Positives of the Church

[_Some Schmo]

* The emphasis on education, personal responsibility, and young families, triggers maturity much earlier than the norm. Society benefits from that.

But they don't actually encourage personal responsibility. In fact, no true Christian does. If a person takes responsibility for their own actions, what need of Christ's sacrifice and atonement do they have?

As soon as you grant Satan the power to influence anything you do (ie blame him), you are escaping responsibility. Any time you give god credit for something good in your life, you escape responsibility (which is a pretty weird phenomenon, if you ask me). Any time you ask god for favors, there goes some of your own responsibility.

The church teaching the value of personal responsibility is as hollow as their teachings about family first. They can teach it till they're blue in the face, but their culture and their doctrine make these ideas only theoretical in practice.

[_BishopRic]

* The emphasis on education, personal responsibility, and young families, triggers maturity much earlier than the norm. Society benefits from that.

But they don't actually encourage personal responsibility. In fact, no true Christian does. If a person takes responsibility for their own actions, what need of Christ's sacrifice and atonement do they have?

As soon as you grant Satan the power to influence anything you do (ie blame him), you are escaping responsibility. Any time you give god credit for something good in your life, you escape responsibility (which is a pretty weird phenomenon, if you ask me). Any time you ask god for favors, there goes some of your own responsibility.

The church teaching the value of personal responsibility is as hollow as their teachings about family first. They can teach it till they're blue in the face, but their culture and their doctrine make these ideas only theoretical in practice.

I actually agree with everything you said...I just think that the majority of church members do a good job, overall, compared to the norm, of taking responsibility -- even if they give that credit to their "God."

[_Ray A]

What (some) non-Mormons think about Mormons. Found on Yahoo: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 603AAvhBBU

[_BishopRic]

What (some) non-Mormons think about Mormons. Found on Yahoo: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 603AAvhBBU

Fun link! I loved this:

"They're pretty ordinary, although I do get the occasional whiff of Stepford."

Smile...

[_Moniker]

What (some) non-Mormons think about Mormons. Found on Yahoo: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 603AAvhBBU

Haha!

While I do feel that I get a bit of the strange brainwashing vibe from them. It is refreshing to find people that when you ask them about their beliefs you can tell they truly believe, with their whole hearts, what they are telling you is true.

This sort of sums it up for me. They truly believe in what they believe in. I don't fault them for that.

[_Moniker]

Oh, duh, I forgot one of the things that does appeal to me in all Christianity -- that is Jesus.

I think my vision has been heinously skewed by the boards. I know when I first was on FAIR it was much different than MAD. The atmosphere was startling to me when I went back and saw how different the posters acted. That I let a few "bad apples" get me uppity reminds me that we all at times act poorly -- myself included.

I agree with someone else saying the people are the best aspect.

So, all in all it's just a bunch of people attempting to live their life the best they can. Just as we all are.

[_huckelberry]

Not long ago I made a post where I observed that Joseph Smith persuit of polygamy, especially his actual methods, strike me as mad. I made the softening observation that others might see it differently but I did not know how to see it differently.

Actually I used the word insane which is a bit harsh. Nobody found my post interesting (self evident? too much a matter of personal impression? ) What I am at this moment curious about is that I experience a bit of guilt using that harsh word, insane. After all Joseph Smith appears to have been a likeable fellow and in truth I have some grudging respect for him. Am I guilty because it is not nice to use harsh words for irresponsible behaviour? On the other hand, do I just have this bit of my mind still programed to expect to die and be hauled up before some court." I see here in 2008 you said the following about Joseph Smith, we charge you with,,,and spend some eternity hanging by my thumbs.

There is not much of me that believes that. But does seem fair to try and see both sides.

I remember scouting. I actually only remember camping and playing basketball. I think we were blessed by a scout group that considered anything scouting beyond those too things to be irrelavant. Actually I started scouts utterly ignorant of the game of basketball, you say you bounce the ball up and down? There were a couple of school varsity basketball players who took the time to teach me to play. I never became great but did learn to bounce the ball and toss it through the basket. Climbing around mountains is more to my taste. But the simple act of sharing from those fellows seems to be what sort of thing the church is good about.

I respect Joseph Smiths attempts to create a community which helped each other. I think he tried a variety of ways that did not actually work out so successfully. It seems on of the problems with ideal societies is that without serious authority they fall apart. Some people want to work and make more, others incline to do less. The opportunities for fights are neverending. So is there any suprise that Joseph Smith sought ways to establish authoity so his movement wouldn't fly to pieces. I think I understand that much of his polygamy is about establishing authority patterns. It could almost seem inevitable. Still I do not think it is all that good a method.

doesn't there seem more invention and order with the rules of laws and ownership which the larger society has developed. We balance the who works fights with the objective guidance of ownership and money. We can do that without authoritarian leaders telling who works when. But we didn't establish ownership without force and hard authority. ownership is underwritten by military power siezing the land in this country to be divided up in ownership parcels. The process is maintained by police force, guns, when people do not wish to follow the rules.

So the problem Joseph Smith tried to solve with polygamy my be short of solotions not using force. When seen naked none of the known possiblities are very pretty.

[_huckelberry]

* The emphasis on education, personal responsibility, and young families, triggers maturity much earlier than the norm. Society benefits from that.

But they don't actually encourage personal responsibility. In fact, no true Christian does. If a person takes responsibility for their own actions, what need of Christ's sacrifice and atonement do they have?

As soon as you grant Satan the power to influence anything you do (ie blame him), you are escaping responsibility. Any time you give god credit for something good in your life, you escape responsibility (which is a pretty weird phenomenon, if you ask me). Any time you ask god for favors, there goes some of your own responsibility.

The church teaching the value of personal responsibility is as hollow as their teachings about family first. They can teach it till they're blue in the face, but their culture and their doctrine make these ideas only theoretical in practice.

I actually agree with everything you said...I just think that the majority of church members do a good job, overall, compared to the norm, of taking responsibility -- even if they give that credit to their "God."

I was seeing some humor in Some Schmos stereotypes.
Though to my experience the devil made me do it excuse is more popluar amounst nonbelievers than believers. There is some overlapping I bet.

I think there may be a variety of patterns of reponsiblity and irresponsibility. Here is one for Christian responsiblity that comes to my mind. A fellow goes on a hike in the hills on a beautiful morning. He being Christian is thankful for this beauty which has been given to him. While walking along a tree branch pokes him in the cheek. He thinks, hm perhaps I had better watch where I am going a littel better.

Another sort of fellow doing the same thing thinks what a swell fellow he is knowing how to enjoy this beautiful place he has. When the tree pokes his cheek he tells the tree what for and satisfied he has put it in its place marches off to be poked again.

I am sure that no one description would fit all people who find the atonement pointess. Perhaps you do not fit this catagory but I have sometimes noticed people who find the atonement pointless who are people who believe themselves perpetually innocent. What ever is wrong in the world it is not their fault. Perhaps its Gods fault perhaps its the system. It could be the dumb peoples fault. In their own lives things go wrong because other people do them wrong. It is not their fault. The atonment is just another device to blame them. It is just a hassel because after all they are innocent to start with.

I think, though there may be a variety of patterns, most people who try and take responsiblities for their own f ups realize that they are larger than they can correct completely. We must share the cleanup with each other. I think seen from that vantage sharing the cleanup with God is an opportunity in the direction of responsiblity


c

[_Moniker]

I am sure that no one description would fit all people who find the atonement pointess. Perhaps you do not fit this catagory but I have sometimes noticed people who find the atonement pointless who are people who believe themselves perpetually innocent. What ever is wrong in the world it is not their fault. Perhaps its Gods fault perhaps its the system. It could be the dumb peoples fault. In their own lives things go wrong because other people do them wrong. It is not their fault. The atonment is just another device to blame them. It is just a hassel because after all they are innocent to start with.

I think, though there may be a variety of patterns, most people who try and take responsiblities for their own f ups realize that they are larger than they can correct completely. We must share the cleanup with each other. I think seen from that vantage sharing the cleanup with God is an opportunity in the direction of responsiblity


c

I don't know what "atonement" means. I've googled it a few times and am confused precisely as to what it is. I think the idea that we as a community must help with "clean up" is spot on. I often find myself frantically trying to clean up my own f ups and find too often is the case that I can't do it on my own.

I'm sorry -- I am just sooo not down with theology. :) God helps with clean ups and this in turn gives He part of the responsibility?

[_huckelberry]

Moniker, You question the connetion between the idea of atonment and sharing the cleanup.

I may have grown used to seeing the two connected and forget how distant the idea of some first century Jew running afowl of the authorities and getting a Roman execution, the event Christians refer to as the atonement can appear to be from the idea of sharign the cleanup. I admit stopping to look at it simply the connecting is less than obvious. It is probably important that what I hear Jesus preaching is share the cleanup with each other. Help those who make mistakes and take responsiblity yourself when you see your self making a mess.

I think when somebody asks for forgivingess for hurting me I am glad for their effort and the intention of reconciliation. Still I must be willing to absorb some of the hurt myself and assist in the healing else the forgiveness is pretty hollow.

Thinking of the Christian story Jesus is understood to have been unjustly condemned. He accepted that pain and returned an offer of forgiveness for it. The forgiveness is only seen in his return and promise to be with people. If one only sees his death then the best one can make of it is that he admirably stood for what he believed. Forgiviness is only in his decison as to what it meant. I suppose there is some sense in that. Forgivness is something the rests upon the decision of the wronged party. It is not earned or established by an objective payment alone.