DiscussMormonism.com

I have said some mean things about MDD and have since realized I have been in error. If I say that MDD is lame ass, it carries an implication about people. That place is made up of people, after all. Similarly, the definition of the Mormon Church is really a bunch of people. By saying mean things about the church, it might imply an opinion of an entire population. I know that isn't the intent. The intent is to criticize the institution, the leadership, and it's founding doctrine. But all the same, people who live in these organizations do not separate themselves from the organization. They are living in it.

I hope from now on I can try to watch myself and stop calling groups lame ass. There must be a way to rather call certain ideas/actions lame ass. I will never be welcome at MDD again and I should look at that as an opportunity to become a true outsider. I can remove any remaining emotional attachments and criticize only ideas/actions if necessary.

Thoughts?

I've been told on occasion to not blame the church for the actions of the people. Funny, how over time, I've realized that is all backwards and I should not be blaming the people for the actions of the church.

I think this is a wise outlook, overall, Zee. I will say, however, that the way some of the people on MDD act does affect the overall atmosphere...just as the people here do.

Juliann, Pahoran, Dan G, and others over at MDD have said things which have hurt a lot of people.

If I may...

In terms of not wishing to tar all members of the Church with the same brush that one uses to paint the organization/religion, I'm not sure you can separate the two things.

For instance.

'The Church' is homophobic as an institution and has been active in fighting against the rights of gay men and women. Every single member who pays tithing is supporting the organization that does this and so, must be considered complicit in the actions of the organization. After all, they fund the homophobia.

Drifting wrote:'The Church' is homophobic as an institution and has been active in fighting against the rights of gay men and women. Every single member who pays tithing is supporting the organization that does this and so, must be considered complicit in the actions of the organization. After all, they fund the homophobia.

Those members that disagree with the church on gay rights don't have much recourse within the church system. in my opinion I think they should stop paying some percentage of tithing as a protest. That's the only leverage I think that members have on the church.

Stormy Waters wrote:

Drifting wrote:'The Church' is homophobic as an institution and has been active in fighting against the rights of gay men and women. Every single member who pays tithing is supporting the organization that does this and so, must be considered complicit in the actions of the organization. After all, they fund the homophobia.

Those members that disagree with the church on gay rights don't have much recourse within the church system. in my opinion I think they should stop paying some percentage of tithing as a protest. That's the only leverage I think that members have on the church.

The Church can trounce that move, though, by denying a temple recommend. Like it or not, that is something that is important within the LDS community.

liz3564 wrote:The Church can trounce that move, though, by denying a temple recommend. Like it or not, that is something that is important within the LDS community.

So what good is a TR for, other than attending weddings, and maintaining family peace?

liz3564 wrote:The Church can trounce that move, though, by denying a temple recommend. Like it or not, that is something that is important within the LDS community.

Obviously more important than standing up for the equal rights of gay people. If you pay tithing you are supporting homophobia in the Church.

If you had a gay son or daughter how would you explain to them why having a temple recommend is more important than standing up for their right to be treated equally? Personally, I wouldn't be able to look them in the eye.

liz3564 wrote:The Church can trounce that move, though, by denying a temple recommend. Like it or not, that is something that is important within the LDS community.

True. The church is a very top down organization, and they certainly don't seem to appreciate dissent from the membership.

MCB wrote:

liz3564 wrote:The Church can trounce that move, though, by denying a temple recommend. Like it or not, that is something that is important within the LDS community.

So what good is a TR for, other than attending weddings, and maintaining family peace?

I think not being able to attend the weddings of your family members is enough leverage really. It sucks to be left waiting outside. Also the mere possession of a temple recommend is a big deal for members, even if not used for the temple. It's kind of a status symbol.