The "Final Solution"?

[_Yoda]

If cultural Mormonism was more like cultural Catholocism, I'd probably consider going back.

H.

You need to visit my house sometime. :-)

[_Yoda]

I certainly don't recommend that anyone become consumed with bitterness and go on a crusade after their white whale. But you can make measured criticisms without being motivated by anger or bitterness.

But many do. Check out the bitterness here or on other exmormon sites. Crusade is an understatement. And the criticisms here are for the most part not measured at all.

What Mormon discussions do we have here when most active members are somewhere else?

Many, but not all. And, those who are bitter, in my opinion, are entitled to their bitterness as long as they can work through it. If it helps to vent, then I have no problem with them venting here.

You cannot deny, though, that some of us ARE capable of having discussions with measured criticism. Your problem is that you think it is wrong to criticize anything about the LDS Church whatsoever. And, considering that you do not even "practice what you preach", it is an odd stand for you to take.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I probably don't need to repeat this, but I have far less of a problem with Mormonism than I do with Mopologetics. I suppose you could argue that the one has spawned or necessitated the other, but that's neither here nor there.

[_sock puppet]

I'm an ex-bishop. I'm now living in rags and bankruptcy because of all my years of being "devoted to the Church". And no one gives a damn. Still, I don't feel any necessity to go on some kind of "crusade". Live, and let live. Many people have found happiness in Mormonism. Some times you win, and sometimes you lose. That's life. I'm not bitter; I just wish life could have been a bit easier, but because I'm a believer, I don't think that God allows our experiences for no reason. I suppose I'm one of the "God dupes".

Hi, Ray,

I am wondering to what you chalk up the fact that it appears none of your old flock (the ward members when you served as bishop, that led to your financial quagmire) 'gives a damn'?

Is that because institutionally, the LDS Church implicitly teaches its members to eschew anyone that leaves the flock, even a past shepherd of it, despite the service that was given?

[_sock puppet]

Hi, again, Ray.

To your OP, there are two aspects of the LDS Church that I think come into play. One, its divine truth claims. Two, its institutional aspect.

I think that its divine truth claims have become so tenuous, and will with the passage of more time become even more tenuous, that I think any rational, uninvested observer would discount the possibility of those divine truth claims as beyond the pale of reasonableness.

So, turning to the institutional aspect: it is a group of people with a set of rules. These rules include not drinking alcohol, coffee or tea, not using tobacco or illicit drugs, voluntarily providing service on a regular basis (primarily within the flock, accepting Sunday service callings), attending weekly meetings where the main object seems to be for various members to reinforce for other members why they continue as Mormons and otherwise exerting peer/social pressure in one's community, abstaining from self-stimulated sex and sex other than with one's spouse, having youth programs, paying 10% of one's income, etc.

As a very ardent, even adamant adherent to individuality, I find the institutional aspect of Mormonism to be an anathema to individuality and freedom.

Given all the other institutions on the face of the earth (involuntary like government/nations/states, and voluntary, YMCA, other religions, etc), I think that individuals would have the socially positive attributes that too often get attributed to their participation in the LDS Church, even without it. There are several here who have demonstrated such, including yourself, Jason Bourne, Runtu, Blixa, etc. I think it is misplaced to attribute the fact that these people have positive attributes to earlier-life participation in the LDS Church, some as TBMs (others not).

I think that to truly measure the effect of the LDS Church on the culture in geographic areas, I think one would have to look to comparative sociology studies between fairly close locales, one with a significantly larger LDS population percentage than another, to be able to draw such conclusions. For example, southeastern Idaho (heavy percentage of Mormons) against northwest Montana (not far in miles, but very small percentage of Mormons by comparison). If there were statistically significant differences measured as part of a study between the two areas, and if those differences showed more socially positive behavior by those in the Mormon area (southeastern Idaho, for example) vis-a-vis the less dense Mormon population, then I think that one could then identify a set of positive social attributes that one could then ascribe to the LDS influence. Such could then be compared against the individuality and psychologically damaging aspects of the rules of the LDS Church, to give a truly pros/cons analysis. I am unaware of such a designed social study or its reporting. If you can point me to such, I would be appreciate it.

[_DarkHelmet]

The church was a big part of my life, and I'll criticize it when it deserves criticism. I can do that without believing the church should destroyed, despite the false dichotomy implied in the OP. And you can continue to whine about the tone of this board, I just don't care if you do.

The Church was a big part of your life? I'm an ex-bishop. I'm now living in rags and bankruptcy because of all my years of being "devoted to the Church". And no one gives a damn. Still, I don't feel any necessity to go on some kind of "crusade". Live, and let live. Many people have found happiness in Mormonism. Some times you win, and sometimes you lose. That's life. I'm not bitter; I just wish life could have been a bit easier, but because I'm a believer, I don't think that God allows our experiences for no reason. I suppose I'm one of the "God dupes".

You were abused by the church and you defend it. I believe that's the definition of a useful idiot.

[_Shulem]

Did you want to discuss what Jesus said or didn't say about homosexuality in the New Testament?

Did you want to discuss what you think Paul said about homosexuality in the New Testament?

Did you want to just keep blathering?

Pick one.

I don't know what Jesus said about homosexual relations because we have no written record of any of his statements on this regard. But you know full well that the Old Testament law did not tolerate it and St. Paul took a couple of jabs at the same. What's there to discuss? Just look at the track record of the Christian religion against gays over time. Only since recent times have things started to improve but the more conservative churches are still pretty antigay just because of what is mentioned in the Bible. That's a fact. I don't care what you say.

Paul O

[_Shulem]

In the 70's the HIV virus was making the rounds without it being known. Many members were saved from this virus and from the herpes virus by listening to the laws of chasity.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. They "listened" to the law of chasity. Goodie for them. How about you go and listen to the name of the king written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 or listen to the idea that a mighty god of Egypt is just a slave. Go defend that if you can.

You are now on IGNORE.

Paul O

[_Jersey Girl]

Did you want to discuss what Jesus said or didn't say about homosexuality in the New Testament?

Did you want to discuss what you think Paul said about homosexuality in the New Testament?

Did you want to just keep blathering?

Pick one.

I don't know what Jesus said about homosexual relations because we have no written record of any of his statements on this regard. But you know full well that the Old Testament law did not tolerate it and St. Paul took a couple of jabs at the same. What's there to discuss? Just look at the track record of the Christian religion against gays over time. Only since recent times have things started to improve but the more conservative churches are still pretty antigay just because of what is mentioned in the Bible. That's a fact. I don't care what you say.

Paul O

What's there to discuss? I dunno...if I were gay, I would want to know exactly what Paul was writing about. Some time, you should investigate the nature of paganism during that time period, with attention to temple sexual practices. The people that Paul was writing about were NOT gay.

Your answer is there.

[_DarkHelmet]

In the 70's the HIV virus was making the rounds without it being known. Many members were saved from this virus and from the herpes virus by listening to the laws of chasity.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. They "listened" to the law of chasity. Goodie for them. How about you go and listen to the name of the king written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 or listen to the idea that a mighty god of Egypt is just a slave. Go defend that if you can.

You are now on IGNORE.

Paul O

Interestingly, lesbians are at low risk for AIDS. Why did God save the lesbians when he unleashed his "death to gays" AIDS curse?