I’m Tired of Religious Food Fights
I’m not tired of religion, or of religious discussion. I very much enjoy a good discussion on theological concepts and their implications. But I’m tired of the juvenile “food fights,” those interactions plagued by posturing, the broad generalizations, stereotyping, condescension, and just plain silliness in the way people interact regarding religion.
I’m tired of religious people condescendingly mocking the theology and seemingly fanciful elements of other religious traditions, past and present. Talk about the pot and the kettle! How are the metaphysical concepts and stories of Buddhism, Wicca, Islam, Hinduism, or ancient legends of all sorts any more ludicrous than the belief that the the first human couple (one of whom was spawned from the rib of the other) populated the earth after having been cast from paradise for listening to a snake and eating a fruit; or that a man built a boat on which he carried a mating pair of every animal to survive a planet-wide flood; or that some man accomplished miracles in Egypt, such as turning water to blood and filling the land with frogs before leading several thousands of people through a temporary gap in the sea; or that a virgin gave birth to a God, who performed miracles and suffered for every single sin and pain in the history and future of humanity, then dying on a cross and spontaneously reanimating? For the mainstream Christians, is the idea that Jesus is the “brother of the devil,” or that all humanity can undergo apotheosis, or the miracles associated with the “Restoration of the Gospel” in LDS theology really any more fanciful than the concept of the Trinity, or the belief in their own versions of modern miracles (smaller scale prophecies, faith healings, exorcisms, etc), or mainstream Christianity’s beliefs about the post-mortal existence? For Mormons, the reverse? Is the pageantry of Catholic services, or the various ceremonies of Hinduism, Buddhism, or Shinto any more silly than the rituals we Mormons perform in the temple? We can chose to believe one system of beliefs over others and find particular meaning in a given set of rituals based on all sorts of meaningful subjective criteria, but we can’t seriously claim any of these sorts of beliefs are more objective or more rational than others.
I’m tired of mainstream Christians complaining that Mormons believe mainstream Christians are following a fallen faith and are going to hell (absent the temple work performed on their postmortal behalf). I’m tired of Mormons complaining that mainstream Christians don’t believe Mormons are Christian and are going to hell. The very reason we multiple religions exist is that people think that other people don’t quite have things right. It natural follows that each group is going to feel that the prospects of others are dubious, doesn’t it? Why get into a snit over it? There’s no need to take it personally. Just accept it and move on.
I’m tired of religious people assuming atheists are innately immoral people (or, more specifically, more immoral than theists). A belief in a higher power is not a precondition for morality (nor, history repeatedly demonstrates, is a belief in divinity sufficient to ensure morality). In my experience, atheists are on average no less committed to integrity, kindness, charity, or acts of nobility than theists. People who profess a belief in some form of deity don’t seem on average to be less capable of selfishness, cruelty, or hate. One’s character apparently isn’t defined primarily by one’s belief in God. Christians should get off their high horses and stop making such generalizations.
Same goes for the atheists. I’m tired of atheists assuming religious belief is equivalent to ignorance, bigotry, and hate. Religion has indisputably been a vehicle of ignorance and persecution many times throughout history. I have a great deal of empathy for those who have been driven out or who have renounced faith at least in part due to the many ignorant and mean-spirited things done in the name of religion, or those who have been subject to the same because of their choice to abandon faith. But religion has also been a means by which individuals throughout history have risen above their baser instincts, and by which people united to perform works of incredible kindness, charity, beauty, and good. The reality is that there is an broad spectrum of belief, practical morality, and action within religion–just as there is within atheism. The atheists I know would object to being tarred with the same brush as either Ayn Rand or Joseph Stalin (themselves each atheists of quite different stripes); Likewise, theists don’t deserve to be lumped in with the many religious cretins or hatemongers simply because they share a belief in a higher power. People should be judged based on the substance of their perspectives, words, goals, and actions, not by such superficial criteria as whether or not they believe in God.
Whatever our religion, whatever our state of belief or unbelief, we are all human beings. We are far more alike by virtue of that fact than we are divided by our belief or unbelief; a desire for love, for maximization of our potential, for safety, for community. We have made some significant advances over the roughly six-thousand years of recorded history in our ability to engage in dialogue with those who differ with us, and it seems that we should be able to interact with humility and respect in exploring these various different viewpoints. Yet the arrogance and divisiveness keeps resurfacing as we communicate with one another. Haven’t we matured enough as a society to put aside those silly disputes? I’m so tired of it.
What am I most tired of? Being guilty of any of these sins myself.
Beautiful post. It mirrors my feelings exactly. My biggest problem with our Church is the “one true Church” thing? I think there is as much room in heaven for the 99.9% of people who are NOT active-LDS people as there are for LDS folks.
One question: given this, where does missionary work fit it? If someone truly believes that non-LDS people can make it to God and that any necessarily ordinances are just “hoops” to jump through that can be done vicariously, why does it matter if someone is LDS in this life if they are a good person?
Comment by Mike S — January 28, 2010 @ 9:55 am
Loved this post. I would answer Mike S.’s question about why do missionary work with my belief - maybe it makes life a little easier? I firmly believe in a Heavenly Father who will accept my fantastic agnostic mother and Buddhist father into his loving arms just as happily as he will accept any recommend-toting Mormon like me. But I also think that missionary work and helping people see that divine relationship now, instead of later, is of value. I’m not sending the missionaries to my parents though, because I see them for the spiritual giants that they are and they seem to be doing just fine without 3 hours of church each week (I need that 3 hours of reminding, though).
As for the battle between different types of Christianity or faiths - I have never understood the insinuation that just because Mormons believe they have the “one true Church” that means they have the only true church. We are told many times over that truth can be found in many places, and that should include accepting that the many things we have in common with other religions far outweigh the few differences.
Comment by Eris — January 28, 2010 @ 10:11 am
MIke, that was a big hurdle for me to overcome when deciding to get baptized. I come from a long line of catholics–I may not have believed that the Catholic church was a good fit for me but the suggestion that my g’mas church was “wrong” and that my g’ma was wrong didn’t sit well.
obviously, the missionaries convinced me but now, 10 years later, I’m right back where I started.
Derek, have you been reading my thoughts?
Comment by mfranti — January 28, 2010 @ 10:12 am
#2: Eris
But I pose my question again: If you don’t want to send missionaries to those who you, in all likelihood, love more than anyone else because they are “spiritual giants” and are “doing just fine”, why send them to anyone else? Maybe most everyone is doing fine where they are.
Just because someone becomes LDS doesn’t automatically take away all of their problems or “make their life a little easier”. I might actually argue that there are increased stresses in life trying to do all of the myriad things expected by this church in addition to the things in life itself.
Comment by Mike S — January 28, 2010 @ 10:19 am
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Belief in God seems to be a litmus test to determine whether to give credibility to the speaker (or doer). This would mean that Pat Robertson’s ramblings about Haiti making a pact with the devil which caused the recent earthquake should be taken at face value, i.e., Pat Robertson is an old fool.
On the other hand, belief in God can’t be “superficial”. I guess I’m wondering what you mean by this? Do you mean Pat Robertson’s belief is superficial because he’s clearly a crackpot?
Comment by ECS — January 28, 2010 @ 10:22 am
MikeS,
it was my understanding the the LDS church beleives that it has more truth than any other church on earth. We have the restoration and the BOM. Therefore we have a responsibility to go out and convert.
Comment by mfranti — January 28, 2010 @ 10:22 am
and i agree.
i actually think it’s more important to teach them about math, reading and the scientific method (first) than it is to teach them about our version of truth (second). BIG
Comment by mfranti — January 28, 2010 @ 10:25 am
I totally agree, Derek.
As far as the missionary thing goes, I know that a lot of Mormons wouldn’t agree with me, but I think that there are different ways for people to successfully get in touch with their spirituality. For me, meeting the missionaries and learning about Mormon theology felt incredibly right and helped a lot of other things in my life click into place. Other people find the same comfort in the Baptist church or in Islam or in yoga or in scientific theory, and I think that’s great too. Whatever floats your particular boat, I say.
I don’t usually get my doctrine from Young Adult novels (LOL) but my kids have been reading the Percy Jackson and the Olympians series and I’ve been reading along with them. At one point in the first book, the characters go to Hades where they have to wade through the spirits that are there. To the kids visiting Hades, the place looks like a giant dark football field, filled with spirits, but someone there tells them that each spirit there is having an individual experience based on what they chose to believe in mortality. While I don’t think that will necessarily reflect our reality, I wouldn’t be surprised if we all have a little bit of a paradigm shift to go through once we reach the hereafter.
Comment by Shelah — January 28, 2010 @ 10:30 am
Bully for you, Derek. I get frustrated when I see people hunker down in muddy lice-filled trenches attempting to out-holy each other. As if a religious battle won on the bloggernacle (or at a family reunion, gots to watch myself ;-)) will be the tiffs to end all tiffs. There are casualties for sure, but never any territory gained. A discussion is only useful in proportion to the willingness of individuals to respect another and honestly consider another’s perspective.. Unless, of course, they happen to think differently than me- ha!
Comment by Moniker Challenged — January 28, 2010 @ 10:35 am
I think the reason for missionary work is the fact that there are a lot of unhappy people out there. If sharing our gospel with them helps them to be happier, haven’t we done some good? If they don’t want to hear it… that’s okay too.
Comment by April — January 28, 2010 @ 10:55 am
love.this.post.
ECS, I think Derek is saying the criteria of believing in God to be judged as a good person is superficial. Not the belief itself.
Comment by Theolina — January 28, 2010 @ 11:00 am
Wonderful post, Derek. I’ve been feeling that way myself lately. I dislike that we as Christians fight amongst ourselves over very insignificant issues regarding doctrine, when the main message is consistent. Does it really matter what road one takes to God, as long as you’re on the journey?
I also like how you put our religion in perspective…others beliefs really that silly when we consider our own? I found myself making a snide comment the other day about a friend who is of a different religion, and how I think it’s kind of weird, when my husband interrupted me to say that it is no different than our belonging to a religion that encourages cannibalism and worships a man who became a zombie.
Comment by Dancer 007 — January 28, 2010 @ 11:00 am
Amen. Everyone (including myself) should take this to heart.
Comment by James — January 28, 2010 @ 11:02 am
yay! i’m not the only one to be so irreverent and say that jesus = zombie.
Comment by mfranti — January 28, 2010 @ 11:05 am
I love the post, but I take issue with comment #12: zombies crave brains, and the risen Christ is more interested in our hearts than our brains.
Comment by Bro. Jones — January 28, 2010 @ 11:23 am
I think the gospel helps us because we see beyond ourselves and beyond our earthly existence. It shows us what our priorities should be…gospel, family, charity. I think from our limited perspective of growing up in the church, its easy for us to dismiss it as “nothing” or even ” more of a burden”. But for some people who convert, it was their saving grace. To know “where they come from, where they’re going” etc. To be able to develop a relationship with their Heavenly Parents now. I think there is a great peace that can come from living the gospel (not just “going to church”, there is a difference). I also think having a ward family is a huge help in our lives. Obviously there are situations that differ from the norm, but overall I think the gospel does more good than ill. I dont think we should get into religious fights about it, but ya, we should try share the gospel with others, NOT “convert”. I think that is where a lot of people (and sometimes the church) lose the whole point of it, and others end up being offended.
That being said, I’m struggling to get myself back to that place…where the church = peace.
Comment by anon — January 28, 2010 @ 11:27 am
Oh but Bro. Jones….what do you mean by our hearts? In reality, it is all controlled by the brain. Your heart is merely an organ that pumps blood. When we talk about hearts being softened, it usually has to deal with someone changing their way of thinking. Your brain controls all. So I think our Savior is very interested in our brains.
Comment by Dancer 007 — January 28, 2010 @ 11:31 am
My boss is a non-practicing Catholic. Every once in a while he has a question about my beliefs and the Church’s in general. We have had some great discussions about evolution and the creation of earth and man, abortion, abuse of all sorts, communion, and the general commonalities we have as followers of Christ.
When it comes to missionary work, many people forget Article of Faith 11 “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” I love my faith, it brings me joy and peace and comfort. Of course I want to share that with others. Do other people feel the same way about their faiths? Yes. Just because I believe that I have “more” doesn’t give me the right to be condescending to those I think have less knowledge. I have known so many people do far more with their “less” than some Mormons who do not follow the basic principles of the gospel.
Do I continuously keep pestering or even stop being a friend when others tell me they are not interested in my faith, no. Do I feel compelled to always be preaching the gospel, no. Do I try to live my life that others will see that I am trying to honestly live my faitha moral person, yes.
Comment by JC — January 28, 2010 @ 11:32 am
What about evangelizing to the blatantly immoral? Or, perhaps, to those whom one considers blatantly immoral. Is there a point to that?
I’m not a big believer in evangelizing, at least not in the sense of going about telling others of my religious beliefs. The kind of “evangelizing” I see Jesus doing is a simple act of caring for the poor, orphaned and widowed, visiting the sick and imprisoned (presumably to cheer them up or bring them food and necessities, not to hand them tracts), and so forth.
The problem with evangelizing to those we consider “blatantly immoral,” of course, is, who decides who is blatantly immoral and who is not?
I love your post, Derek, and I absolutely believe in a hands-off approach to other peoples’ faith. I’m more interested in how people treat one another than in the specifics of their personal mythologies (in the larger, non-skeptical sense of that term).
Comment by Lorian — January 28, 2010 @ 12:34 pm
Hey mfranti,
On the Jesus as Zombie thing, and being irreverent… one of my faaaavourite irreverent quotations of all time is from my best friend, a faithful and practicing Catholic, musing to herself:
“Hey… if love is food, and God is love… does that mean God is food? Oh wait… He is in my church.”
LMFAO.
Comment by xenologue — January 28, 2010 @ 12:39 pm
But seriously, I love this post. I want to print it out and read it on a regular basis.
A statement I hear far too often in church meetings is “She/He doesn’t believe in God, but s/he’s still a good person.” What? Because not believing in God ordinarily a bad person? YIKES. Take that condescension and shove it, please.
And yes… I am guilty of many of the things you mention too, Derek.
Comment by xenologue — January 28, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
So am I. Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan? The Samaritans were considered to be the MOST Apostate of Religions by the Pharisees. Today, it could be told as the Parable of the Good Mormon. Or, the Good JW. Or, the Good Hari Krishnah, etc.
I know that would blow fuses in some people to put it that way, with modern labels, but it’s true.
Mike S.: Because I’ve heard a number of people who have joined the LDS Church say “Where have I been all this time before joining?”
Things like Priesthood Blessings. A former Bishop was Catholic, but his family questioned their faith after a Priest came to give her Last Rites while she was dying, but her said he could not heal her. This troubled that family in light of the Biblical question of it being easier to saying their sins are forgiven, or to heal someone?
Patriarchal Blessings: They have given insight, warnings, direction, and other useful advice to those who heed them.
#14 & 17: Ah, the Brain versus Heart. Intellect versus feelings. They both must be part of faith & worship. Remember the Temple Initiatory? It address both of those. Neither is ignored in that Ordinance.
Comment by Mike H. — January 28, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
I actually have a section in my dissertation entitled “Zombie Jesus.” At the defense (Catholic university) there was a good bit of uneasiness about the whole thing . . .
Derek, I love this post. My family is a religious smorgasbord, and it’s nice to hear someone articulate the conclusions we’ve come to - focus on the similarities and not on the differences.
Also, Shelah, on the “theological principles from Young Adult novels” point, I’ve always found an explanation C.S. Lewis gives at the end of The Last Battle really helpful. A young man who has served a false god faithfully all his life asks the true God why he is being taken into heaven, and Aslan answers that what he was serving with loyal service and moral behavior was the true God by another name.
Comment by Beth — January 28, 2010 @ 12:57 pm
Well, Lorian, there was condemnation to Jesus of Nazareth over his working with Publicans, Harlots, etc. This is something the LDS fail at times, IMHO, for too often it seems like we want to Baptize “near perfect” people, and ignore those with more than simple/surface problems.
Hands-off approach? That does have merits, I think Teaching others why we believe the way we do is important, and contrasting should be done, but with great care. Funny that some Christian churches have “Witnessing to Mormons” programs, yet, the LDS don’t have a “Witnessing to Episcopalians” (for example) program.
A friend who join the LDS Church was constantly confronted by her Lutheran step father about the Mormons were a cult, it was so commonly know to be obvious. Yet, the step father had no reply she asked about the Pope Excommunicating Martin Luther.
So, finger pointing has many draw backs in Religion.
Comment by Mike H. — January 28, 2010 @ 1:03 pm
Nice, Derek.
My favorite thing to do is get into a really heated discussion of religion, Mormonism in particular. However, I, too, regret that these often degenerate into a “food fight.” The key is respectfully trusting that other people are trying the best they can to figure out the Divine in their own way. I’ve found more success in these types of conversations when I realize that each participant will most likely disagree, but that we can pick up some little valuable tidbit that will be meaningful if we are willing to listen as well as share.
Comment by Bored in Vernal — January 28, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
Beth, what was the topic of your dissertation?
Comment by xenologue — January 28, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
Over time I have come to believe that my God is not a respector of religions but rather looks solely on individuals and their deeds. I think that the practices performed by people in their religions is for the benefit solely of the people and God does not care at all about them. I am scandalous enough to say that that applies to baptism and all of the Mormon only practices such as temple stuff.
Comment by StillConfused — January 28, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
Shorter version:
I’m tired of complainers. And I love to read them. So I come to this blog and others time and time again. And complain about it.
Comment by chris — January 28, 2010 @ 2:13 pm
To prove post 28 true for myself.
Re: 21,
“A statement I hear far too often in church meetings is “She/He doesn’t believe in God, but s/he’s still a good person.” What? Because not believing in God ordinarily a bad person? YIKES. Take that condescension and shove it, please.”
Good is being used here as a substitute for a whole variety of words…. language is imprecise. As is demonstrated by you telling someone to take their compliment to a person and shove it.
Sure you can differ over interpretations, usage, unspoken words, the flip side of the coin, etc. But in the end they’re a good person (apparently). More could be said, perhaps you’d like nothing said or a treatise on all the ways people can be good, believing or not in God.
But I suppose telling (or thinking) people to “shove it” is not really keeping with the spirit you’d like to have.
I only point this out to show the irony of all of this, which is what the thread author pointed out in their last line.
In the end, we could all exercise more charity, a little more mercy, and a lot less judgment. For some reason judgment is more fun, but charity brings more joy and contentment.
Comment by chris — January 28, 2010 @ 2:21 pm
Mike H “too often it seems like we want to Baptize “near perfect” people, and ignore those with more than simple/surface problems.”
That hasn’t been the case anywhere I have lived. If it were there would be more active members.
Who is to decide what is a simple, surface problem? Each individual, that’s who. Oh, and the person who does the baptismal interview.
I see a lot more beating up on our own church than I do any picking on others.
Comment by Claudia — January 28, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
Claudia: On my mission in Georgia, some local Ward/Branch members hinted, or outright told us the types of people we should be teaching & baptizing.
Comment by Mike H. — January 28, 2010 @ 2:54 pm
I’m just gonna go with “amen” here.
Comment by Jessica — January 28, 2010 @ 3:28 pm
xenologue - The dissertation was on the appearance of ghosts/the undead in historical writing in England in the sixteenth century, and part of the argument was that the debate over the real presence in the Eucharist played into the blurring of the line between the living and the dead. Hence the zombie Jesus
Comment by Beth — January 28, 2010 @ 3:58 pm
Love this post! So eloquently describes so many feelings I have!
I’m with those commenters here who talk about sharing the gospel rather than converting people. Also, I totally believe in a sort of hands-off approach to others’ faiths. We’re all doing the best we can with what we know. There is too much good in too many other places for anyone to dig their heels in and insist they have the one right way of finding God. I think doing so both reflects and breeds pride that’s counterproductive to any sort of spirituality and good will towards others.
After all, the distinction between the religions is adding one more dimension that makes it easier to forget that we’re all part of the same greater group: Humanity.
Comment by LDesque — January 28, 2010 @ 4:09 pm
Derek, I really like and agree with your post.
Mike S., you brought up a really good question about why we do missionary work. This is a question that has bothered me for a long time, even though I myself was a hard-working missionary many years ago. My brother is on a mission now, and sometimes I can’t even read his emails because they are so judgmental of other people’s beliefs. He’s serving in a really poor country, and I can’t help thinking, wouldn’t it be a better use of his time to join the Peace Corps and provide these people with basic necessities?
I understand the argument that joining the church can make people’s mortal lives better. This certainly happened after my husband’s family joined the church. His father became more loving and involved in the kids’ lives, and he found a job as a security guard at the temple, which gave his family stability they had never had before. Rather than join the gangs rampant in their neighborhood, my husband and his brothers and sisters made friends at church and felt that, despite their poverty and other challenges, their lives had meaning. The church helped unite them as a family and taught them values of hard work, perseverance, and service.
But not everyone has this experience when they join the church. Personally, my feelings about the church are so conflicted and have caused me such anguish and heartache that I sometimes wish I had never been baptized. And think about all the people whose church membership has meant being cut off by their families, or worse.
Also, I would argue that if the main reason we do missionary work is to make people’s earthly lives better, there are a lot more effective ways to improve people’s lives, such as helping them find meaningful work, strengthening democracy, improving health and education, etc. While it’s nice to say that we don’t think we’re better than anyone else and that every religion has some good in it, the actual doctrine of the LDS church is that one can only live with God forever by following certain very specific practices, including: going underwater as a symbol of beginning a new life; qualifying to enter a holy building by not having sex outside of marriage, not drinking alcohol or smoking, giving 10% of your income to the LDS church, and professing your faith to your local bishop; saying certain pre-approved words inside the temple and performing other basic rituals; and agreeing inside that holy building to become someone else’s spouse for the rest of eternity.
How do you balance the LDS belief in being “the only true church on the face of the earth” and the one that God told Joseph Smith to establish after telling him that all the other churches were false, with the desire to be accepting and tolerant of other faiths? As a missionary, I had to tell people that their previous baptisms didn’t count, that their religious leaders had less authority than a 12-year-old Mormon boy, that the only way their family could be together after death was to join the LDS church, and all sorts of other things that by their very nature come off as offensive and arrogant.
Comment by Sofia — January 28, 2010 @ 4:14 pm
This succinctly summed up so many of my recent thoughts. Brilliant post–
Comment by Jaclyn — January 28, 2010 @ 4:29 pm
Great post! Growing up in Utah I’ve noticed a big air of condescension among Mormons. The only reason I’ve noticed it is because I come from a part-member family, mother was inactive, father is 7th day adventist. My mom didn’t become active until I was in YW. Do you know how many people have asked me when I’m going to try to convert my father? Or made remarks, like “he’s such a good man. If only he would realize the truth and join the church.” I STILL get this. My father is a very good man. Active in his church. Loving, Christ-like, would do anything for his kids and g-kids, a friend to everyone, etc. How dare anyone say he would “be better” if he joined a different religion.
Of course, religious condescension is not exclusive to Mormons. I think that it happens every where and especially if you live in an area heavily populated by a certain religious culture. My Mom grew up in D.C. and her high school was 75% Jewish. She was not only a freak for being Christian, but a Mormon Christian. Luckily the local synagogue and the local branch had a very good relationship with each other, and the synagogue let the branch use it’s building on Sundays for their services.
Also, my father’s family was persecuted for joining the 7th Day Adventist church in Ohio in the 50s. Most people in the region were some sort of protestant religion and they were seen as the freak weirdos for going to church on Saturday.
But seriously, if one more person asks me when I’m going to convert my dad (or his entire side of the family) I’m smacking them.
Comment by Risa — January 28, 2010 @ 4:32 pm
I just found to a great talk I remember reading:
“It’s a Two-Way Street”
By Elder Wm. Grant Bangerter
Of the Presidency of the First Quorum of the Seventy
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=c5a88b5c1dbdb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
Comment by Mike H. — January 28, 2010 @ 4:45 pm
Great quote Mike H.
I also like this quote from Neal Maxwell and hope to always return the same courtesy:
“I have always had a special appreciation for my friends who, though resolutely irreligious themselves, were not scoffers. Instead, though doubtless puzzled by me and their other religious friends, they were nevertheless respectful. I admire the day-to-day decency of such men and women. Though detached from theology, their decency is commendable.”
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=7085
Comment by BJohnson — January 28, 2010 @ 5:24 pm
Too many truths to quote… I’ll just say, “ditto”.
Comment by Kimberly — January 28, 2010 @ 5:44 pm
Nice post, Derek. Keeping up a streak of especially interesting posts this week!
I’m tired of religious people whose actions are completely inconsistent with the beliefs they profess (loudly, frequently, very publicly) to hold. On the other hand, I never tire of anyone who does something even remotely kind for someone else spontaneously (no assignment given, no quota to fill).
“What about evangelizing to the blatantly immoral? Or, perhaps, to those whom one considers blatantly immoral. Is there a point to that?” I think there is within reason (and of course you already listed the most appropriate ways). I think that if you want people to feel joy and believe sin brings unhappiness, you would want to give people the chance to feel joy. I agree that most evangelizing is done at completely inappropriate and unhelpful times and ways. I think the most powerful evangelizing only occurs after the pure love of Christ is present.
As for “Where does missionary work fit in?” What if it is, ultimately, just for the missionary? What if the rituals we engage in are for our own benefit, gathering as a community of Saints, remembering our own promises? Does that make them less important?
Comment by Lupita — January 28, 2010 @ 6:11 pm
Great post, Derek. It’s pretty much relevant to everything that’s been on my mind recently.
Comment by mk7 — January 28, 2010 @ 6:12 pm
Thanks for your comments. Most people here seem to agree about the interfaith respect aspect of my rant. But I’m a bit surprised I’ve heard no discussion on the conflict between theists and atheists. Any thoughts on that? A few people have said somethng to the effect of that as long as we’re all on the path to God, we shouldn’t sweat how we all get there. Does that mean atheists are excluded from our appreciation?
re: 5
Theolina is right. The use of the belief in God to judge the character of another is superficial. Those kinds of labels (atheist, Mormon, Christian, Muslim) don’t really tell us anything about their integrity.
re: missionary work
I believe it is perfectly legitimate and natural for people to share what makes them happy, whether it’s a good movie, a great recipe, or a religious paradigm/faith. That’s all missionary work is at root (to address Mike’s question re: 1); an invitation for people to accept something which can further enrich their lives. What bothers me is when this sharing changes from sharing something meaningful into a contest where one belief must win and the other lose, or into smug mockery of other ideas (”your Jesus doesn’t even have a body!”). That’s really what these food fights are about; not exploring ideas or sharing, but beating the other side.
At the risk of treading on hallowed ground, I think that certainty is the crux of the problem here. So often within the Church we talk about faith as a certainty: “I know the Church is true…” “I know beyond a shadow of a doubt…” While I can understand why we try to foster this sense of trust in the principles and leaders of the Church, it can very naturally make things difficult when interacting with others. When we “know” that our religious perspective is true, it becomes easy to become arrogant, to assume that those who do not share this perspective are ignorant or willfully disregarding the truth which is so obvious to us.
I think the answer lies in a healthy dose of humility, even doubt. One can be reasonably sure that the path they are on is correct for them, the one to which they have been lead, and still maintain a sense that the path may not be the end-all and be-all for all people at all times, that, as Shelah said, there may be different spiritual paths which are better suited for others, or that, no matter how much our particular doctrine and theology seems correct, we may at some level have something wrong–or at least that others may have something else right.
re: 39
Yes, that is a good quote by Maxwell. I wish more people within the Church applied it in reverse. In other words, that while believing members might be religious, they didn’t scoff at atheists, and while they might be puzzled by their atheist friends, they could be respectful and decent towards atheism.
Comment by Derek — January 28, 2010 @ 6:42 pm
I have a good friend who was mormon and is now athiest. A great guy…except for his constant desire to comment on my delusion and the perpetuating of my delusion by taking my children to church…my lack of logic, my obvious (to him) lack of understanding of science…
It’s a little much.
There is so much else to talk about, and so much we agree on, it bugs me that just about every time I talk to him he says something…I’ve looked at my own conversation to look if I mention church or scriptures or even blessings or something of the sort…
Comment by britt — January 28, 2010 @ 7:33 pm
I’m a bit surprised I’ve heard no discussion on the conflict between theists and atheists. Any thoughts on that? A few people have said somethng to the effect of that as long as we’re all on the path to God, we shouldn’t sweat how we all get there. Does that mean atheists are excluded from our appreciation?
I have some thoughts on that. Derek, you and I share some friends who are, shall we say, militantly atheist. Much as I love them, it’s their fervency that makes me hesitate to label myself an atheist, even if the textbook definition applies. I understand why they’re so angry; I can appreciate their arguments. I share many of their opinions. But I’ve also struggled long and hard to have “strong opinions, weakly held” rather than plowing forth with arrogance on any issue. At this point I don’t appreciate any labeling that arbitrarily and automatically sets me against some and in collusion with others. I want to keep the lines of communication open in every significant question that arises.
I do find it frustrating when people speak platitudes about “every worthy path to God.” When I left the Church, a friend made a similar comment, saying, “I think the really important thing is just that you believe in God.” At the time, I was pretty sure I didn’t believe in God, but I was afraid to say so as soon as she made that statement. I knew she meant her comment to be comforting and welcoming, but I experienced it as divisive and isolating. I don’t believe in gods, but I do believe in goodness. I do believe in honoring others’ goodness and excavating my own. I do believe that most of us are speaking about the same things when we’re trying to figure out what’s good and how to be better people. We’re just using different languages. In the lovely words of Ani Difranco, “We’re all polylingual / but some of us pretend / there’s virtue in relying on not trying to understand.” That’s the real problem.
Comment by Chandelle — January 28, 2010 @ 7:51 pm
Risa,
I get that a lot too from my parents. My husband is a recent convert and the only member is his family. When we got married, I wanted to have a second ceremony to include his family. My dad strongly protested saying things like, “If you do that, you’re showing them you don’t care about your religion!” and “Don’t you ever want them to get baptized?” They were happy being Easter Sunday Episcopalians, and I just couldn’t get him to understand that I felt it would be disrespectful to them to proclaim, through slighting and excluding them, that they would be better off living my way than their way.
What I really felt like he was saying was, “How will they ever know they are wrong if you don’t show them that you won’t accept it?”
The fact is that these people are kind, educated adults. Not only are they wonderful people, as I believe most people naturally are, but their life decisions are just as legitimate as any.
Comment by AllieKay — January 28, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
Have you ever experienced LDS parents who do not allow their children to play with non-LDS kids? I’ve seen this a little bit in Utah. The assumption that “if they were good people, they’d be Mormons” drives me crazy.
Comment by AllieKay — January 28, 2010 @ 8:03 pm
Sadly, most of the run ins I’ve had with Atheists were with the militant type. Like, playing Christmas music at a book fair at a public hospital, an atheist got mad & insisted I was furthering state religion by doing that!
Now, Elder Bangerter had some blunt comments about atheists:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=f9fe615b01a6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
I do have to admit the militant types of any persuasion are hard to deal with.
Comment by Mike H. — January 28, 2010 @ 8:11 pm
chris (29),
You’re right, of course. My bad. I wrote that quickly without thinking, at a time when I was thinking of examples of people I know who’ve used that phrase who seem to see all other religions as patently inferior than Mormonism. Now, if you have a deep-seated belief in the church as the One True Church, then perhaps by your own definition, the church is superior to all others, but this assumption seems to accompany an attitude similar to the one AllieKay mentions in 47: “they were good people, they’d be Mormons”. This is just my own experience and obviously I shouldn’t have generalized it.
xeno
Comment by xenologue — January 28, 2010 @ 8:31 pm
This thread makes me very happy. That’s all.
Comment by djinn — January 28, 2010 @ 10:08 pm
Let’s remember that the LDS Church teaches that it is the “only true and living” church - D&C 1:30. Many people forget the “and living” part. If you take away the “and living”, the meaning changes dramatically, in my opinion, and unfortunately, that is how it is usually quoted - or worse: “one true church” which is a horrible misquote.
In my opinion, the addition of the phrase “and living” allows much more truth to other religions than most LDS realize. Other churches or religions are “true” while we believe the LDS Church is the only one that is “true and living”.
I hope that makes sense.
Comment by Brian — January 28, 2010 @ 10:20 pm
Brian (I am an attack-djinn after all) I think it is you who is misreading. The point of the two-part construction “true and living” completely contradicts your point that the “one true church” [] “is a horrible misquote.” Rather, it ups the ante, saying not only is this the only ‘living church,” but it also is the only church that has ever been true, which is clear when the quote is looked at in entirety:
Specifically the phrase “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” indicates that “true” and “living” are inseparable, especially considering the content of the next verse, “For I the Lord cannot look upon a sin with the least degree of allowance.”
Also, the verse reads “true and living” not “true or living” or even “true and/or living.”
Comment by djinn — January 28, 2010 @ 10:32 pm
I could have written that clearer. Mormonism is not only the true church, but also the only church that currently has the truth, because before the great apostasy there was another true church. Hence, the double “true and living” construction. Because there was in the past another true church, but currently there is only one living church that is true.
Comment by djinn — January 28, 2010 @ 10:38 pm
The true church in the past is the Mormon church, according to D&C section 1.
Comment by djinn — January 28, 2010 @ 11:02 pm
Okay, I loved the post…
I agree with everything you’ve written and everything that everyone has written…. I know impossible…but I do.
Comment by Jillin — January 28, 2010 @ 11:13 pm
I cannot believe that the Mormon Church is the one true church just based on things like institutional racism, polygamy, massacres, child marriages, etc. Others are certainly welcome to have that view but I would never feel that it was correct. Is there an organized religion that has not engaged in murder, plunder, strange sexual practices etc?
Comment by StillConfused — January 28, 2010 @ 11:38 pm
StillConfused? you asked: “Is an organized religion that has not engaged in murder, plunder, strange sexual practices etc?” The Quakers. They did horrible things such teach women to read when it was considered a sin, because in their view, God was equally available to all. They also were one of, if not the earliest, anti-slave Christian religion, and did quite a bit set up the underground railroad.
Comment by djinn — January 28, 2010 @ 11:49 pm
Is there an organized religion that has not engaged in murder, plunder, strange sexual practices etc?
At one time, I thought Buddhism might fit the bill; most variants do, but not all. As djinn said, the Quakers have a peaceful history and tend to be ahead of the curve as far as social justice. I’ve enjoyed attending Meeting with the Quakers and thus far haven’t been horrified by any of their history or practices. But I don’t know if I would classify the Quakers as either organized or a religion.
Comment by Chandelle — January 29, 2010 @ 12:27 am
Chandelle, the Quakers were certainly a religion when they pushed female literacy and other forms of female equality and when they took the lead in freeing the slaves.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 12:38 am
However, in the interest of fairness, only a portion of the current Quakers are for gay marriage.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 12:39 am
I don’t doubt that it’s defined as a religion. But from what I can tell, they have no firm doctrine, no statement on the afterlife, no compulsory belief in a deity, no scriptures, very little ritual…as JohnR says, The Quakers are dogmatic in their lack of dogma, ritualistic in their lack of ritual. So to me, it doesn’t feel very religious in nature…regardless of how Quakers define themselves. (I would say that my small group is pretty cleanly divided…half considering themselves absolutely religious as Quakers, half considering the question beside the point.)
Comment by Chandelle — January 29, 2010 @ 12:42 am
From what I understand, some of the programmed (ministered, evangelical, etc.) Quaker groups may be hesitant on gay rights. Some of the programmed Quaker groups tend to be more conservative. My (unprogrammed) group is 100% in favor of gay rights and I would say that’s the case for most Quakers.
Comment by Chandelle — January 29, 2010 @ 12:52 am
Love this post, and will be linking it on my own blog later — and it’s funny, I recently posted about going over some Catholic materials with my 7-year old son (who is preparing to receive reconciliation/first communion this spring) and the only way I could keep him interested in the exceptionally bland material was this: Whenever it said “Jesus loves you,” I would say instead, “Jesus is a zombie who loves to eat your brain!” And he would giggle, and we would move on.
Comment by L. — January 29, 2010 @ 4:33 am
Oh, and for the record — I am a (non-devout, “cafeteria”) Catholic (living in Japan), and my Japanese husband says he’s a Buddhist but truly just prays to his ancestors. He rolls his eyes at the whole Christianity thing in general and Catholicism in particular.
Comment by L. — January 29, 2010 @ 4:49 am
I think that missionary work is important for more reasons than just that it helps people live better lives once they hear and live the gospel.
I have a son that is almost grown and, up until the whole Prop 8 thing, was completely active and faithful in the LDS church, planning to serve a mission, etc. Once he became uncomfortable with the leadership of the church mixing too much in our freedom to vote (and messing with civil rights of an entire group of people), he began to research the church on the internet and has made up his mind to not be Mormon, not serve a mission, etc.
I thought his very strong opinion about our church would influence his opinion about how we should parent his younger siblings in regards to church. But, he thinks that we should do the same we did with him (daily family prayer and scripture study, FHE, etc), that we should promote a belief in the church, etc… because he said it was good for him in a lot of ways.
He thinks his brothers should serve missions (even though he wouldn’t dream of it) because more often than not, a mission serves the missionary the most. After all, (I think) most people want to raise their children to serve missions for the benefits it brings to their own lives first and foremost. That could be one reason missionary work is so important… for our own spiritual evolution.
My son won’t be serving a mission, but I’ve never known a teenager to be more compassionate and goal driven to lessen suffering in the world. He is pursuing opportunites to serve with AmeriCorps and someday the Peace Corps… and I’m so proud of him.
I still believe in the church and wish he did too, but as Derek points out, there are other valid belief systems and ways to serve. In the end, I trust my son to use his intellect and heart to find a belief system and way of life that he can fully believe in and support.
Comment by Ahhh... — January 29, 2010 @ 7:16 am
Derek:
You and others tend to be very liberal. How can a church member be in favor of gay rights given the teaching of the Prophets and Apostles and the scriptures?
Comment by Henry — January 29, 2010 @ 8:26 am
Derek,
In answer to your question about the attitudes of theists towards atheists, I think it’s treated very similarly to how we can and do treat people of other religions, perhaps just up a notch or two.
I personally do not think that just because someone doesn’t believe in a god doesn’t mean they will lack for an opportunity to get into heaven. I know it goes against all LDS doctrine, but because I like to think I serve a loving, just, and compassionate God, I believe that if you don’t believe in God in this life, after you die you will be confronted with the truth, and given the opportunity to accept it.
I know a lot of people who are atheist, being in the science community. And a lot of these people hold those beliefs because of injustices done to them by their former church. My father is one such man. He was brought up Catholic, and was horribly mistreated by a priest. That incident led him to shun religion. However, I don’t believe a more decent, family oriented man exists. And to think that he won’t be with my family and I in eternity would really make me question my beliefs.
Comment by Dancer 007 — January 29, 2010 @ 9:33 am
Quaker - sounds divine.
Comment by StillConfused — January 29, 2010 @ 9:33 am
I agree with Brian’s version of true and living…other churches have truth. Athiests can have truth.
Part of the issue here is the inherent judgement in offereing truth as that the person doesnt’ presently have it-or atleast access to the living-revelatory aspect of it.
IMO the church being true means the doctrine is true-eternal-loving-real. The practices and program not so much. Is primary true? it has not always been and will not always be the program for children…that Jesus loves children is true..that he wants them to be taught and loved-true…primary…not true.
Priesthood-true…just the levites having the priesthood, just white people, perhaps just men–those are practices and programs.
IMO the atitude towards athiests …Christ will give them the best opportunity to accept Him. IME some post church athiests go through a hate God mourning kind of state…for some this is a short phase. They attack the church, they are mad it’s wrong, or didn’t work for them, or the people were such that they coudln’t stay…That anger can be very hard to be around, depending on the person. Normally a person moves on from that and goes about their life and takes on more of a live and let live attitude. A very few continue on the attack and give athiests a bad name.
Comment by britt — January 29, 2010 @ 9:57 am
I know this was touched on already, but I have to throw in my 2 cents anyway, because one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to religion is when I hear fellow Church members say things like “oh, he’s not a member of the Church, but he’s still a nice person.” or, conversely, “I know I can trust her, because she’s LDS.”
Church members do not have a monopoly on niceness, or goodness, or Godliness, spirituality, morality, etc., etc., etc.!!! It is possible to be a good person completely on your own. If the Church, or Christianity, or Buddha, or whatever, helps you to be a better person, more power to you, but it may not be necessary for everyone. I have had the privilege of interacting with some truly good people who come from all religious (or non-religious) walks of life. And membership in the Church is not a guarantee of trustworthiness, etc. I have come across some Church members who are NOT good people! It happens.
The gospel is good, but it won’t MAKE anyone good. Living the way that they believe is good is what makes people good, whether that be influenced by religion or not.
(coming down off the soapbox)
Comment by Allison — January 29, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
StillConfused: You may find some serious trouble separating those issues from Religion in general.
Racism: Matthew 15:
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshiped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
If you look just at verses 22-26, what does that say about those of Canaan? She was faithful, and got the healing for her daughter.
Polygamy: As shown many times in the New Testament, the title of “Son of David” is used to proclaim Jesus of Nazareth as the Savior & Christ. Yet, how many wife did David have?? Did that diminish his divinity?
Massacres: Genesis 24
25 ¶ And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.
26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went out.
27 The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister.
28 They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field,
29 And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house.
30 And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.
31 And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?
Jacob’s 2 son’s justified their mass murder in the name of Dinah’s honor. Jacob cut them off later on when blessing were given. So, massacres have happened in ancient times, even though was a Prophet & Patriarch.
Child Marriages: The singer Loretta Lynn was married when she was 13. So, where was the “marriage police” for that? that was the earlt 20th Century. Yes, their marriage was rocky at time, but they never got outright divorced.
Also, a niece of one of my ancestors was orphaned. At the age of 14, someone in their Parish decided to have her get married to an orphan boy, also aged 14! The local Parish Minister even bought into it, and performed the marriage, although he was later suspended from his office for a while for doing that. This was in England.
So, if someone says their religion is “purer” because “they” don’t have these issues, claiming they are unique to the LDS, they really need to dig deeper before making such statements.
Comment by Mike H. — January 29, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
re: 44
Like Chandelle said, I also have friends like that, Britt. The biggest motivation for writing this post is because I have a few religious friends who seem to increasingly like to make a point of sneering at the failings of atheism and moral decline inherent in atheists, while I have an increasing number of atheist friends who like to derisively point to the failings of religion and the ignorance and intolerance of religious people. It really gets me boiling, as someone who can see both sides, and I just want to tell them all to go to hell.
Like Chandelle, I can understand why the atheists are angry, and can appreciate many of their positions. Atheism has been a target for prejudice and bigotry for centuries. Most people who “convert” to atheism are often subject to recriminations, harassment, and rejection from supposed friends and family. But they are only further burning bridges by making blanket statements pushing those of us why sympathize or who share some of their feelings away. One just today said that Mormons are blindly ignorant about the history of the Church (and I agree with him that there are problems). Awhile back, one of the friends Chandelle and I share and to whom I had thought I was close, posted on FB that he automatically had less respect for anyone who admitted to a belief in God. That hurt.
re: 45
Thanks, Chandelle. Great thoughts. I’m on much the same page regarding the labeling and the arbitrary divisions caused by the labeling. And I absolutely love
Yes! Brilliant! Goodness, that’s what we should be most concerned about. And if most people are seeking goodness, we should be willing to overcome that “language” barrier to seek it together.
re: 47
Yep, that happens far too frequently in large LDS populations (and I have a suspicion it isn’t uncommon anywhere where there is a large concentration of any given religion).
re: 48
Mike, I think that quote you listed represents the sort of arrogance I’m complaining about. No, the evidence is not “all on our side.” There is plenty of evidence which doesn’t support the LDS perspective, or Christianity generally. We may each individually find that there is sufficient evidence for us to chose this path. But not all the evidence. We shouldn’t just dismiss all the contrary or missing evidence.
I hate how statements like this turn it into a contest. Same with Elder Holland’s comments about the BofM at the last general conference. He seems to imply that none of the critiques of the BofM have any merit, that those challenging it are all just superficial fools. Not so.
re: 66
Henry, we’ve been over this again and again on FMH. If you want, you can read through some of the posts and the comments on that topic. Or you can read the essay I wrote on my own blog about gay marriage. Either way, that isn’t the topic of this post.
Comment by Derek — January 29, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
Now that I’m a perma, I’m going to be a strict taskmaster. I’ve told Henry where to go to see alternative viewpoints on homosexual relationships and to engage in some discussion. I will not allow the post to be threadjacked; any further comments on homosexual relationships will be deleted. Please stay on topic, and have a nice day.
Comment by Derek — January 29, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
I like to think of myself as a Mormon Quaker… just thought I’d throw that out there
And can I just say, your response was beautiful. I felt myself bristle at that, and really what is needed in these discussion is some level-headed thought, not emotion.
One of my very best friends is a devout Muslim and we spent the better part of 3 years trying to “convert” each other. The thing I learned most from that experience was that we all choose our path to find happiness and peace, and HF is okay with that. Some people don’t feel a connection to religion to need that, and I think that’s okay, too. I guess I agree with Ahhh… that missionary work is more often for the missionary than the people [s]he baptizes. But then the church is always telling us that the members should be doing the “finding”, not the missionaries. And maybe we would be better at that if we would share the things about the gospel that we love, be honest about the things we hate, and not try and convert people to save their souls…
Comment by Enna — January 29, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
enna, maybe members should do the friending and keep doing the friending, and let the spirit prompt us if one of our friends is found…that way we don’t need to look at ever single non memeber as a nonmember first-but an actual potential friend.
Comment by britt — January 29, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
exactly
Comment by Enna — January 29, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
Thanks for that comment at 75, britt. Just thought since I’m happy to write a comment when I disagree with you I should also tell you when I think you wrote something AWESOME.
Comment by djinn — January 29, 2010 @ 5:07 pm
I noticed it did seem kind of harsh as well. I had some second thoughts about it. Yes, the really militant of any persuasion will still insist on “food fights”.
And, your reply to Henry was much better than mine!
Yes, this troubles me as well. A distant cousin of both me & my wife had complained about how she didn’t like the implications that there was not any “good” people outside the LDS Church.
I also remember how Pres. Hinckley’s comments:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=b869605ff590c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
Comment by Mike H. — January 29, 2010 @ 5:10 pm
I noticed it did seem kind of harsh as well. I had some second thoughts about it.
Ha! Mike, I thought you used that quote as an example of militant arrogance from your side, kind of a flip-side from the atheist who objected to Christmas music. I would have been all over you if I’d known otherwise.
Comment by Chandelle — January 29, 2010 @ 5:26 pm
Derek:
Do you think if person A never shares the gospel with person B that they will be held accountable at judgement day?
If person B tells person A that they want to engage in gay sex and believe that they are gay and person A encourages this, will they be held accountable at judgement day?
I ask this because I see many church members with liberal leanings.
Comment by Henry — January 30, 2010 @ 2:34 pm
Henry, I believe I am accountable for sharing what I believe brings me closer to God. I also believe that I am held accountable if I am dismissive or derisive of other good people, or what has helped them to find goodness.
As to your question about homosexuality, ask it on a thread which relates to homosexuality. There are plenty of them available; just do a search for “homosexual marriage” in the fmh search box. We don’t need yet another thread to become focused on the homosexual issue.
Comment by Derek — January 30, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
As one who raised her children in a household where food fights were not uncommon, and truth be known, often started by adults, I might suggest that it ain’t the food fight that’s the problem, it’s the absence of “rules of engagement”.
With food, appropriate rules include: no peas, no mashed potatoes, and pancakes only BEFORE syrup has been added to them. With religious food fights appropriate rules are : respect, willingness to entertain the possibility that an alternate view might be compatible with goodness, and willingness to back off if tempers rise past comfort levels on either side, for after all, since we’re all imperfect vessels, there’s always that possibility, however remote, that we might be the one who’s wrong.
Comment by Betty Jo — January 30, 2010 @ 4:31 pm
An interesting experience I had along these lines last night leads me to give this advice to the internet:
If you find out someone is from Utah, ask them if they’re Mormon before you begin Mormon-bashing.
I was checking a guest into my hotel last night, he finds out I’m from Utah, and immediately launches into a tirade:
“Utah?! That’s the Mormon capital of the world, you know! And man, if you’re not in cahoots with the Mormon church, whew, you better watch your back. I mean, I’m a Christian, and I just can’t believe how far these people take things……. So are you a Mormon?”
Since I was at work, and my manager was standing by, the majority of my input into the conversation was “Hmm…. Uh-huh….. oohh…” But it could easily have devolved into a food fight.
For the record, I’ve met very few preachy atheists in my life. My first boyfriend was an atheist, a few of my closest friends at the moment are atheists, etc. We have tons of fascinating conversations, but there is a pre-established level or respect for each other that prevents any sliding into food throwing.
This did not, however, stop my mom from once cornering previously mentioned atheist boyfriend and saying, “I just don’t understand. If you don’t believe in God, what keeps you from just going out and kililng people?” Uuuugh. In that whole equation, the atheists are definitely the minority in this country, and I think they get the biggest pie in the face most often.
Comment by Natalie K. — January 30, 2010 @ 5:25 pm
I would also say that person A will be held accountable at judgement day if person A turns person B into a project or number instead of being a sincere friend.
If person A feels prompted to share the gospel with person B, person A should do so, otherwise, person A should share by example, and focus more on being a good friend.
Comment by Alliegator — January 30, 2010 @ 5:34 pm
Alliegator,
I agree. And I think that person A should see what makes person B a good person, and instead of trying to always serve as an example, maybe try to emulate the good s/he sees in person B.
What?! A non-Mormon being a good example? *gasp*
Comment by Natalie K. — January 30, 2010 @ 5:49 pm
John Taylor already said we are responsible for such, but intentions & desires will also be factored in at Judgment.
Politics is a frequent food fight reason.
Strange to see for some, though, Hugh B. Brown of the First Presidency was really Liberal in his political feelings & ties. J. Reuben Clark was a Republican, but was a pacifist (in the Red hunting/killing1950’s!!), and hated nuclear weapons. The McConkie & Bangeter families have had Democratic ties in the past. Pres. Kimball refused to fill out the section of Political affiliations for Who’s Who in America, I saw in that era.
Ha ha, I’ve let some people launch their anti-Mormon tirade, then tell them I’m a member. It’s interesting the way some back up & try damage control. Others will continue the food fight.
And, I wonder where’s Jack is in all this?
Comment by Mike H. — January 30, 2010 @ 10:03 pm
For whatever it’s worth, the Bible instructs Christians to avoid doctrinal food fights as well.
From 2 Timothy 2:24-26:
24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
Great post Derek!
Comment by LurkerSteph — January 31, 2010 @ 2:27 am
[…] Then the reaching-across-faith-lines started getting a little more philosophical. Simply Sarah talks about trusting your own perceptions (even when others disagree). If you’re an atheist, how do you respond to friends praying for you? Andrew asks why stay LDS?, and compares the various X-Mormons with third-culture-kids, who are trapped between cultures. Molly muses about people who just want to be offended. Whew, after all that, Derek is tired of religious food fights. […]
Pingback by Sunday in Outer Blogness: Awards and More! | Main Street Plaza — January 31, 2010 @ 10:39 am