Jersey Girl wrote:I'll just reply to this one comment by coke since it summarizes what is contained in other posts.
We're peculiar because we don't smoke, drink, have sex before marriage, dress modestly, have no tattoos or multiple piercings, we look clean, we don't swear, etc.
I know a number of LDS (even apologists that I've encountered online) who drink, smoke and swear. On the otherside of that, I know many non-LDS who do not drink, have premarital sex, dress modestly, have no tattoos, multiple piercings look clean and don't swear.
There is not a thing on the above list that isn't encouraged/discouraged by say, a Southern Baptist Church. I see nothing "peculiar" about it at all. Certainly nothing that isn't found under the heading of fundamentalist or evangelical Christianity.
A fine discussion, Jersey Girl!
In the application of “peculiar,” are we not concerned with definition?
Would you regard the current news on the FLDS as news about a “peculiar” group of people?
We have two French friends who regard us as “peculiar.” Is not that concept in the
eye of
the beholder?
While we all have
an idea of that that means, each of us also applies it from
our own perspective
as well as our own living and living standards.
I don’t think “peculiar” is limited to religious perspectives although it can apply to them. Is it
peculiar for a man of 50 years to have 15 wives all under the age of 25? It is not
if, if, one
lives in a culture where that is accepted or a
normal state of relationships.
Texas law has largely avoided confrontation with the FLDS until most recent news developments there.
On the
Today Show, some people from the FLDS group in Texas were asked:
Is there abuse
of young girls in the Eldorado, Texas compound?
The answer from those interviewed was a resounding “no.” But the answer begs the question.
What
Constitutes “abuse”? From within the FLDS, the idea or notion of “abuse” is different (or may be) from
that of Texas law or US law.
Jersey Girl states:
“I know a number of LDS (even apologists that I've encountered online) who drink, smoke and swear. On the other side of that, I know many non-LDS who do not drink, have premarital sex, dress modestly, have no tattoos, multiple piercings look clean and don't swear.
There is not a thing on the above list that isn't encouraged/discouraged by say, a Southern Baptist Church. I see nothing "peculiar" about it at all. Certainly nothing that isn't found under the heading of fundamentalist or evangelical Christianity.”
JAK:
Thus, “peculiar” is relative to one’s own experience. If a practice is greatly different from one’s own, one may regard it as “peculiar.” That is the case regardless of the
practice or the
practices individual practices which certain groups or individuals have.
If
ALL ones friends and members of one’s family are non-consumers of alcohol, they may regard consumption of ANY alcoholic drink as “peculiar.” On the other hand, if wine is normally a part of dinner and if all adults normally consume a glass of wine at dinner, such a practice is considered “normal” not “peculiar.”
We could apply the evaluation or application of “peculiar” to other areas you mention as well. While you raise an interesting point of focus, is it not the case that, like
beauty, the idea of
peculiar is largely in the eye of the beholder?
JAK