - as part of their faith. I'm not saying that discredits evangelicalism. I'm saying there are tons of hostile evangelical boneheads who really get off attacking other faiths and that evangelicalism in general is totally down with it.

You can contrast the minutiae of both our beliefs but since you aren't defending this bad behavior, why bother?

None of this means there aren't tons of LDS members who exhibit bad behavior - or that I haven't exhibited bad behavior, inc religious bigotry - because we have and I have. The point is this particular set of bad behavior is super endemic to evangelicalism, partially because evangelicalism is huge and partially because it hasn't had the sort of reforms (like Catholicism did in the late 20th) that might curb these compulsive, attacky, bigotous instincts.

That's all there is to this.

[Chum]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think we loose more members to attacks from disgruntled members than we ever lost to anti-Mormon evangelicals.

This is super true. I know when we members compare how many souls we've converted, my numbers are negative.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Chum

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

It seems to me that "Mormons aren't Christian!" energy has really waned over the last decade (I think its high water mark was the 80s and 90s and early 2000s).

I think that particular argument has just waned.  I think they've moved on to other avenues of attack, taking cues from ex-mormons.
"Joseph lied" seems to be a more common method of attack than "not Christian" these days.

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

It would be interesting to get that group of 40 ish girls and women to show up with their signs stating which wife of Joseph smith they are along with age and who else they are married to to show up. 
 

the interesting part would be to see how many parents whisk their kids away from them while telling them Joseph smith didn’t have a bunch of wives. I’m betting most would do that. 

You think most latter-day saint parents lie to their kids?  Pretty high opinion of us.

[secondclasscitizen]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

You think most latter-day saint parents lie to their kids?  Pretty high opinion of us.

I never said they would lie. Where’d I say that?

Most Mormons don’t know Joseph smith married up to forty women, other men’s wives, a 14 year old girl, a mom and daughter combo and a pair of sisters and women who were currently married to other living men.  Also most dont know Emma was sealed to Joseph after he married about a dozen or more of them. Most Mormons also don’t know Joseph made a deal for Emma to pick a couple wives for him and she picked the sisters. Oddly enough he was already married to them because he was running this whole mess on the down low. 
 

you think most Mormon parents know most of this If any at all? Doubtfully. The church made sure this was never taught and it still isn’t taught. We should know the details of our most revered leader don’t ya think?

Edited September 2, 2021 by secondclasscitizen

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

I never said they would lie. Where’d I say that?

Most Mormons don’t know Joseph smith married up to forty women, other men’s wives, a 14 year old girl, a mom and daughter combo and a pair of sisters and women who were currently married to other living men.  Also most dont know Emma was sealed to Joseph after he married about a dozen or more of them. Most Mormons also don’t know Joseph made a deal for Emma to pick a couple wives for him and she picked the sisters. Oddly enough he was already married to them because he was running this whole mess on the down low. 
 

you think most Mormon parents know most of this If any at all? Doubtfully. The church made sure this was never taught and it still isn’t taught. We should know the details of our most revered leader don’t ya think?

I apologize for misunderstanding you.

In my experience most of the members that I've ever heard talk about it know that he had a bunch of wives, especially after that Newsweek article about it came out in the early 2000s and the gospel topics essays that talk about it in-depth in the last few years.  I happened to have learned it from a seminary teacher in the mid 90s.  It's taught right now by the church in certain lessons, though not as fully as in the essays. 

I'm currently listening to The Saints book (it's on the gospel library app and has been pushed by our leaders to read for the last couple of years) and it's in there.

 

[secondclasscitizen]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I apologize for misunderstanding you.

In my experience most of the members that I've ever heard talk about it know that he had a bunch of wives, especially after that Newsweek article about it came out in the early 2000s and the gospel topics essays that talk about it in-depth in the last few years.  I happened to have learned it from a seminary teacher in the mid 90s.  It's taught right now by the church in certain lessons, though not as fully as in the essays. 

I'm currently listening to The Saints book (it's on the gospel library app and has been pushed by our leaders to read for the last couple of years) and it's in there.

 

No problem.
I agree it is taught in limited ways but the parents running around out there never were taught this stuff. That’s why the essays are causing problems. People were lied to… mostly by the withholding of information. The churches own definition of a lie supports the assertion lds members have been lied to for decades about this topic and  others. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng

“We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.”

Edited September 2, 2021 by secondclasscitizen

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I apologize for misunderstanding you.

In my experience most of the members that I've ever heard talk about it know that he had a bunch of wives, especially after that Newsweek article about it came out in the early 2000s and the gospel topics essays that talk about it in-depth in the last few years.  I happened to have learned it from a seminary teacher in the mid 90s.  It's taught right now by the church in certain lessons, though not as fully as in the essays. 

I'm currently listening to The Saints book (it's on the gospel library app and has been pushed by our leaders to read for the last couple of years) and it's in there.

 

It has been in the church history institute manuals since at least the 1970s.

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, rongo said:

It seems to me that "Mormons aren't Christian!" energy has really waned over the last decade (I think its high water mark was the 80s and 90s and early 2000s). Most evangelical Protestants don't really feel like protesting Mormon events, in my experience. I think all conservative religious groups see the bigger threat as secularism, skepticism, and apathy/failure to launch among their youth --- much more so than the dreaded Mormon Menace. 

I expect that will last just as long as they see us as ‘useful idiots’ and cease when that stops.

[secondclasscitizen]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

It has been in the church history institute manuals since at least the 1970s.

Cfr.

Show me one manual that has all of the issues I mentioned. For your reference I have re posted them below:

***looks like the current manual mentions much of this. So young adults right now are hearing it. What about in the 1980s since you say this has been taught since the 70s?

“Most Mormons don’t know Joseph smith married up to forty women, other men’s wives, a 14 year old girl, a mom and daughter combo and a pair of sisters and women who were currently married to other living men.  Also most dont know Emma was sealed to Joseph after he married about a dozen or more of them. Most Mormons also don’t know Joseph made a deal for Emma to pick a couple wives for him and she picked the sisters. Oddly enough he was already married to them because he was running this whole mess on the down low.”

Edited September 2, 2021 by secondclasscitizen

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

***looks like the current manual mentions much of this. So young adults right now are hearing it. What about in the 1980s since you say this has been taught since the 70s?

I wasn't an Institute student in the 1980s, but I was in the 1990s. I did a full year of Church history, and we thoroughly discussed Nauvoo-era polygamy. 

[poptart]

On 9/1/2021 at 5:16 PM, Chum said:

This is super true. I know when we members compare how many souls we've converted, my numbers are negative.

Not just you guys, that's pretty much everyone.  Nothing is more poisonous to an org than an ex member with an axe to grind.  Unlike an outsider they not only know the ins and outs, they know just where to strike, what will cause the most damage/harm.  It's like abuse, your worst enemy often times turns out to be family and/or someone who knows you well.  

If you ever want to read about a non Christian group that's had a ton of ugly politics and backstabbing here stateside, read up on the Soka Gakkai.  Ohh boy between them and a few other sects here the politics are quite ugly.  I kinda grew up around them, switched to another sect a while ago.  Think what stands out for me with politics of this sort here in the mainland, how people act so shocked when it comes back to bite them.  People here sure suck at understanding consequences.  If you're going to harm/defraud someone, be sure you're long gone when people figure it out.  If not, besides deserving whatever happens for your wrongdoing, you also deserve whatever happens for being a lazy dummy.  

Edited September 3, 2021 by poptart

[Chum]

48 minutes ago, poptart said:

Not just you guys, that's pretty much everyone. 

No everyone here. Just me.

49 minutes ago, poptart said:

Nothing is more poisonous to an org than an ex member with an axe to grind. 

Now hey. I'm not an ex or was even grinding axes. I just drove people away being me.

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/1/2021 at 7:16 PM, Chum said:

This is super true. I know when we members compare how many souls we've converted, my numbers are negative.

Members don’t convert souls. 

[Chum]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Members don’t convert souls. 

It's a metaphor.

[secondclasscitizen]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I wasn't an Institute student in the 1980s, but I was in the 1990s. I did a full year of Church history, and we thoroughly discussed Nauvoo-era polygamy. 

It was discussed with your teacher cuz it was their hobby or was this stuff in the manual? Stuff like marrying two sisters behind Emma’s back for example.