I don’t think you will see very many, if any, active/believing members of the LDS church use profanity and mockery to describe the religious rites/practices of others.
Regards,
MG
“Their creeds are an abomination and the professors thereof are all corrupt”?
Hi consig,
One can accept that statement and still recognize the importance of allowing all men/women the right to free exercise of religion without ridicule or opposition.
You’re a knowledge man and you’re probably aware of what the founding prophet had to say on this matter:
For the record, I find people roller skating in temple clothes to be intentionally trying to disrespect the religious practices of others.
I roundly condemn it.
But would fight to the death to protect their right to do it.
Hrm. I think that might be where I’m at, too. I don’t like it, but their right to do it takes precedence.
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
“Their creeds are an abomination and the professors thereof are all corrupt”?
Hi consig,
One can accept that statement and still recognize the importance of allowing all men/women the right to free exercise of religion without ridicule or opposition.
You’re a knowledge man and you’re probably aware of what the founding prophet had to say on this matter:
What part of that article did find relevant to this thread?
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
...
Permit me to say that don't believe that you really expect me (for instance) to respect the sacrificial rites of the Aztec sun-cult (OK, the priests of that religion were massacred a while back, but don't dead people get their rites respected?), or the religiously motivated mutilation of girls' genitals - as the price of being considered 'civilized and humane'. Some rites are more respectable than others, are they not?
To the contrary, you don't make silly little jokes about human sacrifice and genital mutilation, do you? I think that is why the idea of respect and making light are bundled together in this instance. There is nothing funny about the prospect of human sacrifice or genital mutilation, and that is why we respect what is at stake even when we express criticism and disagreement. We can talk about human sacrifice and genital mutilation as being objectionable in principle and in fact with out watching videos of human sacrifice and genital mutilation. Right?
I respect nothing about human sacrifice and genital mutilation. They are the reductio ad absurdum of the notion that anything that human beings do that we feel moved to classify under our heading of 'people's religion' deserves respect. If mockery on Saturday Night Live would put a stop to them, I'd be all for it.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
“Their creeds are an abomination and the professors thereof are all corrupt”?
Hi consig,
One can accept that statement and still recognize the importance of allowing all men/women the right to free exercise of religion without ridicule or opposition.
You’re a knowledge man and you’re probably aware of what the founding prophet had to say on this matter:
John Taylor in vol. 6, p. 167, of The Journal of Discourses wrote: We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense. Men talk about civilization; but I do not want to say much about that, for I have seen enough of it. Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century.
the importance of allowing all men/women the right to free exercise of religion without ridicule or opposition.
Opposition to religion is what started Mormonism in the first place. “They’re all wrong. The Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon”
You surely can’t believe religion should be protected from opposition.
On the whole, yes. I’m sure we could both think of examples where the constitutional right of free exercise of religion has been under attack. The LDS church would more often than not support this constitutional right.
Of course we can both also think of examples where the free exercise of religion has led to death, destruction and personal harm. And examples where mental harm has occurred. And that’s unfortunate. Trying to find that sweet spot between free exercise of religious beliefs and determination of when a church organization is infringing upon an individual’s free will and is doing real harm has always been challenge. And who should make that determination is also a real dilemma.
But yes, more often than not I think the protection of religious belief is a paramount benefit of living in a free society. Unfortunately, some would like to see that benefit either taken away or watered down. That’s opposition.
The first amendment does not protect you from being ridiculed, it doesn’t protect your religion from being ridiculed. It protects my right to ridicule you and your religion. It protects your right to keep practicing your religion. It doesn’t protect your religion’s attempts to infringe on the rights of others.
I think you have a very deep misunderstanding of the relationship between the first amendment and the free practice of religion. It’s not surprising, because the Mormon church has been trying to play the victim for decades now, all while attacking constitutionally protected rights like gay marriage.
Hi consig,
One can accept that statement and still recognize the importance of allowing all men/women the right to free exercise of religion without ridicule or opposition.
You’re a knowledge man and you’re probably aware of what the founding prophet had to say on this matter:
John Taylor in vol. 6, p. 167, of The Journal of Discourses wrote: We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense. Men talk about civilization; but I do not want to say much about that, for I have seen enough of it. Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century.
It’s fun playing leader roulette isn’t it? Then you have to figure out who trumps who. It appears that you think, however, that what John Taylor said conflicts with the quotes taken from Joseph Smith that I I provided. If so, maybe you ought to actually point out the particulars and show the direct conflict?
It’s important to keep in mind, also, that John Taylor may have had different views than Joseph on this matter. Be that as it may, I think it might be well to point those differences out in specificity.
