Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Go check out the Kirk Cameron thread - rather than agree that Cameron is off his rocker for altering Darwin's book and distributing it, people would rather step in and defend him and say, "Gee, it's just what he believes; give him a break."<< How many people need to pile on, though, before it becomes too much? That, I think, is what some are objecting to.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Is it about people fighting for the right to worship as they please or is it about scoring points showing how foolish religion is?<< I feel very confident in saying, for me, it's about fighting for rights. I don't care what people believe. I really don't. It may not seem that way because when we discuss religion on these boards, it's frequently done in conjunction with another issue that is about peoples' rights - most obviously, gay rights. Like I've said before, if Tom Cruise wants to believe Xenu is on his way back to destroy earth, more power to him. I. Could. Care. Less. But if Tom Cruise starts trying to pass laws to build a giant laser to shoot Xenu down, and he wants to use my tax dollars to do so, then I'm going to have something to say about it. 2oony, I promise you and I are much more closely aligned in our thinking than it might seem. I have deeply religious friends. I have Mormon friends who are brilliant; they've studied and they've read and they know their stuff, and they've chosen to remain faithful members. Yes, they're in a very small minority in the Mormon world - perhaps it is different in larger Christianity - but they're there. I begrudge them nothing. I respect them and honor them for their choices. But, the difference is what I illuminated before. For these people, once they've studied and read and chosen a path of faith, they also know that they choose that path because it's the right thing FOR THEM. They are no longer so naive to believe it works for everyone. They are no longer under any delusions that they "know" it's true. So they live quiet lives of faith, minding their own business and drawing strength from their beliefs. They, in short, are humble enough to know that this is what works for them, and they would never be so arrogant or presumptuous as to assume it's what works for everyone, or that their beliefs are foolproof. All that said, I can of course admit that I can get carried away. In my frustration, or when I'm surrounded by like-minded people, I can be guilty of painting to broadly, or joking too much, or feeling a little too good about my own position and deriding others. I don't mean to - no more than anyone else means to get carried away. And like I've said, that's the problem with discussing religion. Just by virtue of disagreeing - no matter how politely you do it - you've already implied several things. It's hard to get away from that. >>How many people need to pile on, though, before it becomes too much? That, I think, is what some are objecting to.<< But that's not a reflection on religious belief or lack thereof; it's just the nature of these boards. If there's a controversial topic, people are going to chime in. And if there's a topic where people are joking, they'll definitely chime in. People aren't trying to pile on (though I can see why it might seem that way), they're just trying to participate. It's no different in DCA when people are "piling on" the few people that think DCA is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Religion teaches people that they can know everything about how they have to navigate through life very easily. All they need to do is pray, read the Bible, and go to church. They can know all about homosexuality, the healthcare debate, geopolitical issues, etc. - all through prayer and church. God will tell them whether something is good or bad, right or wrong. And that's all they need to know.> I don't believe all of that. I can believe that God can tell us what is right and wrong,k but He doesn't always. In the LDS church, we are told time and time again to study something out before even asking God about it.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <It teaches them that they don't need to take a whole semester of critical thinking, or reason and logic classes from the philosophy or math department. They don't need to take an ethics class. They don't need to take history classes on the founding of America or our religious history;> Not the LDS church. All of those courses are offered by the church-owned schools and universities.
Originally Posted By utahjosh < Go check out the Kirk Cameron thread - rather than agree that Cameron is off his rocker for altering Darwin's book and distributing it, people would rather step in and defend him and say, "Gee, it's just what he believes; give him a break." And these same people would never, ever extend that same courtesy to atheists or Muslim fundamentalists.> Kirk is handing out a book. Muslim fundamentalists are killing thousands of innocent people.
Originally Posted By ecdc Josh, for once we agree. Mormonism does indeed place a high premium on education - real education, not Pat Robertson U. Shame that they engage in such cognitive dissonance when their education clashes with their religious beliefs, such as gay marriage. Fortunately some don't; there's BYU professors who have spoken out. They've promptly been fired, of course.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <But very few people I know have always had an absolutely unshakable faith, almost all of them have been through a journey of soul-searching, of questioning, of wonder "what if?" Moments of doubt, moments of reflection, and some received what, to them, is a clear sign that God exists. Other friends have had those moments and came from them sure that God does not exist. > Amen. I've had many soul-searching moments. I've had plenty of doubts. I still have doubts on certain ideas and theories, but I do know without a doubt that God lives, Jesus is my savior, and many other things.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < However, the inner drive that pushes us to do it does not have its foundation in physical evidence and rational logic.> Of course it does. Science builds on what came before; what has already been proven and the laws of nature or physics or what have you. <So, it's faith that drives the advancement of science.> No. Not to get too semantic here, but there's a difference between faith and hope. No scientist worth his salt says "I know I can discover a cure for cancer." If he has that kind of faith he's not a very good scientist. He says "I hope I can, but it's quite possible this line of research will prove a dead end, as others have. Still, I hope for the best." <If you turn to science, your faith is in science. Science is your God. It's no different. > No. Wrong. I happen to believe in God, but I turn to science in areas where that makes sense. If I have a bacterial infection, I'll take an anti-biotic, because that has been proven to work. That doesn't make science my "God." God and science are an apple and orange, and shouldn't be posited as either opposites, or alternates. I'm with 2oony in that I think very reasonable people can still have faith (and I like to believe I'm one of them), and I'm with ecdc when he says that we must be humble enough to recognize that one size does not fit all. And, of course, we must recognize that we do not, thankfully, live in a theocracy.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Shame that they engage in such cognitive dissonance when their education clashes with their religious beliefs, such as gay marriage. Fortunately some don't; there's BYU professors who have spoken out. They've promptly been fired, of course.>> It's also a shame that zealots like Hafen keep insisting that homosexuality can be "cured" as if it was a disease. All of your homosexual inclinations will be removed if you have enough of the "right kind" of faith. Yeah. And I can control my desire to sleep in the afternoon simply by praying away my narcolepsy. Same diff. Gay marriage has yet to destroy heterosexual marriage in Massachusetts, where the divorce rate is actually dropping. Many heterosexual couples in Iowa are now capitulating, publicly admitting that their fears regarding gay marriage were unfounded when they argued against it in the past. And gay marriage has yet to destroy heterosexual marriage in other countries where it is legal, such as Canada. It's only a matter of time for the Mormons to come around on homosexuality as they did regarding equality of the non-white races. It took decades, but they eventually decided that the higher power was not "punishing" the darker skinned peoples for their sins. But it wasn't until that rhetoric became too embarrassing and politically damaging that they dropped it. I guess the homosexuality issue isn't much different. Once gay marriage becomes the norm and DOMA is overturned, then we'll see the LDS "enlightenment" on the issue. Until then, it'll be more of the same.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<And, of course, we must recognize that we do not, thankfully, live in a theocracy. >> Which is why people like Kirk Cameron need to be called out for the wingnuts they are. Those zealots WANT and DEMAND a Christian theocracy. That's why they're dangerous.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <It's only a matter of time for the Mormons to come around on homosexuality as they did regarding equality of the non-white races. It took decades, but they eventually decided that the higher power was not "punishing" the darker skinned peoples for their sins. But it wasn't until that rhetoric became too embarrassing and politically damaging that they dropped it. I guess the homosexuality issue isn't much different.> I don't know what the future holds in all details of the LDS church in relations to understanding homosexuality. However, what will never change is our belief that sex is only valid in the eyes of God between a husband and wife.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Never say never, Josh. I believe you had prophets saying black people could never be considered equals.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<However, what will never change is our belief that sex is only valid in the eyes of God between a husband and wife.>> Similar statements were made decades ago from your church leaders regarding the "colored people." My money is on the future and the tides of change. Social mores are changing, including beliefs regarding sexuality and homosexuals. You might not be alive to witness it personally, but if your church is still in existence several decades from now, that definition of "between a husband and wife" will eventually be rendered non-gender specific, to "between spouses." LDS has re-written their beliefs before, and will do so again.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Bingo, Dabob2. How quickly these religious followers forget their own church's sordid history.
Originally Posted By utahjosh That was never doctrine. Opinions of the day. Misunderstandings were had about black people by leaders of the church. Misunderstandings about the Law of Chastity, as we call it(sex between anyone who's not man and wife is forbidden) will never, ever, never, ever change. Guaranteed.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Comparing this to the black issue is not valid. That was never a completely understood doctrine. There are some things about homosexuality we dont' understand, and i'm sure that will change. But the doctrine about sex outside of man and wife will never change, no matter how much you think it will.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<That was never doctrine. Opinions of the day. Misunderstandings were had about black people by leaders of the church.>> Same argument can be made about the current LDS leadership's battle against homosexuals and gay marriage. <<Misunderstandings about the Law of Chastity, as we call it(sex between anyone who's not man and wife is forbidden) will never, ever, never, ever change. Guaranteed.>> If that's indeed the case... then as society continues to change in its acceptance of homosexuality as a natural part of the human condition, your church will continue to lose relevance, until it's merely an entry in the history books of religion. Since your LDS leaders (like most leaders of organized religions) are mainly about wealth and power and control, they will never allow the church to be discarded in the dust bin of antiquity, which will force them to change along with the rest of society. Using history as our guide, your church will be doomed to extinction if it continues preaching against homosexuality and gay marriage. LDS is not on the winning side of this argument. They will be forced to change in order to survive.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Comparing this to the black issue is not valid. That was never a completely understood doctrine.> Well, isn't that convenient. That of course is the line NOW. At the time, the pronouncements could hardly have been more clear or - pardon the pun - black and white. <There are some things about homosexuality we dont' understand, and i'm sure that will change.> Of course, the more that is understood about homosexuality, the more it is clear that it is simply a natural variant of sexuality in general. <But the doctrine about sex outside of man and wife will never change, no matter how much you think it will.> Do *I* think it will? One thing I will never do is attempt to fathom the logic of certain religions in anything other than academic fashion. Considering how long it took the Catholic church to come around on the whole earth revolving around the sun thing, it might indeed take a while. But I think you fool yourself if you think it could never, ever happen, based on other things that supposedly could never ever happen without your church, but did. And it'll probably be chalked up to "never a completely understood doctrine."
Originally Posted By ecdc >>That was never doctrine. Opinions of the day. Misunderstandings were had about black people by leaders of the church.<< Josh, you're only proving the point that these things do change and understandings do shift. Leaders TODAY say it was never doctrine. Leaders THEN did say it was doctrine. Modern attempts to paint this as past opinions won't fly. Mormon leaders called it doctrine; they called it the will of the Lord. They said since it's doctrine it would never change. Sound familiar? As for saying issues involving marriage are different, how then do you explain polygamy? Brigham Young said you had to be a polygamist to get to the highest level of the celestial kingdom. Polygamy was the highest law and the single most important doctrine in Mormonis for 50 years. And we have the same modern attempts to paint it as something else. Fortunately historians remind us of the truth. There is very good precedent to believe the church will change its tune on gay marriage someday.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <If that's indeed the case... then as society continues to change in its acceptance of homosexuality as a natural part of the human condition, your church will continue to lose relevance, until it's merely an entry in the history books of religion. > You wish.
