Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
[Blog] I do not hate you.
I Read This
July 19, 2018, 16:43:38 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you have any issues at all, visit our support site.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: [Blog] I do not hate you.  (Read 14117 times)
Laserlips
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2008, 02:45:44 EST »

Well, I think that you folks have strange definitions of what communities are, and how they work.  If you actively tear down a community, you lose your standing in that community, and rightfully so.  Communities only work when people at least pretend to cooperate.

That said, nobody should be disowned for being excommunicated.  That, however, is a problem with families, not religious communities (and it certainly isn't exclusive to Mormonism.)
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Mormons for Romney kind of sounds like it might be a palindrome, but it isn't.
Himatsu
Political Commentator
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2008, 04:35:07 EST »

Leaving the mormon faith does not count as "tearing down a community", except in the minds of mormons, because a mormon who leaves the faith is one less thrall for the "elders" and "prophet" to control and extort.
Logged
Laserlips
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2008, 11:27:49 EST »

But hey, it's not like you have any preconceived notions about it, or anything.  You are the pinnacle of rational objectivity on the matter.

But you have actually stumbled upon a factually correct statement: Leaving a community is not the same as tearing it down.  Happily, one is never excommunicated for leaving the faith, unless they specifically ask to have it be done.

There is a world of difference between :
1.  Deciding that you do not believe the teachings of the church and leaving it; and,
2.  Deciding that the church is an enemy to be fought, and actively doing so.

In the second case, you are quite literally turning on the community and tearing it down.  If you wish to leave the church, you are perfectly free to do so, and although you will get quite a few baked goods from (sometimes excessively) nice people trying to get you to come back, the church will never do anything more than mildly annoying to achieve that goal.  (Say, knocking on your door, or calling you, which they'd do anyway--but if you tell them to stop doing that as well, they will do so.)

If you fight against the church from within, then the church has every right to say, "You hate us, you're trying to destroy what we have built, and so unless you stop you cannot be part of us anymore."  You have no obligation to feed a tapeworm lodged in your intestine; it takes from you until it kills you.  Similarly, if members of a community actively and willfully attack it, then they are not contributing members but a disease.

Whether you believe that the doctrines of the Mormon church are true is, in this case, irrelevant.  These rules about communities would apply just as well to Muslims, Jews, Catholics, or The Esoteric Brethren of the Elucidated Elbow, whom I made up just now based on a memory of a Terry Pratchett book.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Mormons for Romney kind of sounds like it might be a palindrome, but it isn't.
Himatsu
Political Commentator
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2008, 11:54:51 EST »

That's funny, because us non-mormons have been trying to tell your church the very same thing, and yet you continue to stick your nose into other people's lives and force us to live your way--but that's DIFFERENT, it's gaaaaawd's laaaaw!
Logged
Laserlips
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2008, 12:33:09 EST »

Um... I don't know what specifically you are addressing, but you're wrong about me, and you are gibbering.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Mormons for Romney kind of sounds like it might be a palindrome, but it isn't.
Himatsu
Political Commentator
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #20 on: December 05, 2008, 14:03:51 EST »

If you fight against the church from within, then the church has every right to say, "You hate us, you're trying to destroy what we have built, and so unless you stop you cannot be part of us anymore."  You have no obligation to feed a tapeworm lodged in your intestine; it takes from you until it kills you.

Is this clear enough for you, or am I still "gibbering"? Maybe I should have stuck "And it came to pass" on the beginning.
Logged
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2008, 15:09:21 EST »

Himatsu, to be fair it -is- different.

One is a fundemantally self-reflective -I- come to the conclusion -I- am homosexual, whereas one is fundementally theocentric -God- makes rules, and while my god may disagree with your god, neither one of us takes personal responsability for the moralities of these divine entities.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2008, 19:24:54 EST »

But hey, it's not like you have any preconceived notions about it, or anything.  You are the pinnacle of rational objectivity on the matter.
Well duh.  That's me, after all.

But you have actually stumbled upon a factually correct statement: Leaving a community is not the same as tearing it down.  Happily, one is never excommunicated for leaving the faith, unless they specifically ask to have it be done.

There is a world of difference between :
1.  Deciding that you do not believe the teachings of the church and leaving it; and,
2.  Deciding that the church is an enemy to be fought, and actively doing so.
Fair enough, though it is dependent on us believing that those who are excommunicated are done only on the grounds of 2.

If you fight against the church from within, then the church has every right to say, "You hate us, you're trying to destroy what we have built, and so unless you stop you cannot be part of us anymore."  You have no obligation to feed a tapeworm lodged in your intestine; it takes from you until it kills you.  Similarly, if members of a community actively and willfully attack it, then they are not contributing members but a disease.
Oh, how easily your statement could be applied to any situation.  For example, what if I said that Mormons, for their inability to adhere to the standards of society, and their active efforts to spread their beliefs to others, are a tapeworm and should be eradicated?  What if I said that religion in general is a memetic tapeworm of an idea that encourages the stagnation of the mind, and should be eradicated?  Its being done on the same grounds as you are, whether you wish to admit it.

However, our government doesn't enforce its beliefs on Mormons, asking in return only that the Mormons not enforce their beliefs on government.  However, that is exactly what Mormons are doing.

Whether you believe that the doctrines of the Mormon church are true is, in this case, irrelevant.  These rules about communities would apply just as well to Muslims, Jews, Catholics, or The Esoteric Brethren of the Elucidated Elbow, whom I made up just now based on a memory of a Terry Pratchett book.
That's why I view all religions as tapeworms on society that should be eradicated for the benefit of civilization.  Be thankful that people like me don't have the manpower to enforce our beliefs on others without asking like Mormons are currently doing.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Manufacturing Dissent
Survivor of a year in France
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2008, 09:03:09 EST »

But hey, it's not like you have any preconceived notions about it, or anything.  You are the pinnacle of rational objectivity on the matter.

But you have actually stumbled upon a factually correct statement: Leaving a community is not the same as tearing it down.  Happily, one is never excommunicated for leaving the faith, unless they specifically ask to have it be done.

There is a world of difference between :
1.  Deciding that you do not believe the teachings of the church and leaving it; and,
2.  Deciding that the church is an enemy to be fought, and actively doing so.

In the second case, you are quite literally turning on the community and tearing it down.  If you wish to leave the church, you are perfectly free to do so, and although you will get quite a few baked goods from (sometimes excessively) nice people trying to get you to come back, the church will never do anything more than mildly annoying to achieve that goal.  (Say, knocking on your door, or calling you, which they'd do anyway--but if you tell them to stop doing that as well, they will do so.)

If you fight against the church from within, then the church has every right to say, "You hate us, you're trying to destroy what we have built, and so unless you stop you cannot be part of us anymore."  You have no obligation to feed a tapeworm lodged in your intestine; it takes from you until it kills you.  Similarly, if members of a community actively and willfully attack it, then they are not contributing members but a disease.

Whether you believe that the doctrines of the Mormon church are true is, in this case, irrelevant.  These rules about communities would apply just as well to Muslims, Jews, Catholics, or The Esoteric Brethren of the Elucidated Elbow, whom I made up just now based on a memory of a Terry Pratchett book.

If I may ask, does the Church of LDS have a dotrine in place for those who wish to enact legitimate reform within the faith?  To many people legitimate dissent can come across as trying to "tear down" the community.  I would point to the example you yourself have given as positive change, I cannot imagine the leaders of your church woke up one day and deciding on a whim that black people should be allowed full membership rights.  Stagnation is just as, if not more, damaging to a faith as unfocused change.
Logged

"If it had not been for the discontent of a few fellows who had not been satisfied with their conditions, you would still be living in caves. Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization.

Progress is born of agitation. It is agitation or stagnation."
     -Eugene Debs (1855- 1926)
Laserlips
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2008, 13:48:59 EST »

There is a very fine line there, and it's not one I'm always comfortable with, but one of the basic principles of the church is that the Prophet speaks for God.  You are perfectly free to disagree with God, you just can't also retain the privileges of church membership.

That isn't to say that the things the Prophet speaks about are generally very controversial.  Gay marriage is the first big effort like this in a long time--the only other historical instances I know about are opposing the Civil Rights Amendment and the end of Prohibition.  (And no, I don't much like the sound of that first one--but I don't know the context of the decision, either.)

All of that being said, there is also a difference between "The Prophet" and the man who holds that office.  There are many statements recorded by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, where they said something REALLY strange, and then some people assume it's doctrine and teach it in Sunday School and other people assume it's official Church teaching and attack it.  (For example, Smith thought that there may have been people on the Moon, and Young sincerely believed that interracial marriage was a sin.)

The leaders of the Church aren't perfect, but when they clearly say that they are speaking for God, the choice is: in or out.  There isn't any middle ground to pick and choose which revelations are okay; it's all or nothing.  And that's how it should be.  If God really is speaking, then he isn't going to only be accurate a percentage of the time; if he's not speaking through the leaders of the church, then you should get out of the church and find where the truth really is.

And just to clarify something: the Book of Mormon teaches that a group of people's skin was changed in color to separate them from the people who were supposed to be obeying the commandments.  If you've ever READ the book, however, you'll note that often, the "cursed" people were much more righteous and good than the "blessed" people.  In fact, one of the big figures of the book is Samuel the Lamanite, a prophet who was called from the "cursed" people to the "blessed" people to tell them to repent because Christ was going to be born soon.  (The "blessed" people tried to kill him.)  Nowhere in the book does it say that black people are going to hell.  It says that wicked people are going to be unhappy, no matter what color their skin is.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith did not tell slaves to suck it up and stay slaves--he said that war was a bad thing, and civil war was worse.  He didn't encourage slaves to run away, he encouraged slave owners to set them free.  He wanted a peaceful, legal solution to the issue of slavery.  I guess that darn Republican warmonger Lincoln had a better idea, although it was also a lot bloodier.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Mormons for Romney kind of sounds like it might be a palindrome, but it isn't.
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2008, 18:51:06 EST »

That said, nobody should be disowned for being excommunicated.  That, however, is a problem with families, not religious communities (and it certainly isn't exclusive to Mormonism.)

I'd disagree that it's not at the feet of the community. It is also at the feet of the family, but the community has effectively said "You're not one of Us. Get out of here." It's startlingly hard for a family to stay in that community and maintain that they haven't disowned the excommunicated member.

As you say, this isn't a particularly Mormon thing, but neither is it non-Mormon.

There is a world of difference between :
1.  Deciding that you do not believe the teachings of the church and leaving it; and,
2.  Deciding that the church is an enemy to be fought, and actively doing so.

False dichotomy. We're talking about people who've said "no, I don't want to take rights off other people. I don't want to meddle in affairs of non-believers." This is not fighting the church, yet the church takes offense.

(The LDS church, though, has taken offense so often that they could re-do the agrarian revolution...)

If you fight against the church from within, then the church has every right to say, "You hate us, you're trying to destroy what we have built, and so unless you stop you cannot be part of us anymore."  You have no obligation to feed a tapeworm lodged in your intestine; it takes from you until it kills you.  Similarly, if members of a community actively and willfully attack it, then they are not contributing members but a disease.

Nice dehumanisation, there. Do you do that with apostates too?

The leaders of the Church aren't perfect, but when they clearly say that they are speaking for God, the choice is: in or out.

The lawmakers aren't perfect either, but they clearly say "you can be tax exempt, or you can be a political entity". The current "prophet" clearly wants it both ways.

And, no, this isn't a solely Mormon thing either.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Laserlips
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #26 on: December 08, 2008, 02:10:01 EST »

Then I guess we'll have to pay taxes.  Boo hoo.  Worse things have happened.  If paying taxes is the price for believing and speaking as we do, then I'm pretty sure that we'll pay them.  Render unto Caesar, and so forth.

Diseases are made up of living things, just like bodies are.  The difference is between cells that work together, and cells which are free individuals and do their own thing.  We call those cancer, and they kill bodies.  It is possible to be a cancerous person in your society, and if you refuse to stop the correct answer is expulsion.  Cancer cells are still alive, just as much as other cells are.  The way they behave makes them dangerous.

Mostly, though, you need to understand that you don't get to change the rules of a community because you don't like them.  Follow the rules or leave.  I don't know why that choice bothers you.

There's a third choice, of course: follow the rules which you don't like for now, and work from within the community to understand and fix the problems that do exist.  That one is the correct choice.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Mormons for Romney kind of sounds like it might be a palindrome, but it isn't.
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #27 on: December 08, 2008, 02:42:10 EST »

Diseases are made up of living things, just like bodies are.  The difference is between cells that work together, and cells which are free individuals and do their own thing.  We call those cancer, and they kill bodies.  It is possible to be a cancerous person in your society, and if you refuse to stop the correct answer is expulsion.  Cancer cells are still alive, just as much as other cells are.  The way they behave makes them dangerous.

Actually, unless you can produce children at an alarming rate, you can't be considered cancerous. Nor can you be considered viral unless you insert yourself into people, generate hundreds of copies, and then pull a full Alien on them coming out. Considering someone to be bacterial... well... People who give food to the homeless also fill that description. Nowhere near as bad as you might have though, huh?

To be fully frank with you, I'm not going to let you get away with dehumanising people who do things you don't like. That way lies bad things.

Mostly, though, you need to understand that you don't get to change the rules of a community because you don't like them.  Follow the rules or leave.  I don't know why that choice bothers you.

Then you haven't been reading.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #28 on: December 08, 2008, 18:40:58 EST »

Medivh, that way lies great things.

Once you dehumanize everyone and realize there is nothing special or particularly praiseworthy about the species, life gets a lot less burdensome.  Then you can become an oil magnate and kill a man with a bowling pin, just like in There Will Be Blood, which makes one long for the day you could kill huckster's with bowling pins, which I think was the point of the movie.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Himatsu
Political Commentator
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #29 on: December 08, 2008, 18:58:10 EST »

Nice dehumanisation, there. Do you do that with apostates too?

Of course. Apostates are terrible people because personal failure (to follow the prophet, to be a good wife, to not be gay...) is the only reason anyone ever leaves the faith, or so mormons would have you believe.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!