- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald wrote:
I guess I’m more of a Captain Moroni type of guy. I will kill if I have to to protect my home (property) and my family, friends, or another community member from being physically harmed – and I wouldn’t apologize for doing so either.
Now I certainly wouldn’t do ANYTHING just because the prophet says so. You will certainly notice i left religion out of my first comment. I think way, way too many folks have killed and been killed all in the name of god – and I don’t subscribe to that at all. I question the validity of the Bible, and I REALLY, REALLY question the parts where it talks about god “commanding” and condoning Israel to massacre entire populations of “gentiles”, men, women and children (and even the cats and dogs). I don’t think so.
Cwald – That’s a good point I didn’t consider before. I do believe there are times that killing is justified – in self-defense & protecting one’s family etc. And as you mentioned, that has nothing to do with what the prophet says – it’s like instinct. If somebody threatens, then you step in & take care of it. I was just watching something about that – & how women (deep down) look for a man who is willing to die for her & their future family, if needed.
findingmyownfooting wrote:…I believe in free agency and not just the kind that says I am free to follow the prophet/church or be cast out. I think there is many lists of do’s and don’t’s and that it sounds very much like how the pharisees were which Jesus criticized. I know that trying to better oneself for an external source like the church or God is effective but wouldn’t it be better if it just came from with-in us.
Well put. It seems like a balance that isn’t easy. Seemingly, some people, need structure & guidance (even in the form of peer pressure) to choose well, then others choose well from their own mind & heart. Maybe blindly-obedient members are like a child who has had everything decided for them. If they were all of a sudden thrown out to fend for themselves – what would happen? Initially, they’d probably struggle & wander – but ultimately maybe by following their internal compass, they’d be stronger & more Christ-like. Maybe some church leaders are similar to the pharisees, fearing the loss of (illusional- immediate) control.Old-Timer wrote:This is such a tricky line to walk, since there is a deeply important aspect of community survival that rests solidly on following the chosen leaders of that community – no matter the nature of that community.
I agree. It’s something I keep debating in my mind – to contribute & get along in the church, but still maintain my own individuality. There’s a tendancy to just go along, not thinking – it’s easier, in a way. But there’s a passion inside that says, “No! I can’t put all of my trust in others. I’ve got to find my security within myself.” That way, I’ll not only have more to contribute but I’ll also grow more, spiritually. I crave belonging & know that I’m stronger & better as part of a group, than alone. Yet part of my potential is independent of anyone else – because ultimately, spirituality is personal.I believe it “takes a village to raise a child.” I think the church teachings give a good foundation in many ways…no smoking or drinking, dating when 16, waiting until marriage to have sex & no rated R movies. I think values like these are good & important to be able to choose well in other aspects. Some say they can teach their kids values without organized religion, but I think since children & teens often don’t listen to their parents & can be more influenced by peers & other adults, the church can help in this way. I just don’t want to be, nor see, anyone be robotic.
I believe that the LDS church is a great place to have children taught good values and is a great social structure. It’s the people in the individual wards that make the LDS church appear great- wonderful people acting out of pure love and kindness towards others. There are awesome Christians in the LDS church in spite of the many confusing and conflicting doctrines taught each week. It’s awesome that people can weed through the non-essentials and get to what matters- loving each other. I would venture that all TBM’s believe that the current prophet helps them follow Christ and actually speaks on His behalf. Those people will do whatever the prophet asks because of the aforementioned foundational belief. They will serve, give money, give time and perform rituals for salvation of self and others even it seems a little strange at first. They will also kill, marry additional wives in secret, take secret oaths, etc. That should not surprise any of us because of the LDS History that we know all to well. Mountain meadows and other historical events would definitely happen again if the right circumstances were present.
I separate my belief in the LDS church and my belief if God and Christ. Men cannot be trusted and are fallible- we all are. I will not follow a command from a man if it conflicts with Christ’s teachings. Easier said than done- I know, but I will wrestle with the possible “conflicting words” of Christ and come to a decision rather than blindly following a man who claims to be speaking for God.
Admin note: This is going to be one of those very blunt comments, but I am not going to apologize in advance for writing it. We can’t let extreme hyperbole go unaddressed here, and I am responding to one of the most extreme statements anyone has ever typed here. I am doing so slowly and carefully, editing as I go – not reacting in the heat of emotion in any way.Quote:They will also kill, marry additional wives in secret, take secret oaths, etc.
That simply isn’t backed up by ANY evidence – none at all.
1) Mountain Meadows was an isolated example of people who reacted horribly to a very tense situation – and there just isn’t any conclusive evidence that it was ordered by Brigham Young, especially when the entire plan for the territory at large was a scorched earth approach, not a military one. It was terribly wrong, but there is no historical reason to hold it up as an example of what was typical then or would be typical now. There also is NO clear evidence that any modern LDS prophet ordered regular members to kill, especially if direct self-defense is exempted – and
there is NO historical reason to believe that regular members did so, would have done so or will do so in the future. 2) The VAST majority of LDS members did NOT practice polygamy, despite statements linking it to the highest eternal reward. That is critical to any charge like the one you just made.
The regular membership acted differently than the standard that was being preached by the Prophet at that time.We’re talking about over 90% of the membership NOT practicing polygamy – and the VAST majority who did were not doing so “in secret”. They did so openly. To claim otherwise is to distort history in a very egregious manner. My3GirlsDad,
It’s one thing to not believe in the prophetic authority of the global leadership on the LDS Church. We all can have different views on that particular question. It is a different thing altogether to call most Mormons (and pretty much all who are “true, believing Mormons”) willing killers and secretive polygamists at heart. It’s important to understand that the term “TBM” is used generally as a broad classification on-line as a description of the majority of faithful members – at least 30% of the membership of record, at least 70% of the fully active membership and at least 90% of the temple recommend holding membership.
I mean this next statement very literally, and I say it only to make a very important point:
That is very serious slander, because it is factually wrong.You point to our history to make a charge that simply is not supported at all by that history. It is beyond unproductive; it actually is destructive of any chance for a personal result other than bitterness and never-ending conflict. Think carefully about this:
Why in the world would you want to support your wife and children in associating each Sunday primarily with people you classify as killers in waiting – in growing up to become killers in waiting? That’s what your comment here says they will become if they become “true, believing members” – and, again, there is absoluely no historical evidence to back up that claim. On a purely anecdotal basis, I also know of no active member in my current or former ward who would respond to an order to kill or marry another wife secretly with a, “Yes, sir. Whatever you say, sir.” There might be someone who would, but I have no objective, over-powering reason to assume or believe that they would.
You are defining TBM in an incredibly narrow, most extreme way – but that term is understood on-line to mean almost everyone who is a faithful member. There is no hope for any nuanced understanding or charity with such an extreme view – none, whatsoever. In fact, it is about as uncharitable a conclusion as it is possible to reach.
Ray, You have taken this way too far. Take a deep breath and hear me out. You stated:
Quote:That simply isn’t backed up by ANY evidence – none at all.
I think you need to check your facts or at least fill in the dots a bit. Here are the facts:
1) Blood Atonement was taught by Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. Mormons in their day believed that they spoke for God- literally.
2) One of the Temple oaths in the days of the MMM was: “You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.” (The Reed Smoot Case, vol. 4, pp. 495-496)
3) John D Lee and others received orders from Isaac C Haight- his priesthood leader.
The point I made is that when people believe that a man is speaking for God- they will do almost anything because they believe they are following
God. That is not a good thing if that man teaches doctrine that is in conflict to Christ’s teachings and then threatens members with excommunication if they don’t accept the doctrines of the current “vessels of the Lord.” I didn’t say that it was ordered by Brigham Young- and you said I did. I know what the term TBM means- and your definition is broader than mine. To me it stands for True or Total Believing Member- someone who believes that the current prophet speaks for God and that the LDS church is God’s Kingdom on the earth. If you go against what the current prophet directs or teaches- then you are in opposition to God. That is pretty weighty to someone who has not separated God and church and thank goodness the leadership of the LDS church are good men and fear God. I don’t think we will be confronted with a situation like this again but for you to insinuate that the teachings of the prophet at the time and the temple oaths had little to do with what happened at MMM is a bit naive in my opinion.
I support my wife and kids in the church because I respect individual agency and where people’s hearts are. I don’t judge Brigham Young harshly because I think he really believed that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that he spoke for God. I lay all the blame at the foot of Joseph Smith- I believe he alone took advantage of faithful people who perpetuated his lies out of their love for and faith in God. I believe he purposefully deceived them. I don’t blame anyone for following what they really believe- and I will support my family in their chosen path to follow God. But I do hope that they have “eyes to see and ears to hear” in the same way I do at some point in the future. Because I also believe that the way I believe is correct and better in every way- that’s why I choose what I consider to be the “right” way.
You cannot argue that fact that people are willing to die for their beliefs. Muslims blow themselves up and those involved in MMM thought they were following their priesthood leaders and keeping promises made in the temple. I believe the potential for blind obedience by TB Members of ANY religion exists today. TB Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists, Jehovah’s Witnesses- many would commit acts which have occurred in history all over again for the simple fact that
they think that they are doing it in the name of God.Do I really need to site historical examples of this occurring? Look at Ireland’s history. If you want to take it further than this then that is your perogative. I think you really over-reacted and missed the point almost entirely. PS I read through my post again and I know that I am coming back at you somewhat strongly. I did feel attacked by your post as I am confident you felt attacked by mine. I hope we can agree to disagree- I don’t mean to bring contention here and if I have then I apologize.
What was or may have been then was then and what’s now is now. The LDS Church today is not the church of JS or BY’s times either in form or substance and the members today aren’t like the ones them that feared for their lives and families because of their religion. Appling then to now is always tricky and rarely useful. Time to move on unless you can’t. My3GirlsDad wrote:Ray, You have taken this way too far…I did feel attacked by your post as I am confident you felt attacked by mine.
Yeah, probably. We all have some soft spots in the ol’ hide, and I guess Ray is human too.
Perhaps you should have made it clear that you think there are “some” TBM that would…. rather than saying “All”. There are some fanaticals in every religion on the planet – including the one you choose to attend that’s not full of mormons.
GBSmith wrote:What was or may have been then was then and what’s now is now. The LDS Church today is not the church of JS or BY’s times either in form or substance and the members today aren’t like the ones them that feared for their lives and families because of their religion. Appling then to now is always tricky and rarely useful. Time to move on unless you can’t.
I don’t think that is a fair statement to make. I think part of the reason for this site is to “work on these issues” that are tough and that have been/are causing folks to question their faith. I don’t think it is fair to say “get over and move on.” If it is – let me know and I will “move on.”
Quote:I think you need to check your facts or at least fill in the dots a bit. Here are the facts:
1) Blood Atonement was taught by Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. Mormons in their day believed that they spoke for God- literally.
2) One of the Temple oaths in the days of the MMM was: “You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.” (The Reed Smoot Case, vol. 4, pp. 495-496)
3) John D Lee and others received orders from Isaac C Haight- his priesthood leader.
The point I made is that when people believe that a man is speaking for God- they will do almost anything because they believe they are following God. That is not a good thing if that man teaches doctrine that is in conflict to Christ’s teachings and then threatens members with excommunication if they don’t accept the doctrines of the current “vessels of the Lord.”
Yep.
And I was going to give a discourse on JS and his “secret” wives – but I won’t. I think everybody here knows the history of polygamy, and i hope no one is claiming it WAS NOT done in secret. Come on folks? I have a great-great that was married to a third wife “in secret” because if it hadn’t been he would have been thrown in jail. It’s well documented that polygamy was done in secret.
Quote:I know what the term TBM means- and your definition is broader than mine. To me it stands for True or Total Believing Member- someone who believes that the current prophet speaks for God and that the LDS church is God’s Kingdom on the earth. If you go against what the current prophet directs or teaches- then you are in opposition to God. That is pretty weighty to someone who has not separated God and church and thank goodness the leadership of the LDS church are good men and fear God. I don’t think we will be confronted with a situation like this again but for you to insinuate that the teachings of the prophet at the time and the temple oaths had little to do with what happened at MMM is a bit naive in my opinion.
yeah, I agree. With the entire paragraph.
Quote:I don’t judge Brigham Young harshly because I think he really believed that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that he spoke for God. I lay all the blame at the foot of Joseph Smith- I believe he alone took advantage of faithful people who perpetuated his lies out of their love for and faith in God. I believe he purposefully deceived them. I don’t blame anyone for following what they really believe- and I will support my family in their chosen path to follow God. But I do hope that they have “eyes to see and ears to hear” in the same way I do at some point in the future. Because I also believe that the way I believe is correct and better in every way- that’s why I choose what I consider to be the “right” way.
I’m not really sure about that paragraph. A little bit of a slap in the face to say “the way i believe is correct and better in every way” than yours. Isn’t that why many people “dislike” the mormon church so much, because they have TBMs that say that very “exact” same thing? Kind of hypocritical wouldn’t you say? Anyway, I will respect your opinion though, and hope your “the right way” works out for you.
Quote:You cannot argue that fact that people are willing to die for their beliefs. Muslims blow themselves up I believe the potential for blind obedience by TB Members of ANY religion exists today. TB Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists, Jehovah’s Witnesses- many would commit acts which have occurred in history all over again for the simple fact that they think that they are doing it in the name of God.
Yeah, I agree with that – but be fair about it, you forgot to include those same people you are sitting by when you attend the “christian” church without your wife and kids.
Quote:“I don’t think it is fair to say “get over and move on.” If it is – let me know and I will “move on.”
Sorry cwald, that didn’t come out very well. We get over these things when we’re ready and I know it’s not helpful to have someone tell you to do that. My point was that if we beat up on the church because of what happened in the past and when the things that happened or taught have been disavowed, then it’s literally beating a dead horse. We make ourselves angry and upset and for what? I’ve made my peace with all of that and it’s had to do with coming to terms with my belief that God had precious little to do with any of it. Today is all we have.
Fwiw, I really didn’t feel attacked by your comment personally, M3GD. I’m not a TBM by your definition, and I’m not a TBM by most other people’s definition, even though I do serve in a visible local calling and am a very “faithful” member. Everyone here knows I wouldn’t kill or marry secretly if told to do so by a Prophet, so it wasn’t personal in any way. I’m surprised you think of me as a TBM (as you have defined it) after everything I’ve written here, and I didn’t make that connection when I read your comment. Hyperbole is almost impossible to address properly – and it’s very difficult to address something that is held dearly as Absolute Truth in any way that is a real disagreement without the other person jumping to conclusions and creating new battles instead of constructive discussions. That is true of a “TBM” who feels attacked by a “non-believer” – but it also is true of a non-believer who feels attakced by a TBM. Each extreme has a very difficult time even trying to react without extreme responses – and extreme responses only exacerbate the situation. They never solve it.
If you look closely at my comment, I didn’t take an extreme position. I didn’t say polygamy was never practiced secretly, and I didn’t say no Mormon ever killed anyone else. I also didn’t say the rhetoric of the time had nothing to do with Mountain Meadows Massacre. I don’t want to address things I didn’t say, and I’m not going to do so. I was addressing your claim that “all TBM’s” will kill or marry secretly if told to do so by the Prophet – and there really is no historical evidence for that claim. In fact, the historical evidence says that most (the very large majority) will not.
I would love to continue this, but it has to be about what I actually said – with direct quotes. Please re-read my comment. I spoke very carefully. Parse what I actually said and address it. It’s the only way to be constructive – and it’s the only way to make sure the nuances and disclaimers I included are understood and acknowledged. Otherwise, we end up attacking positions that neither person actually takes.
GBSmith wrote:Quote:“I don’t think it is fair to say “get over and move on.” If it is – let me know and I will “move on.”
Quote:Sorry cwald, that didn’t come out very well. We get over these things when we’re ready and I know it’s not helpful to have someone tell you to do that. My point was that if we beat up on the church because of what happened in the past and when the things that happened or taught have been disavowed, then it’s literally beating a dead horse. We make ourselves angry and upset and for what? I’ve made my peace with all of that and it’s had to do with coming to terms with my belief that God had precious little to do with any of it. Today is all we have.
No problem. Well said.
I think it’s more helpful to think of Brigham Young as an incredible organizer and politician, who guided his church through a very tough time, and helped it expand. I think some of the spiritual stuff he said, which is usually edited out of modern LDS literature, is a bit hard to stomach, but the reason we’re here today is because of him. Joseph Smith had just been murdered, the church had splintered and was on the move, he took it to the right place at the right time, and established a base and a structure, and founded the major city of the Rocky Mountains. True, he made some mistakes too, such as the Deseret Alphabet, and he was responsible for some dubious activities. (Although nothing on the European history of certain other major churches – Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Orthodox etc)
The polygamy and racism side are thankfully out of the way, bar a few rebel sects in the US and Mexico.
The positive legacy of BY can be seen in the State of Utah, SLC, and the diverse origins of many people in “Deseret”. I suppose sometimes you need a hammer instead of a Gandhi…
Quote:Look at Ireland’s history. If you want to take it further than this then that is your perogative.
The interesting thing about Irish history is that is exactly how the Brits have played it, and tried to make it appear.
Yes, there have been sectarian biases in Irish history, but the first modern Irish nationalist rebellion was mainly Protestant, not RC – 1798.
Since then the British have used every dirty trick to try and enforce religious prejudice. This is not unique to Ireland. They exploited religious divides in India-Pakistan, Palestine, and even the nascent USA – they told the Catholics in the old 13 Colonies that they’d defend them against the evil Proddies like Washington.
I wanted to point this out…
My3GirlsDad wrote:I believe that the LDS church is a great place to have children taught good values and is a great social structure. It’s the people in the individual wards that make the LDS church appear great- wonderful people acting out of pure love and kindness towards others. There are awesome Christians in the LDS church in spite of the many confusing and conflicting doctrines taught each week. It’s awesome that people can weed through the non-essentials and get to what matters- loving each other. …
I separate my belief in the LDS church and my belief if God and Christ. Men cannot be trusted and are fallible- we all are. I will not follow a command from a man if it conflicts with Christ’s teachings. Easier said than done- I know, but I will wrestle with the possible “conflicting words” of Christ and come to a decision rather than blindly following a man who claims to be speaking for God.
I left out the middle paragraph. But I think basically you were saying that SOME TBM’s would do whatever the prophet told them, if circumstances fit (& that’s what I worry about – like in the “last days”) & that some did extreme things before. Most people these days (even TBMs) tend to be more informed than they were in the church’s early days. Still I realize the pull that religion has during extreme (scarey) situations (ie how the churches were filled after 9-11).About your quotes above… I agree. While we can learn from those wiser than ourselves (which could be some church leaders), it is important to use the brain, & ability to discern & choose that God gave us.
Also, I agree that the people (TBM or not) who realize & live the greatest commandments (LOVE) are inspiring!
Quote:I will not follow a command from a man if it conflicts with Christ’s teachings.
I agree with that totally, but I am going to ask something again while choosing my words very carefully – with no meaning intended other than what those words say:
Why are you willing to follow Christ’s teachings above all else?Why are you convinced those teachings also aren’t commands “from a man”? Why can you be so sure that what we have recorded in the Bible about Jesus of Nazareth is accurate – or even simply that they are the best teachings on which to base your own actions? How did you reach your conclusion to use those teachings as the ultimate standard?
There used to be a saying, “no atheists in a foxhole”, but the same was often true of army chaplains too… Religion can and does help people through disasters, even minor ones. If a situation is desperate, it can give you the motivation to carry on. This is very much the positive side of religion, and we don’t hear much about it now… it’s nearly always the negative side, like how religion has been involved in war and genocide.
People like to say that religion starts wars. Actually I think greed does. Religion did not start WWI or WWII, or the Cold War, or Vietnam, or even the Middle Eastern conflicts (despite claims to the contrary). In WWII, the only major combatants with a proper religious motivation were the Japanese. The Allies used chaplains, but had armies with troops of various religions in them – Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. The Soviets were atheists (officially, though not in practice). The Nazis had a mystical/occult bent, but that was not the main motivating thing for them. They too had a few Muslim troops fighting for them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.