Originally Posted By utahjosh Assume all you want. I WAS born into an LDS family, and have said so before on these boards. I've never given up my faith completely...but I have had many times where I questioned why I believe what I believed. I've been to several other churches and anguished over things I didn't understand. To assume that it's been "simple" for me to follow the president of my church is wrong. To say I have had little or no curiosity about the world around is completely wrong and self-evident, and I'm here on WE, for crying out loud, listening to differing opinions all the time. I've traveled the world and lived in different states and experienced a big variety of what this world has to offer. Be that as it may, I do now have a firm belief that the LDS church is of God, and I choose to work in this world the way I do by choice and experience, not by naiveté. I know it's probably easier for you to incorrectly rationalize that people who share my opinions are all naive simpletons.
Originally Posted By ecdc I think you really nailed it with "little or no curiosity," Hans. I've long believed that religious zealotry is much more about personality than it is commitment to faith. I've watched it in the people around me. There are certain personality types that really thrive on a black and white view of the world. They need things to be a very set, specific way or it's difficult for them to function; their sense of order is upset. This is why I think these people are so willing to impose their will on others. It's how they make sense of the world. Conversely, there are people of faith who are very much at peace with the shades of gray in life, the differences in religion, etc. They are very curious about the world. I'd put people like Dabob2 and Kar2oonMan in this group. They strike me as people whose faith is much more personal. It's not about making sure there's prayer in school or that the teenager down the street absolutely, positively can't have an abortion. It's about getting strength from the sense that there's something larger than you out there, that there's more to life than proteins and water coming together to form self-aware beings. I'm oversimplifying here, but I do think there's a distinction to be made. Sometimes I'm envious of those of the latter kind of faith. If I could will myself to believe like that, I would. But I cannot stop my brain from telling my heart that this is all there is.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I know it's probably easier for you to incorrectly rationalize that people who share my opinions are all naive simpletons.<< No, but having been there for most of my life, I do know that there is an odd disconnect in your religious community, Josh. It's a very, very insulated culture, one that has several built-in fail-safes to ward off unpleasant questions or, yes, curiosity. I've been in your shoes, I know the kind of anguish and questioning you're referring to. Most LDS think they've been through it. I promise you they have not. There is nothing like standing at the edge of the abyss and falling in. It is years of pain and sorrow, of struggles with family and spouses and friends, and if one does emerge on the other side still LDS, it is not nearly the same kind of Mormon. And yes, there is a degree of naivete there, no matter how much you may want to insist otherwise. It is impossible, for example, to be fully versed in subjects like DNA and the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith's polyandry, revelation-on-demand, alterations to sacred texts, etc., etc., and remain a literal believer. Even the most diehard apologists at FARMS or FAIR adopt fairly liberal views of LDS theology, scripture, or history in the face of overwhelming evidence against their literalness.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***There are many, many more differences. It's not the same thing, really*** Translation - "Mine is *actually* special, and set apart from all those others"
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "To assume that it's been "simple" for me to follow the president of my church is wrong." Okay, does "convenient" work for you?
Originally Posted By PJ82858 I'd say that it would be much more "convenient" to go with the popular flow of views, not against them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 And how is Josh going against the flow of the community he was born into and stlll belongs to again?
Originally Posted By utahjosh I never said it wasn't convenient to follow my church. Never said I was going against the flow.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Right. This PJ person claimed it for you. At least you're honest enough not to claim it yourself.
Originally Posted By PJ82858 "This PJ person" didn't claim it for josh it just didn't make sense to me that Dr Hans Reinhardt said that it was convenient for one to go against the flow of the world. I wasn't talking about the flow of his community. Good Grief.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***"This PJ person" didn't claim it for josh it just didn't make sense to me that Dr Hans Reinhardt said that it was convenient for one to go against the flow of the world*** The "flow of the world" is decidedly pro-religion, and more in particular to be a Christian if you live in America. Josh belongs to a fairly obscure and extremist segment of that group, but it's a part of the group or at least claims to be. Not only that, but he lives somewhere insular and supportive at every turn. So to say that he's "going against the flow" is quite incorrect.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 ""This PJ person" didn't claim it for josh it just didn't make sense to me that Dr Hans Reinhardt said that it was convenient for one to go against the flow of the world. I wasn't talking about the flow of his community. Good Grief." Then you misread Hans. He didn't say that it was convenient to go against the flow of the world, he said it was convinient for Josh to GO along with the teaching of his leader ( and thus go along with the flow of his part of the world).
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "This PJ person" didn't claim it for josh it just didn't make sense to me that Dr Hans Reinhardt said that it was convenient for one to go against the flow of the world." I really wish people would read the context of the entire thread before chiming in with their $0.02 in response to a comment. As Dabob2 stated, you completely misread my response.
Originally Posted By PJ82858 OK, I'll try this one more time. First of all I did read the whole thread. Perhaps I'm just not explaining myself very well. >>Then you misread Hans. He didn't say that it was convenient to go against the flow of the world, he said it was convinient for Josh to GO along with the teaching of his leader<< And all I'm saying that it's NOT always convenient to go along with the teachings of the prophet when you get attacked from other side of this issue for being hateful and bigoted. And I was speaking in general, and not about Josh's particular circumstances. On this issue, it seems to me that the *flow of the world* is decidedly pro gay marriage, and I think that prop. 8 will eventually be defeated.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And all I'm saying that it's NOT always convenient to go along with the teachings of the prophet when you get attacked from other side of this issue for being hateful and bigoted. And I was speaking in general, and not about Josh's particular circumstances.> But Josh's particular circumstances are essentially those of all Mormons when it comes to going along with their prophet. He's not an aberration there, he's the norm. In the larger world, if it's not easy to be "attacked" for being bigoted, maybe that's a good thing... maybe one shouldn't be a bigot in the first place.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Both Josh - and now 'PJ' - have stated that they believe that gay marriage is an inevitability. Yet Josh - and presumeably PJ - supported Prop 8. Why? Because the church told them too. It simply may think about an issue personally - once the church issues its marching orders, it's no questions asked and brook no argument. This is the 'convenience' of religion that's referred to in this thread. All of life's major decisions and opinions have already been decided for you, and you're informed of what the "correct" answer is, regardless of what you might think. If you hold a differing view, keep it to yourself and pretend to go along. Some people seek out and want this kind of control and order imposed on them, others bridle at it and trust their own judgement instead. One step further ... voluntarily supplicating yourself and your own beliefs and opinions and your very sense of right and wrong in order to gain approval and acceptance from an outside force or group indicates a weakness of character and a lack of pride.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Rats - "It simply doesn't matter what they may think about an issue personally ..."
Originally Posted By ecdc This whole notion of "it isn't easy to go against the will of the world" is vintage Mormon persecution complex. This concept is taught to Mormon youth in Sunday school, etc. It's what Mormons said about polygamy and it's what they said when they denied blacks the priesthood and leadership positions until 1978. Unquestionably, just like these two issues of polygamy and race, someday Mormons will forget why they were so anti-gay. Now it's not uncommon to hear Mormon leaders say, "Oh we don't know why God didn't allow blacks the priesthood." Which is nonsense - the church had built an entire theology that evolved over 100 years before it collapsed in the face of pressure. Then the reasons for what happened in the past Shift from theological reasons to practical secular reasons. "Oh the world wasn't ready for black priests." Or "Oh, polygamy was necessary to take care of widowed women. It's fiction, and It'll happen again around the gay issue.
Originally Posted By utahjosh ecdc is wrong when he says that someday "Mormons will forget why" they didn't support gay marriage. Sure, the blacks and the priesthood issue was much more cloudy than he likes to think. Can you show me a comparable Church document to the Proclmation on the Family about the blacks issue?
