D
dianaiad
Guest
I do love that song. Great tune, too. Lots to think about.
- Status
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
You check with various sources for substantiation. Her mother and best friends might rave about how great she is, but last year’s yearbook, her last three boyfriends, or a handful of her coworkers/classmates might have another story to tell, which may be corroborated.
It’s possible the ex-boyfriend analogy is a bit flawed in this regard. My point was that it’s equally foolish to listen to nothing but wonderful praise as it is to listen to nothing but harsh criticism. All humans have a bias and once you realize that, you’re better equipped to find objectivity wherever a kernel of it might lie.
Maybe a political analogy is more in order: I don’t think those who read their news from a handful of sources (all slanted toward a particular ideology) get much “fact”.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Indeed.
Too bad it was so, (how can I put this gently…)
completely skewed, twisted and out to lunch. For instance, regarding the LDS view of women:
Short history lesson: Unlike the vast majority of American women, Mormon women have ALWAYS been allowed to vote in local community affairs, and while Wyoming was the first territory to give women the official right to vote, Utah followed six weeks later, and Utah women were the first to actually exercise that vote. Before then, Brigham Young was sending women back east to medical school so that they could become physicians–if you found a woman doctor west of the Rockies, you can almost be certain that she was LDS.
The US government required Utah to remove the rights of women to vote in order to become a state (a requirement that it did not require of Wyoming, by the way) and the women themselves agreed; they voted THEMSELVES out of that right, upon the promise of the men that they would immediately restore that right as soon as they held the state constitutional convention. The men kept their promise. Even with that short revocation of the right to vote, Mormon women were voting for 18 years before another state granted that right (Idaho…another heavily Mormon state), and THIRTY TWO YEARS before any other state or territory in the nation granted women the right to vote.
At the moment, Utah has the highest national average of high school graduates (92%) and their school system is one of the best in the nation. Utah has a college graduation rate of over 30%, (Utah is still about 76% LDS) whereas Rhode Island, the only state with a percentage of Catholics that comes even close (63%) has a 27.2% college graduation rate.
If there is one thing that Mormons do, it’s stress education.
Yes, we also stress the importance of family life–but if we say that it is important for a woman to be a wife and a mother, we also state that it is important to be a husband and father–in equal measure. Those two jobs are THE most important jobs anybody can have, and I’m not going to apologize for that one.
As well, this poster wrote that a widow may not remarry in the church. She can even remarry in the TEMPLE…and in some cases do so “for time and all eternity” not just 'until death parts you."
So that statement is just false. As in, not true. There are lots of remarried widows, and they are every inch as married as YOU are. (if, of course, you are…)
I’m concentrating on this guy’s weird ideas of the LDS idea of women…there is no way I can do justice to the rest of his rather strange presentation of things.
I would love to see you tell a Mormon woman that she is ‘chattel’ and see the reaction…well, wait…I think you just saw that.
One last note, because I can deal with it quickly: we do not believe that the CHURCH was taken from the earth. We believe that the priesthood authority was lost. There is, y’know, quite a difference between the two concepts. To say that the church was taken implies that everything was removed: all truth, all faith, all hope, all belief, all doctrine…it wasn’t.
D
dianaiad
Guest
I guess the point is that the believers will present their beliefs the best way they can, and as truthfully as they know. In a religion that’s all you need, because you are the one who must make the comparisons–and the final decision. When you compare cars, you need to go to outside sources primarily because you might not know all the ins and outs of car composition; you wouldn’t know a bad carburetor if it came with subtitles (please excuse me if you are a certified auto mechanic…)
But religion? Every person is an expert in their own faith. In terms of religion, you ARE the certified mechanic; you know precisely what you are seeing when you look under the hood, because nobody knows YOUR religion precisely the same way you do, and so you are the only one who CAN compare.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
But surely people are capable of not being 100% honest about their religion, or the history thereof.
I’m not implying that any particular person on these boards has done this, but it does happen. I’ve seen Mormons completely skew the Mountain Meadows account just as I’ve seen Catholics completely skew the Galileo affair.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
I also think it’s important to distinguish between what individual people might believe and what particular religious organizations teach or have done.
The stupidest form of “apologetics” I’ve ever seen is a person telling a particular Mormon or Catholic person what it is they believe.
The stupidest form of “apologetics” I’ve ever seen is a person telling a particular Mormon or Catholic person what it is they believe.
F
Finrock
Guest
Good afternoon Catholic20064. I hope you are doing well! 
Again, generally speaking (and I am definitively in this group) there is absolutely nothing that embarrasses me about any doctrine of my church (I’ll even clump in the unofficial doctrines).
There is a sort of hierarchy of doctrine in the LDS church. To use Catholic terms, you have doctrine and you have dogma. Not all doctrine is dogma, but all dogma is doctrine. Except, in Mormonism you can categorize doctrines in to 3 distinct groups.
Kind Regards,
Finrock
Your posts are a mixed bag. Sometimes they are fair and reasonable, other times, like with this one, they are nonsensical. I’ve never understood this sentiment that: “Mormons will do anything they can to not let you find out what they really believe” (emphasis added). On the contrary, Mormons (speaking in generalities) would to do anything honorable to help you find out about what we really believe (as in actuality as opposed to what is twisted, misinterpreted, misunderstood).
Again, generally speaking (and I am definitively in this group) there is absolutely nothing that embarrasses me about any doctrine of my church (I’ll even clump in the unofficial doctrines).
There is a sort of hierarchy of doctrine in the LDS church. To use Catholic terms, you have doctrine and you have dogma. Not all doctrine is dogma, but all dogma is doctrine. Except, in Mormonism you can categorize doctrines in to 3 distinct groups.
- Absolutes (these are the dogmatic, necessary points of doctrine)
- This includes belief in God the Father, in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost; Faith in Jesus Christ and the atonement; in short all the things taught by the missionaries to investigators.
- Important to know
- We should know the church structure and hierarchy; the role of the priesthood; our duties as members; eternal progression; an understanding of our divine potential; etc.
- Interesting to know, but ultimately irrelevant to our life’s purpose
- If God the Father was always a God; The 3 Nephites; Kolob; If Jesus was married; etc.
Kind Regards,
Finrock
D
dianaiad
Guest
Well, not all Mormons are completely aware of the facts behind the MMM…which was an incredible blot on our history.
However, MMM has no more to do with whether the church is ‘true’ than the Galileo affair affects the truth of Catholicism: it’s not fair to blame the belief system for the actions of those who break its rules.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Oh, well, you definitely have THAT one right. I have been (inadvertently, never on purpose) guilty of that, and I always feel very stupid when I’m brought up short.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
But those are nonetheless facets of your religion. They might not be doctrinal, but they are historical and I think even you Dianaiad would agree that it would be silly to only consult LDS church approved sources in investigating it.
If you don’t like MMM and Galileo, there are historical issue that affect the theology or faith or the religion. Accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision, accounts of his “translation” of the Book of Mormon. On our side there are accounts of church councils, the Church’s role and actions in the canonization of the Bible, Peter being the bishop of Rome, etc. In either case I don’t think it’s intellectually healthy to consult one source at the exclusion of others that might seem “too critical” or even fanatical by those who do believe.
For me it’s a matter of striking balance.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Actually, I’m a bit of a fanatic on this issue.
I honestly believe that one should get information about doctrine and beliefs (and the history of the evolving nature of them, if there is one) ***ONLY FROM THE BELIEVERS. ***
I don’t think I can stress that enough. In fact, I’m going to go back and mess with the font and the colors for emphasis:
Get your information about doctrine and beliefs only from the believers.
However, if you are looking at historical fact, that is, who did what and where? For that you go to objective, NON religious sources and read them along with the believer’s version.
But you never, never, never NEVER go to an ex-member or a fervent opposing view for either doctrine or history.
Ever.
…and yeah, I use that in my own life and researches. If I want to know something about Catholicism, I will ask a Catholic in good standing with the church, preferably a religious true believing scholar. I won’t ask an ex-Catholic who is now a Mormon, I don’t care HOW much I may trust and like that person. He might not mean to be inaccurate or biased, but he will be; he can’t not–and I have no way of knowing how far or broad that bias lies.
Whereas, with the true believer, I know precisely where and in what direction the bias lies, and thus won’t be blindsided.
Ok, I’m a little obsessed with this, but for me it is an article of faith–only the true believer of any faith can represent it fairly.
L
Latayne
Guest
My goodness. I was away from my computer all day and amazed at all that went on with this discussion board. I mentioned in my first post that I travel a lot and will be leaving in the morning for a week of camping; so my lack of response to whatever you say about this present post won’t be because I’m unwilling to respond, just unable.
First of all let me say that I appreciate the supportive comments some have made. This is the first discussion board I’ve ever posted on where people list their religious preferences and I never thought to look for that on individual posts. Because of that, I thought the first person who said I had an axe to grind etc. was Mormon. My mistake, and I apologize.
My point in posting was to remark upon the fact that people who have not read my books have made public comments about my motives and methods. I see that this has continued, especially from Mormons.
Secondly, I still stand behind the Consumer Reports analogy. They are reliable because they take into account not only the manufacturer’s claims, but also those who “test drive” the products. I was one who test drove Mormonism for ten years. I loved it. That’s why I 'm not bitter.
Now, I’ll try to address as many of the other questions/issues as I can which deal directly with my own post here.
Or— you can just read one of my books yourself.
Latayne C Scott
First of all let me say that I appreciate the supportive comments some have made. This is the first discussion board I’ve ever posted on where people list their religious preferences and I never thought to look for that on individual posts. Because of that, I thought the first person who said I had an axe to grind etc. was Mormon. My mistake, and I apologize.
My point in posting was to remark upon the fact that people who have not read my books have made public comments about my motives and methods. I see that this has continued, especially from Mormons.
Secondly, I still stand behind the Consumer Reports analogy. They are reliable because they take into account not only the manufacturer’s claims, but also those who “test drive” the products. I was one who test drove Mormonism for ten years. I loved it. That’s why I 'm not bitter.
Now, I’ll try to address as many of the other questions/issues as I can which deal directly with my own post here.
- My statement about the LDS Heavenly Mother as quoted in my book was what I was told when I was a Mormon. I don’t believe Catholics worship Mary.
- I disagreed with the assessment that all the book reviews were by ex-Mormons – I think the figure someone quoted was 11 out of 11 or something like that. That person was referring I guess to the reviews of Latter-day Cipher and Mormon Mirage. (Mormon Mirage has only 5 reviews, unless you count the editorial review.) So – I stick by what I said. The two books are reviewed as near as I can tell by 6 ex-Mormons and 10 never-Mormons. Pretty close to the 1/3 I said.
- Dianaiad, you must not know much about how Amazon reviews are posted. I can indeed ask someone to review a book, or one of my publishers can ask someone to review a book, but I don’t post the reviews. In fact, many of the the reviews were posted by people who I did not ask to review it. Anyone can review any book.
Or— you can just read one of my books yourself.
Latayne C Scott
L
Latayne
Guest
One more thing to Dianaiad:
You can put it in any color font you like, but saying you can’t believe a former believer of a religious system has just disqualified everything the Apostle Paul said about his “former way of life” as a Jew. Like the whole book of Romans.
Latayne C Scott
www.latayne.com
You can put it in any color font you like, but saying you can’t believe a former believer of a religious system has just disqualified everything the Apostle Paul said about his “former way of life” as a Jew. Like the whole book of Romans.
Latayne C Scott
www.latayne.com
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
I guess this is where you and I just shake hands and smile
D
dianaiad
Guest
Actually, Latayne, I intend to order the Mirage one. I will admit that having Ed Decker give you a positive review is truly poisoning the well, as is the title. You claim that you ‘test drove’ Mormonism for ten years and 'loved it."
If so, then you should remember just how justifiably wary we are, and how askance we look at stuff that goes so quickly on the attack as does “Mormon Mirage” It may be nice alliteration, but boy, a title like that should put every reader’s back up, and it certainly raises the hackles of any Mormon about to read it.
If nothing else, you are defeating yourself by giving away the whole point of your work. In fact, why should a Mormon read your book at all? Your two word title gives away your bias and your conclusion; we are so inundated with stuff from “Mormon research Ministries” and the Ed Deckers of the world that there is very little incentive to read yet another book whose title declares it to be anti. The defenses are up, the armor is on–and you will have to spend chapter after chapter of being ‘gentle’ to sooth the sensibilities. Why did you do that to yourself?
As to the question of the reviews: since the title of the thread is about “Mormon Mirage,” and not about any of your other books, then the reviews of the other books are irrelevant, wouldn’t you say? Let us deal only with the reviews of 'Mormon Mirage." Five reviews, four of which are by obvious anti-Mormons, three by published anti-Mormons, and one Ed Decker, who is in a discredited world of his own. I’m sure that you would prefer to distance yourself from him as far as you can.
Unfortunately, his review reads very much like that of the other four…and this does not bode well.
Do you understand how a title like that, and reviews like those, would raise warning flags all over the place for a Mormon about to open your book? It is if you had deliberately set out to let people know that 'here is a book that from the very first words is going to be disparaging and critical of your religion…beware, here there be dragons…??"
Ah, well. We’ll see.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Problem: Paul was a Jew and remained one. He also remained a Roman Citizen and attempted to trade on that to get out of trouble.
Remember, the very early Christians did not see themselves as a separate religion; they saw themselves as Jews who understood that the Messiah had arrived.
However, you have a point. I wonder, though…do you judge the Jewish faith and it’s beliefs by what Paul said about it? Does that even make sense?
No, this is a rule of mine that I follow…er…religiously. Or as religiously as I can. I will not ask anybody but a true believer about his religion.
It’s how I learned what the true relationship is between a Catholic and Mary so that it makes sense…and I certainly don’t want a stealth Ed Decker/Jack Chick type telling me about any religion they don’t like, no matter how sweetly they begin the discussion.
I guess the problem is, if you will remember from your own membership, that we Mormons just don’t get why people want to DO that, anyway.
F
Finrock
Guest
Good evening Latayne. It is a pleasure to meet you!
What dianaiad is suggesting is, in fact, not only in line with the “Golden Rule”, but also with those who have spent a good portion of their lives studying other religions.
Stendahl’s three rules of religious understanding
*"I have three rules for interfaith discussion, to wit:
Number one: If you’re going to ask the question, what do others believe, in their various faiths, ask them – not their critics, not their enemies.
Number two: if you’re going to compare, don’t compare your bests with their worsts, but compare bests with bests.
Number three: Leave room for holy envy"* (Krister Stendahl, late Emeritus Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm).
So, my question to you: Why should someone read your book in order to learn the truth about Mormonism instead of applying rule 1 of Stendahl’s rules?
Kind Regards,
Finrock
I know you are addressing posts by dianaiad, but I hope you don’t mind if I share my comments.
What dianaiad is suggesting is, in fact, not only in line with the “Golden Rule”, but also with those who have spent a good portion of their lives studying other religions.
Stendahl’s three rules of religious understanding
*"I have three rules for interfaith discussion, to wit:
Number one: If you’re going to ask the question, what do others believe, in their various faiths, ask them – not their critics, not their enemies.
Number two: if you’re going to compare, don’t compare your bests with their worsts, but compare bests with bests.
Number three: Leave room for holy envy"* (Krister Stendahl, late Emeritus Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm).
So, my question to you: Why should someone read your book in order to learn the truth about Mormonism instead of applying rule 1 of Stendahl’s rules?
Kind Regards,
Finrock
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Is that the Lutheran Bishop with the bright pink habit and the contagiously huge smile? I think I’ve heard him spell out these three rules on BYU TV before.Good evening Latayne. It is a pleasure to meet you!
I know you are addressing posts by dianaiad, but I hope you don’t mind if I share my comments.
What dianaiad is suggesting is, in fact, not only in line with the “Golden Rule”, but also with those who have spent a good portion of their lives studying other religions.
Stendahl’s three rules of religious understanding
*"I have three rules for interfaith discussion, to wit:
Number one: If you’re going to ask the question, what do others believe, in their various faiths, ask them – not their critics, not their enemies.
Number two: if you’re going to compare, don’t compare your bests with their worsts, but compare bests with bests.
Number three: Leave room for holy envy"* (Krister Stendahl, late Emeritus Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm).
So, my question to you: Why should someone read your book in order to learn the truth about Mormonism instead of applying rule 1 of Stendahl’s rules?
Kind Regards,
Finrock
I know where Diana stands with respect to #1, and she’s firm in her opinion so she and I’ll will just have to agree to disagree. I’m curious about your opinion on #1, mostly with respect to former member critics (and before we get caught up on what I mean by ‘critic’, let me say a former member who doesn’t agree with a particular facet of the theology).
In such a case, I believe a former member of a religion can theoretically be an accurate witness to the particular theology. I may no longer practice or believe in Mormonism, and indeed I’ve replaced it with a religion I feel is correct, but I don’t think that somehow renders my 20 some odd years experience as void or inadmissible.
C
Catholic20064
Guest
The reason you can’t depend upon Mormons to answer your questions is that “lying for the Lord” is an article of faith with them as Dallin Oaks has opined. And then there is Boyd K. Packer’s admonition that some things that are true aren’t useful so he says you’re not supposed to mention them.
Mormons will purposefully cover up their true doctrine. One Mormon poster regularly comes on here and denies certain doctrines of Mormonism because they aren’t in the standard works of Mormonism. King Follet and Heavenly Mother often get denied with a wink. And then there is President Hinckley’s public denial about Mormonism’s teaching that God was once a man. And then he joked at the next General Priesthood Conference session that he knew what Mormon doctrine was and not to believe everything you read in the newspapers.
The purpose of most of us ex-Mormons is to keep people from converting to Mormonism rather than trying to convert Mormons. Very few Mormons leave Mormonism. “Mormon Mirage” is a good title for a book trying to keep Protestants and Catholics from becoming Mormons. If the Mormons get their backs up that’s unfortunate, but the main point is to keep others from being trapped by Mormonism.
Mormons will purposefully cover up their true doctrine. One Mormon poster regularly comes on here and denies certain doctrines of Mormonism because they aren’t in the standard works of Mormonism. King Follet and Heavenly Mother often get denied with a wink. And then there is President Hinckley’s public denial about Mormonism’s teaching that God was once a man. And then he joked at the next General Priesthood Conference session that he knew what Mormon doctrine was and not to believe everything you read in the newspapers.
The purpose of most of us ex-Mormons is to keep people from converting to Mormonism rather than trying to convert Mormons. Very few Mormons leave Mormonism. “Mormon Mirage” is a good title for a book trying to keep Protestants and Catholics from becoming Mormons. If the Mormons get their backs up that’s unfortunate, but the main point is to keep others from being trapped by Mormonism.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Good morning, Catholic20064,
While I disagree as to whether Dallin Oaks said what you attributed to him, I did want to point out that a sifting process such as you have written about is essential when one considers the implications of eternity and eternal possibilities and the level of trust implied by inheriting a throne with Christ. Knowing the voice of the good Shepherd and responding to that voice amidst all the other voices in the world, knowing the promptings of the Holy Ghost amidst all the other clutter of possible sources of “promptings”–these require a sifting process, regardless of the religion a person embraces.
Any book that helps do that is not acting as a mirage but as a potential factor for those who read such a book in helping to sift hearts desires and hearts inclinations toward the heavenly knowledge that Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 2. In other words, let it happen it’s OK–Christ’s work is being accomplished by the sifting that goes on.
- Status