- Status
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Yes, I believe you.
You can google it. There are books, missionaries, and “baseball baptized” people who are Mormon. All collaborate the “baseball baptism era” of Mormonism. c.1960’s. The LDS Church put an end to it when the bad publicity started to emerge over it.
N
nebula
Guest
lol true, I forgot about the pics
D
dianaiad
Guest
Yes. I did.
I served there from May 1972- October of 1973. I served in Cardiff, in Bristol, in Salisbury (I got VERY tired of Stonehenge and the Moot; one can even get tired of Stonehenge if you spend every single Monday afternoon there for four months), in Bournemouth, Landsend and in Poole, where I learned to love malt vinegar on my chips, steak and mushroom pie and real Cornish pasties. I learned that orange squash and biscuits is really punch and cookies, that fried bread with an egg and tomato on top isn’t at all a bad breakfast, but that English sausage should be saved to grease cars. I learned there that 80 degrees is considered a blistering heat wave, that the New Forest was planted by people and that there isn’t a single place on the entire island that hasn’t been walked upon by human feet. I learned that I was agoraphobic and claustrophobic; I need lots of space AND mountains on the horizon. I learned that the English as a group are marvelous, but that English men don’t have a clue about women. They proved to me that I did too have a sense of humor; it’s just their sort of sense of humor.
I learned that Cardiff has a section of housing where every single front door has a very different mosaic carefully placed upon and around it; these are a couple of centuries old, and by law must be maintained. I am one of a very few people who have seen each and every one of them personally…and they are marvelous.
Salisbury has the most wonderful places to do rubbings…though I lost all mine; my trunk with my rubbings, my Irish lace and my china didn’t make it home. Swans can be mean. Market Day in Salisbury is a blast, but living downwind of the brewery in Salisbury confirmed my opinion that beer should be poured back into the horse.
Poole has the most wonderful strand/park, where there are concerts every summer afternoon, and if you sit on a bench crocheting thread lace while your companion reads the Book of Mormon to you at lunch, you will have someone to teach the missionary lessons to before the hour is up.
Oh, yeah, I claim to have served a mission there, under President John Madsen and his wife.
Any questions?
P
PaulDupre
Guest
You act as if I challenged your claim to have served a mission. I did not. It sounds like you enjoyed your mission. I enjoyed mine too, for the most part.
D
dianaiad
Guest
For me, a ‘good’ one would simply be an accurate one. In my experience, non-Mormons who attempt to present Mormon doctrine get something wrong, and it’s usually something pretty important.I’d suggest he do a balanced study, including the basic information of mormon.org as well as Catholic written materials on the topic. I’m not sure what you consider a ‘good’ presentation of Mormonism so i have no idea if I’d agree with it or not.
If we could find objective observers, that would be great; but religions aren’t cars. There’s no such thing as an objective opinion! So…since nobody is objective about religion (not possible…) you’d best go for the bias that you can predict; that of the believer. You KNOW that he is going to present his beliefs in a; the best light, b; as truthfully as he can because he believes he has TRUTH–and wants to share that.
So you know where and how wide his bias is.
Everybody else? You can’t know, except that you know that everybody else has a vested interest in presenting that belief in as bad a light as they can, and unlike the believer, most of them have no real incentive to be factual. I mean, they know the religion is wrong, yes? So what does it matter if what they say is wrong with it is actually not true? whatever keeps the lost sheep away from it is acceptable.
I have found this to be true no matter what the target religion is; so far the antis and the true believers all follow the form; the true believers are the best place to get the information, and the anti’s always, ALWAYS, give lousy and inaccurate information. They may not even mean to or think they are—but they do. Every time.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
It’s always soooo wrong for a Catholic to say why they think the LDS church is wrong. Anything they say is distorting LDS beliefs. Yet the following from summary on the first vision from lds.org is perfectly ok.This would be true—IF the teacher actually knows what those other beliefs are and can present them with respectful disagreement. However, it has been my experience (about forty years of it) that this simply isn’t possible.
Not that the teacher might not want, very much, to TRY to do this, but In all my years of looking I have only seen one group get the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints RIGHT…as in, ‘correct,’ and that group has since gone a little batty.
If non-members are that nutty about my beliefs, I figure that they are probably just as nutty about everybody else’s. So…it’s probably a good idea not to try to teach someone else’s religion to anybody, unless you have a True Believer right there to knock you back on track.
*Summary
In the spring of 1820, when Joseph Smith was 14 years old, he went into the woods near his home to ask God which church to join. As Joseph knelt down and began to pray, he was overcome by an evil power that seemed about to destroy him. He used all his strength to ask God for help. Then Joseph saw a pillar of light over his head and was released from the evil power that held him. When the light rested upon Joseph, he saw two personages standing in the air above him. Heavenly Father spoke to Joseph, calling him by name, and introduced His Son, Jesus Christ. When Joseph asked which church to join, Jesus told him not to join any, for they were all wrong. Joseph was told many other things before the vision ended.
*
This is a summary of the first vision on a resource page for home and family on lds.org, While this is geared toward parents I’d bet the LDS equivalent of CCD teachers are parents and that they are quite familiar with these resources and utilize them in their teaching.
It is of course perfectly ok for the LDS to teach that even asking about other churches results in being over come by an evil power. How are LDS children supposed to interpret this? other churches are ok and have truth, oh yeah. Then to underscore the idea that they are dangerous (“seemed about to destroy him”) the evil power the Father dispels the evil by telling him not to join any. Tell me where the positive is in associating other churches with destroying evil.
But it is always wrong for any teacher of Catholicism to say why they believe the LDS are wrong. Of course it is the responsibility of the CCD teacher to teach LDS theology in a positive light during CCD and to heck with Catholic beliefs on what is true.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
A sixth grade CCD class is not the place for a balanced discussion of other religions. They are not there for comparative religion they are there to learn the Catholic faith. At the most they should address the the foundation of the LDS church and it’s claim of apostasy and restoration. This could be turned into a lesson on apostolic succession in the Catholic church.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
And in case you wonder what the LDS believe about other churches (and I would guess teach their kids) here is a post from the MADB:
D
dianaiad
Guest
No, that’s not what I said. I wrote that I’ve rarely seen anybody attempt to explain our beliefs to someone ELSE and get them factually right. The difference isn’t subtle.
This is not about whether you think we are correct IN our beliefs. It’s about whether you get our beliefs correct.
Whoa, there. Stop. How in the name of all that is wonderful did you get THAT from the above???
In fact, as a child who was taught by parents, and as a parent who taught my children…and as a teacher of many years myself, I can honestly tell you that this is the very first time I’ve ever seen this interpretation of that passage. It is…odd.
I think it’s a little like reading about Mose’s encounter with the burning bush and interpreting it as needing to be careful with forest fires.
First, we interpret that as a lesson in going to God in prayer when we want the truth of any religious thing. JOSEPH’S purpose was to ask which church to join. It could have been any question at all. The ‘evil’ was Satan, not ‘other churches.’ and the presence of God and His Son was what chased away that evil. Only after Satan–evil presence–doubt–however you want to interpret that yourself–was gone were Joseph’s questions answered. The one had nothing to do with the other.
Back up there.
Yes, it is “wrong for a teacher of Catholicism to say why they believe the LDS are wrong” UNLESS they are absolutely certain that they are presenting those beliefs accurately. Not, please note, “positively,” but ACCURATELY. It is wrong to teach a child this UNLESS they know for a fact that the child’s parents support him completely in what he is teaching. If the CDC teacher is undermining what the parents are doing, he isn’t doing the kid any favors at all.
My point ***isn’t ***that you don’t have the right to disagree with me or tell me I’m wrong. It is that unless you know what it is exactly I do believe, then you probably aren’t disagreeing with me at all, but rather some strawman version of my beliefs. You may as well stand back and argue with yourself for all the good you are doing me–or a student you are attempting to educate about my beliefs.
As to the lesson we Mormon parents take from Joseph’s first vision? It is that no matter what obstacles we face, prayer is the right answer, and that God wants us to study and pray about pretty much everything. “Seek ye wisdom from the best books” and all that.
…and if we were all that worried about our kids learning about other religions, we wouldn’t have faculty like Juliana Boerio-Goates at Brigham Young University–
( rsc.byu.edu/pubJBoerioGatesCatholicRediscoversGod.php)
Nor would we have compiled the 7,000 volume Catholic religious library that BYU recently donated to Notre Dame so that it could be digitized.
The problem, my friend, isn’t that Mormons are discouraged from learning about other religions. The problem is one shared by pretty much every believer in a religion that others are afraid of or don’t understand. It’s one that you have probably come across yourself. What happens when you ask, say, a Baptist (for instance) what he or she believes about something, and that Baptist asks you what your religion is? If you say “Catholic”, what does that Baptist do?
He references your beliefs, that’s what he does. He tells you what he thinks you believe, tells you that it is incorrect, possibly castigates you for worshiping idols or praying to dead people or some other misconception of your belief system, then says something like “and we don’t believe that!”
…and that is his explanation of what his beliefs are.
As to your interpretation of Joseph’s vision…well, it’s not one that we share or teach our kids.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Now that’s what I would call a good reaction to the situation. Teach the child what he came to the class to learn. If he learns about what you believe regarding the Apostolic succession, then does it matter what anybody else teaches him about apostasy, reformation or restoration?
D
dianaiad
Guest
All the ones I checked were. I cannot believe that you are presenting Michael Quinn as a "TBM,’ by the way.
D
dianaiad
Guest
(grin)
Our resident Mormon artist who paints everybody as if they are Nordic body builders?
Yeah, I like those, too.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I did, and yes, Paul, a statement like “where you claimed you served your mission” is generally read as a challenge to the veracity of the claim.
I’m sorry that I misinterpreted it.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Michael Quinn says he is a believer, only, he disagrees with some policies and doctrines.
According to you, if a person calls themselves something, that is what they are.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I figure, given the dictionary definition of “Christian,” THAT classification is so broad that pretty much anybody who claims to be one is one.
However, Michael Quinn is claiming to be something a little more specific, isn’t he? The fact is, Michael Quinn was excommunicated for being openly and actively homosexual and for apostasy. He still calls himself a Mormon, and so he is. However, he does not represent the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints entirely accurately.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
wow, where do you get your information?
Quinn was excommunicated in 1993 for subordination of church authorities and his publications. He is one of the September Six.
He didn’t come out as a homosexual until 1996.
Quinn is a respected historian who has been black balled by the the LDS. He isn’t presenting beliefs. He is presenting historical fact.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Yes, 'subordination of church authorities" = apostasy, Rebecca. He may not have announced his homosexuality until 1996, but he was very much known to be so before hand.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
You are wiggling. You said:
He was NOT excommunicated for being a homosexual. And no, his homosexuality was not well known. It wasn’t known at all. This is why it is called “coming out of the closet”.
And yes, I understand very well that Mormons name many truths as apostasy. In the case of Quinn, they called historical fact apostasy. They didn’t like that he was presenting the fact that LDS church leaders continued to sanction polygamous marriages after the 1890 manifesto. Or the fact that Joseph Smith practiced folk magic.
Facts get in the way of Mormon belief. And so you have to conform history to belief and purge yourself of people who pull back the curtain and expose the truth.
N
nebula
Guest
I’m not going to disagree that a lot of ex mormons make lousy informants. I personally have a great dislike for the victim mentality amongst certain ex mormon groups, and if that statement makes me unpopular, so be it. But, there are sources that are more objective than just having to rely on the believer’s bias, which is good, because believers of all stripes will not disclose all information to you, they just won’t. There is a growing body of academic work, by active mormons, nominal mormons, ex mormons, non mormons- who cares, academics- that is fairly accurately and as much as you can avoid biases does a good job avoiding biases. My favorite on the market right now is Rough Stone Rolling, as you probably are aware, by a respected professor of history who also happens to be a mormon- Richard Bushman. By going through the history of Joseph Smith he also hits on the wider structure of Mormon theology. Also I think the PBS special is probably as fair and balanced as you could get.For me, a ‘good’ one would simply be an accurate one. In my experience, non-Mormons who attempt to present Mormon doctrine get something wrong, and it’s usually something pretty important.
If we could find objective observers, that would be great; but religions aren’t cars. There’s no such thing as an objective opinion! So…since nobody is objective about religion (not possible…) you’d best go for the bias that you can predict; that of the believer. You KNOW that he is going to present his beliefs in a; the best light, b; as truthfully as he can because he believes he has TRUTH–and wants to share that.
So you know where and how wide his bias is.
Everybody else? You can’t know, except that you know that everybody else has a vested interest in presenting that belief in as bad a light as they can, and unlike the believer, most of them have no real incentive to be factual. I mean, they know the religion is wrong, yes? So what does it matter if what they say is wrong with it is actually not true? whatever keeps the lost sheep away from it is acceptable.
I have found this to be true no matter what the target religion is; so far the antis and the true believers all follow the form; the true believers are the best place to get the information, and the anti’s always, ALWAYS, give lousy and inaccurate information. They may not even mean to or think they are—but they do. Every time.
Like I said, reading what believers have to say for themselves and how they present themselves really is an important part of any investigation,e specially if it is going to be a deep investigation. I recommend attending services, reading through scriptures, websites, lesson manuals and so forth for any good study. But, I would NOT stop there. I would include what ex and anti members have to say, but only after looking at whatever academic work might be out there for you to consult as well. All of it might end up being useful in painting the best picture you can- the good, the bad and the ugly.
- Status