President Hinckley, MDB, and Social conduct

[_Ray A]

There is a book that I seem to be recommending quite frequently lately. It is called: The Angel and the Beehive, The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation. Armand L Mauss

Very good book. I still have it on my bookshelf.

[_harmony]

There is a book that I seem to be recommending quite frequently lately. It is called: The Angel and the Beehive, The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation. Armand L Mauss[/qoute]

I love Armand Mauss, but not enough to spend 32 of my hard-earned dollars on a book he wrote... at least, not right after Christmas. I have looked it up on Amazon, and read the provided excerpt. Here's a couple of comments on the first 6 pages:

1. I was taught that the Beehive was the symbol of industriousness, not worldly enterprise. I wonder when that changed.

2. I had to laugh at his comment about the diminishing importance of the angel on the top of the SLC temple spire. That was funny in light of the unseemly amount of money being spent on the mall. (the book was written in 1994, so obviously he doesn't comment on this particular expenditure).

From a review of the book on Mormon Inquiry:

He [Mauss}explains, "Fundamentalism is not a specific creed but rather a certain way of thinking about religion, about deity, and about the other world." He continues:

In its fullest form, fundamentalism is characterized by such beliefs as scriptural inerrancy and literalism; salvation by grace (sometimes through a born-again experience); authoritarian leadership; and strict obedience to pastoral injunctions. Along with this general theological outlook there is also a certain austerity in dress and personal style, traditionalism in gender roles, prudery in sex, and hostility toward "modernist" influences like "secular humanism," biblical criticism, and scientific theories such as evolution.

Even though I hadn't realized exactly how fundamentalist we've become, I recognize quite a bit of Mormon culture in that paragraph. Do you?

Edit to add: the emphasis is mine.

[_Lamanite]

He [Mauss}explains, "Fundamentalism is not a specific creed but rather a certain way of thinking about religion, about deity, and about the other world." He continues:

In its fullest form, fundamentalism is characterized by such beliefs as scriptural inerrancy and literalism; salvation by grace (sometimes through a born-again experience); authoritarian leadership; and strict obedience to pastoral injunctions. Along with this general theological outlook there is also a certain austerity in dress and personal style, traditionalism in gender roles, prudery in sex, and hostility toward "modernist" influences like "secular humanism," biblical criticism, and scientific theories such as evolution.

Even though I hadn't realized exactly how fundamentalist we've become, I recognize quite a bit of Mormon culture in that paragraph. Do you?

Not trying to be petty, but you should skip the review and head to the library.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[_harmony]

Not trying to be petty, but you should skip the review and head to the library.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Lamanite, I'll tell you what I told Daniel, when he said the same thing: I don't live in a place where this book is at all likely to be in the library. I don't live behind the Zion Curtain. I'll check, but if you're going to give me attitude, when I've read what there is to read, then we aren't going to be having much conversation about it.

[_Lamanite]

Not trying to be petty, but you should skip the review and head to the library.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Lamanite, I'll tell you what I told Daniel, when he said the same thing: I don't live in a place where this book is at all likely to be in the library. I don't live behind the Zion Curtain. I'll check, but if you're going to give me attitude, when I've read what there is to read, then we aren't going to be having much conversation about it.

I SAID I"M NOT TRYING TO BE PETTY! sheesh. I forgot you live somewhere else. you make a good point. sorry

[_Droopy]

Droopy, denying the truth will not make it so.

Yes. I'm also a AGW denier, for purposes of full disclosure.

Requiring the Aaronic priesthood to dress in white shirts and ties, or else the bishop gives them a tie or doesn't allow them at the table, in order to participate in preparing and passing the sacrament is a manifestation of Mormon culture.

Actually, it is a manifestation of Church policy regarding one of its sacred ordinances. That this is also, by definition a part of Mormon culture by virtue of this, is obvious, isn't it?

There is nothing inherently wrong with preparing or passing the sacrament in a tee shirt or no shirt.

According to Harmony. And yet, the fact remains that the head of the Church is Jesus Christ, not Harmony, and the Lord's servants in our day do not include (for obvious reasons) Harmony as one among them.

The symbolism and sanctity is the same. Same for giving a priesthood blessing; a white shirt and tie are not necessary for the efficacy of the blessing to happen.

The white shirt is symbolic. That symbolism disappears without the white shirt. But, as is well understood, these requirements, as with many others, are regarding formal meetings or personal Priesthood relationships when such observances are within reason. A Priesthood blessing given on the spot after an auto accident would not, of course, require a white shirt and tie, as in many other normative circumstances.

Same with multiple earrings, tattoos, women wearing pants to church... all of it is Mormon culture, not doctrinal at all. The truthfulness of the gospel is not found via outward appearances, but only within a person's heart and soul. And no amount of bleaching the shirt is going to make any difference to what's in a heart and soul.

1. The dress standards of the Church are its official counsel and standards, and are the mind and will of the Lord on these matters for his people. The only difference between us here is that I know this to be true, while you have rejected the oracles for your own perspectives on these matters. In the case of tattooing (auto vandalism, as I like to call it), multiple earrings, and other artifacts of the pagan/secular culture around the Saints, the Saints are to be a "peculiar people" and stand apart from the mainstream culture; that is their calling and responsibility. Such dress standards are nothing more than guidelines regarding such an upstream swim. We are to be in the world, yet not of it. Not partaking of the fetishism over body and appearance, shallow materialism, and personal adornments that partake of the narcissism and self absorption of Babylon are an important aspect of living the Gospel.

You clearly here really do not understand the importance or purpose of symbolism within a Gospel context (and world religion generally), so attempting a thorough explanation here would be futile. As to outward appearance, we need to separate hoary old balderdash like "you can't tell a book by its cover" from bigoted or prejudgemental attitudes towards others that may stifle or destroy our ability to teach the gospel and fellowship others by our example.

Please, do not even try to tell me that personal appearance, clothing, hairstyle, bodily ornamentation, and body language to not indicative of inward attitudes, personality, psychology, and character. True, they do not thoroughly and fully define a person or his potential, but they are, actually, must be (or they would not exist in any particular form at all) outward manifestation of inner values and perceptions, not the least of which are values, perceptions, and attitudes regarding self image and its relation (and meaning) to others and to the surrounding culture.

While we cannot see into the heart, the heart manifests itself to us through the body; through the manner in which our self image and self concept are given form and expression through clothing, hairstyle, body language, or the physical adornment of the body with images, symbols, colors etc. The Gospel speaks, and must speak to this because the Gospel speaks to self image and self concept as part of its fundamental purpose.

The next time a blue collar worker is called as an apostle, you may have a case. Until then, you don't.

!. Just off the top of your head, how many blue collar workers are their that have the administrative experience necessary to handle the finances, organizational responsibilities, and administrative complexities of a world wide church?

2. This assumes that some form of affirmative action should exist in the Church for callings to the Apostleship and presidency of the Church. This, then leads back to the assumption that the Church is not true, and not a divine institution, as, if it were, the people called could not possibly be called on any other principle than that the Lord wants that particular person in that particular calling. All this tells me is that you have no testimony of the Gospel, not that their is any bias in the Church regarding class.

You see Harmony, all of your criticisms begin from the same core initial premise, even if never stated directly, that the Church is not true. It is not a divinely inspired and maintained organization. From this, you may critique the Church just as you may critique any other organization from your fashionable and popular left-wing perspective.

When you find an apostle who is not BIC, let me know. When more than half of the apostles are converts, I'll concede that I am wrong on this point. Until then, you have no argument.

No, you have no argument here, at least, not a logical one. Clearly, the fact that so many apostles have historically been BIC has some subjective psychological meaning for you, but there is no possible logical connection between this and a claim that converts are of less value, especially when all BIC members must eventually be converted, just as converts must be. We all must come to a point of confrontation with the claims of the Gospel, whether we are born in the Church or no.

All you have here Harmony is an empirical fact mixed with a psychological animus. What you do not have is rational support for you conclusion.

As long as talks over the GC pulpit demand that young men serve missions, you will have no argument. There is no doctrine that requires this; this is culture. And you really need to listen to young men who haven't served missions, and see how often they are told by young women that they won't date them, no matter how worthy or how spiritual they are, and the reason is because the young men didn't serve a mission. When young women are taught in Mutual to not marry young men who didn't serve missions, that is a cultural impact.

There is no doubt, no doubt whatsoever in my mind, that a young man who has made the sacrifice, a sacrifice indicative of maturity well beyond his years, to serve the Lord on a mission in a prime phase of his life; to postpone dating, college, work, and socializing to serve Jesus Christ, this individual has a clear one up on other young men in the Church who will not respond to the Lord's call. It guarantees nothing of course, but in an age of shallow selfishness, materialism, and prolonged adolescence that affects young males most acutely, its an indication of a psychological, emotional, and, most importantly, spiritual maturity that bespeaks, at least at that point in life, a greater possibility of success in family and marriage matters, especially with regard to the Temple. Serving a mission is a watershed event, and a barometer, again, of spiritual maturity. It has nothing to do with the value or worth of individual members in any ultimate sense. Many coverts will go on missions in later life, as will men and woman who missed the opportunity in youth.

Your cynical and negative interpretation of everything Mormon Harmony, is just your personal motivating animus against it. What it isn't is intellectually substantive. But then, animuses, like other bigotries and self justificational remonstrations, rarely are.

In other countries, temple workers cannot marry anyone. They must be married in a secular setting (court house, judge's chambers, etc). Yet those couples are not required to wait a year in order to be sealed. That is cultural.

CFR and so what? What do you actually know about this policy and where can I find a full explication of it?

What Mother holds the priesthood that is virtually automatically bestowed on any 12 year old boy, Droopy? Please point her out to me.

Priesthood has nothing to do with individual worth within the Church or to God. Worthiness, yes. Worth, no. Your feminist slip is showing now Harmony, equating the Priesthood with the wielding of power and the wielding of power with individual worth...as in the secular corporate or political world.

It's about accountability, Droopy. And there is none applied to our leaders. There can be no stewardship done if there is no accountability. No stewardship, no service.

Kinda hard to know those, when they're kept secret from the members. That which is in the bishop's hands and no one else's isn't useful knowledge to those who are not the bishop.

Excuse me but, what the hell are you talking about?

Your experience is valid for you but not to be extrapolated to anyone else. Thus your dismissal of this phenomena isn't necessarily valid across the culture... and actually, has little that reflects what can be seen in the real world or read on forums like this or RfM.

The fact of the matter remains, all indications are that this behavior is rare in the Church. In my own experience, which is extensive, this appears to be the case. RFM is a forum lacking intellectual or moral credibility to such (as does this forum, to perhaps a somewhat lesser degree) a degree that to use it as an example of alternate views of LDS culture requires a willing suspension of rationality.

Mormon culture has little if anything to do with the truthfulness of the church. It is, however, a phenomena that grows until pruned by our leaders, and that our leaders have seen fit to not prune it shows a disconnect from what is real and what is true.

Oh, I see now. You don't want LDS leaders telling anyone what they can or cannot do in their bedrooms, what they should or should not put in their bodies, how many earrings they can wear, how short their skirts can be, or whether they can tattoo or pierce themselves, but you want the leaders of the Church to prune Mormon culture.

Interesting Harmony.

Would you like them to prune this culture with a scalpel, or, following Nietzsche, with a hammer?

White shirts and ties have nothing to do with the validity or authority of the priesthood.

Wrong, they are symbolic of it. Why don't we just do away with water baptism by immersion Harmony, as baptism by immersion has nothing to do with the faith, love, or respect for God that lies within one's heart, or with the acceptance of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice one has within one's heart.

Serving a mission is not a valid measure by which to judge faith or worthiness.

Balderdash. We will be judged according to our works. Our sacrifices, struggles, and the things we put upon the alter in our service to our fellow beings (through which service we we are only in the service of God) are indications of our faith and worthiness. Indeed, they are the only measures we have...by our fruits we are to be known.

What are you talking about here?

Marginalizing women serves only to pander to those who feel threatened by women to the point that they have to patronize them as worthy only as walking wombs, instead of humans fully capable of leadership and spirituality.

I only quote this last passage as an indication of the degree to which Harmony has drunk the leftist cultural Kool-aid to the absolute dregs. This is the kind of thing one might find in a woman's studies textbook at UCLA.

It's all culture, Droopy.

There is a Mormon culture, some of which is surely not related to official doctrine, but you have tendentiously conflated actual doctrine, policy, and standards with culture, convienently allowing you to yet again step outside the Gospel as judge, jury, and executioner according to what particular criteria you have yet to tell us.

One suspects a colossal personal hubris driven by either a seared conscience or the giddy self righteousness of too long a stay in the Great and Spacious Building , but this is only a suspicion.

[_harmony]

Balderdash, all the way through, Droopy.

White shirts do not bestow value or authority.

Earrings and tattoos do not equate to rebellion.

God looks on the heart. God values service and humility, no matter where it's found... whether in a white shirt and tie clad RM or a tattooed breast cancer survivor.

You might want to read the link on the other thread... the one about Mauss and his interview.

[_Droopy]

Since you clearly have no intention of engaging or attempting to refute or argue the points I've made in a logical or coherent manner, but are comfortable with simply restating your personal feelings and anti-church animus on the subject, I'll bow out of this thread at this point.

[_moksha]

The symbolism and sanctity is the same. Same for giving a priesthood blessing; a white shirt and tie are not necessary for the efficacy of the blessing to happen.

The white shirt is symbolic. That symbolism disappears without the white shirt.

You have to forgive Harmony. She does not realize that virtue has been replaced by symbolism . She would probably argue that garments only remind us of the sacred virtue of our commitments, rather than sacredness itself emanating from the underwear.

.

[_Droopy]

You have to forgive Harmony. She does not realize that virtue has been replaced by symbolism . She would probably argue that garments only remind us of the sacred virtue of our commitments, rather than sacredness itself emanating from the underwear.

Struggle, struggle Moksha, for some degree of intellectual depth, seriousness, and fair minded engagement with these ideas.

Or, perhaps not...