Texan sect girls 'in abuse cycle'

Originally posted by Big Mac
1) They do have sacred undergarments.

Yes, they do. So what? Lots of traditions have sacred clothing. Just because it's an undergarment,
does that mean it cannot connote a sacred meaning or enhance spirituality?

2) The founders and several following generations were polygamists.

So was Abraham and Solomon and David and like a dozen other prophets. Again, so what?
The LDS church has not sanctioned plural marriages for nearly 120 years. If members engage
in plural marriages, they are expelled from the church. Why harp on an issue which
lasted for three generations (rather than hundreds of years in the Judeo-Christian tradition)
that the church has renounced?

3) They do believe they will be gods one day.

You have misunderstood their stance. Through the love of God and the complete understanding
of Him that comes with death and existence in heaven, and coming to love all that God loves,
they become like unto Him, but always subordinate to Him and never able to separate from
Him or deviate from His will. They work with Him in perpetuating the glory that is His. It's
not really all that different from ideas of heaven propagated by mainstream Christians;
that is, you go there, you sit around basking in God's glory having been transfigured and made
completely whole, becoming higher than angels. Nowhere is it believed that people become 'God,'
merely subordinates to God, but not unlike Him.

If you really want a better overview, read this:
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/godhead/Godhood_EOM.htm


4) They used to consider non-whites to be of Satan.

This is complete BS. Joseph Smith (founder of the church) said that black people had souls
during a time when such comments were very unpopular. Brigham Young, another
important individual in Mormon church history, said that white people would pay for the crimes
they committed against black people. There are records of black LDS congregations going
back to the 1900s. What you are thinking of is that those of African decent were denied access
to the priesthood, something which changed in 1978. Well, big deal. The Roman Church,
most notably, and many Protestant churches deny access to the priesthood to women. The
Episcopal and Lutheran church only abandoned this draconian segregation within the past 30
years.

If I am wrong, I genuinely want to know. Please correct my errors.

This whole post took me 25 minutes to research and write. If you really wanted to learn about
religions so that you can treat them with the respect and dignity with which you prefer your
religion to be treated, you would have done this research yourself. But I'm sure it's easier to
marginalize other traditions in an effort to puff your own up.

I do find much of what I "know" about Mormonism to be funny, perhaps absurd, but at best erroneous. But, I do not despise them. I pity them. I have relatives who are Mormon, and it saddens me.

That's too bad you find them funny. I bet they find you funny. And I know they pity you.
And they will posthumously baptize you so that you won't be denied a place in heaven.

I find it interesting that you are holding me to a standard that 1) you yourself do not believe in, and 2)you labeled as Christian, but then define it as seeing Jesus in everybody.

I do believe in the golden rule (the platinum rule, actually, 'Do unto others as they would have
done unto them'😉. And I don't understand #2: don't you think that a Christian ought to see
Christ in one another, even if they are 'funny' Mormons with 'silly' underpants? Don't you think
you have a duty to transcend such behavior and see the Divine spark in them? I do.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well, it's because of some childishness on your part that undergarments make you guffaw but
hats don't -- you know that other people's 'peepees' are dirty or whatever. Aesthetics are just
socialized, and to point and make fun of other people and their traditions because you think it
looks funny is puerile and self-centered. All garments are equally sil ...[text shortened]... reciate this, given that all clothing is an arbitrary though
wide-spread social construct.

Shucks, what a word twister. I don't laugh at all undergarments, only ones that look silly. Silly hats make me laugh, too -- but for some reason yarmulke's don't strike me as risible. Whether aesthetics are 'just socialised' or not would be fit matter for debate, although I did qualify my comment on silly garments with a 'to me'. But what really concerns me is your peculiar equation -- which I certainly don't share -- of underpants with urine and faeces. They're not poo-catchers, you know; one removes them before performing the holy office. Why you should seek to thrust this perverted association of ideas on me is beyond my understanding, although certain uncharitable guesses do spring to mind.

On the subject of humour -- would you crack a smile if the congregation paraded only in their holy underpants? If they put on red noses and capered about? Or have you succeeded in totally repressing your sense of humour in favour of some puritanical principle -- 'thou shalt not laugh at other people not matter what'? In that respect you're not unlike ivanhoe. (Where has that clown got to, anyhow?)

I'd happily wear the temple garment on a float at the Rio Carnival (if only), and I wouldn't give a poo-poo, a doo-doo, a wee-wee or a pee-pee how hard you laughed.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Don't you think
you have a duty to transcend such behavior and see the Divine spark in them? I do.

Nemesio

I've never met a person who wasn't ridiculous at some point or other. I flatly fail to see how laughing at the ludicrous could stand in the way of 'seeing the divine spark'. If anything, it's likely to endear the silly people to me. Imagine the congregations of the world pitching up at the Gates in all their silly outfits and funny hats. The angels would howl.

Of course it goes without saying (which is why I'm saying it) that a healthy sense of self-ridicule should lodge in the person laughing. Traditions that recognise the value of laughter and satirise their own beliefs are the ones that rank highest in my esteem. Always mock the Puritan.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If these be the bastions of charity, may God forgive me for not holding it as a virtue:

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/saltlake/

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/st-peters-basilica-pictures/slides/facade-night-d50_217.htm

Please explain in more detail. I am sure that the most extravagant churches in Zambia are Catholic ones - probably funded mostly by foreign catholics. However, the most Charitable Christians are also the Catholics (In Zambia). They run schools, hospitals, orphanages etc etc. I know other churches which are quite happy to operate out of classrooms on Sundays but the pastor - who depends entirely on the giving of the poor congregation - drives an expensive car and goes to and expensive house etc. I know someone who stopped going to church because the sermon every single Sunday was about giving to the Church - and never once about giving to the poor. An expensive Church building may also be a sign of how giving the congregation is, and how honest the leadership is in not siphoning of that money for their personal use.
Yes we can alway criticize others and show how they could give more than they do or could use it better than they are, but when the people we are criticizing have the best record for giving, we should seek to best them before criticizing them.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Shucks, what a word twister. I don't laugh at all undergarments, only ones that look silly. Silly hats make me laugh, too -- but for some reason yarmulke's don't strike me as risible. Whether aesthetics are 'just socialised' or not would be fit matter for debate, although I did qualify my comment on silly garments with a 'to me'. But what really concerns me is your peculiar equation -- which I certainly don't share -- of underpants with urine and faeces. They're not poo-catchers, you know; one removes them before performing the holy office. Why you should seek to thrust this perverted association of ideas on me is beyond my understanding, although certain uncharitable guesses do spring to mind.

Whatever 'Bosse.' Going back before the time of myths, the idea of 'nakedness' being equated
with dirtiness is pretty well established. Adam and Eve were naked and they were ashamed.
Just watch TV sometime; poop and fart jokes are and have been all the rage. Underpants
are considered funny just by virtue of what they hide. I've seen more than a few sitcoms
in which someone running by or around in their underwear is considered extremely funny.

I find this mindset to be childish. I'm in a minority, I recognize. After one poop joke, I tend
to be tired of the style. Richard Pryor's diatribe on poop left me cold, even though I generally
like his work. The sound track makes it clear that the audience was apoplectic with laughter.

Big Mac brought up 'Holy Underwear' because he thought it was intrinsically funny. He wanted
to make light of a tradition he has no respect for, so he brought up underwear as justification
for his stance. I say, anything that compels a person to be more mindful of the Divine is
something worth doing, wearing or possessing, no matter how silly it seems from our
socialized perspectives.

My son, who is four, sees new things and sometimes he laughs. He sees a really fat person,
or a really short one, or one with a pronounced limp or severe palsy. His reaction, generally,
is to laugh. I forgive him: he's four. I teach him that difference, even extreme difference, is
not a reason to laugh of itself. I'd like to think adults have learned this lesson. I'm routinely
disappointed.

Generally, people have a natural reaction to laugh and call 'funny' the things that they find odd
(either that, or to become scared). I suspect that there is a good evolutionary reason for this,
though I don't know offhand what it is (maybe to encourage conformity and thus protect the
group?). Frankly, I think we owe other people better than that. I don't think it's right to point
at the sorts of things that people cherish as sacred and use them as a means to belittle.
This differs from Ivanhoe most notably because he is unable to distinguish between genuine
criticism and making fun. I have no problem with someone's contending that undergarments
reflect an older or flawed notion of sacred. I have no problem with someone's contending that
people who think that the idea that clothing brings you closer to God is misguided. I do have
a problem with someone's saying: Look at that guy! Isn't he stupid? He's wearing holy underwear!

On the subject of humour -- would you crack a smile if the congregation paraded only in their holy underpants? If they put on red noses and capered about? Or have you succeeded in totally repressing your sense of humour in favour of some puritanical principle -- 'thou shalt not laugh at other people not matter what'? In that respect you're not unlike ivanhoe. (Where has that clown got to, anyhow?)

Whatever, 'Bosse.' There are all sorts of rituals in which native South Americans parade around
naked, in strange suits, wearing scary masks or whatever. I don't find it funny, no. I think
they are making sincere efforts to try to understand something bigger than they are, and
I think that's holy. Freemasons parade about in 'silly aprons,' and their ritual is austere and
elegant. Maybe you think this makes me a prude, but I don't really care what you think anyway.
I'm comfortable with the idea that other people might have different and often strange ways
of trying to get in touch with the Divine and, while I'm not shy about questioning and examining
those attempts, I'm not about to scoff at them by laughing at them just because they seem
foreign. I save my scoffing for those who, under scrutiny, have contradictory or incoherent
theological frameworks.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
[b]Shucks, what a word twister. I don't laugh at all undergarments, only ones that look silly. Silly hats make me laugh, too -- but for some reason yarmulke's don't strike me as risible. Whether aesthetics are 'just socialised' or not would be fit matter for debate, although I did qualify my comment on silly garment ry or incoherent
theological frameworks.

Nemesio

[/b]I don't know...I generally agree with your posts 100%, and since I consider you to be head and shoulders smarter than I am, now that I am disagreeing with you I do so tentatively.

Surely, the line between mockery and good humor is not so clear for you that you need to be so strident about it? I mean, the fact is some of the things we do to worship or get closer to God are kind of funny. Holy underwear is kind of funny, just like transubstantiation is kind of gross. That does not mean I think Mormon people are funny just as it does not mean I think Catholics are gross. I have not gone back to read the record, but I don't recall a lot of "scorn" over the underwear bit, just a little bit of jest. If I'm inaccurate on this point my entire post will prove to be a waste of time because I'm not supporting scorn.

In our culture we tend to trip all over ourselves to respect any notion of spirituality a person wants to have, for the most part it’s a good thing. However, there is no need to be so incredibly sensitive that we are no longer able to recognize funny for what it is. Call a spade a spade, and call funny, funny.

Emerson said: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Since I find "little hobgoblins" to be robustly funny there is a great deal to make me laugh in this country from the spiritual to the political. It is made all the more funny because I'm as guilty as people who wear holy underwear (we all are), but I realize I deserve to be laughed at a bit, and join right in. Taking ourselves too seriously is when the real trouble starts!

EDIT: Got rid of bold.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Surely, the line between mockery and good humor is not so clear for you that you need to be so strident about it? I mean, the fact is some of the things we do to worship or get closer to God are kind of funny. Holy underwear is kind of funny, just like transubstantiation is kind of gross. That does not mean I think Mormon people are funny just as it does not mean I think Catholics are gross. I have not gone back to read the record, but I don't recall a lot of "scorn" over the underwear bit, just a little bit of jest. If I'm inaccurate on this point my entire post will prove to be a waste of time because I'm not supporting scorn.

TheSkipper, I respect you and your thoughtful posts so much that a preamble of explanation,
though appreciated, is totally unnecessary. Let me try to explain what I mean a little better.

First, I think all forms of worship are approximately equally 'funny.' I can remember vividly
at the age of eight watching a PBS video on some indigenous people of some rain forest
nation engaging in some ritual to make their crops grow (or something like that). I remember
saying to my dad how funny and silly they were, and his response was something to the effect
of, 'Well, they don't find it silly. For them, this is very serious.' And I remember thinking about
that and realizing (and articulating to my father) that I bet that the religious practices that we
engaged in would look just as silly to these people. My father agreed. But that conversation
(obviously) stuck with me for these some two and one half decades.

The fact is, most people espousing a particular religious mythos are unable to recognize how
unlikely and silly it really is because it becomes part of their character. Elijah's ascending
up to heaven, Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt, Jonah's living inside a sea monster for
days -- it all seems totally reasonable, even while they scoff at Hercules' ascension to heaven,
Daphne's transformation into a tree, or Rhea's babies' living inside Cronus' stomach for
days.

I don't think some ways we strive to get to God are 'funny;' I think they all are, just some
seem less 'funny' simply because we grew up and lived with them. And by funny, I don't
mean humorous, but more 'odd' or 'unusual.' And, since I think it's only a matter of coincidence
that I grew up in a Judeo-Christian part of the world with the sorts of opportunities to study
religion and religious evolution closely (because of parents who never refused to buy me a book),
I'm not about to associate 'odd' or 'foreign to my experience' as 'let's laugh.'

But this is precisely what Big Mac did, and what I rebuked him for: he was not casually or neutrally
observing that Mormon's have strange (foreign) practices. He was misrepresenting them in an
uncharitable light, not to further understand or come to respect LDS or even come to a point
of bemused acceptance, but in an effort to disparage that particular religious tradition. I find
such behavior deplorable, especially in a person who labels himself as a Christian (a person
called to act with love towards all other humankind, to see Christ in them).

I think thoughtful people have a duty to try to see what is beautiful about other traditions;
prima facie transubstantiation seems gross indeed -- drinking blood and eating flesh is
pretty grim -- but the theology behind it is actually quite elegant. The sacred undergarments
that Mormons wear seem awfully silly at first blush indeed -- God ordained holy underwear? --
but the theology behind it is actually well conceived, having roots in ancient Jewish culture that
Joseph Smith evidently knew about.

I have no problem with someone saying, 'You know, I've tried, but I really can't find anything
sacred about the undergarments. I cannot transcend the upbringing I have that makes me view
them as silly.' But I insist that they be honest about it. And generally, when confronted with
information about their own religious tradition that, when viewed objectively, could be construed
as equally open to disparaging, they generally back off or disappear from the threads in a fit
of shame and annoyance at me.

To be truthful, I often make the above statement to myself routinely when I study indigenous cultures'
practices that are really foreign to my experience. I fully admit that I am 'too Western' or
'too "cultured"' to find the Divine in such rituals. I consider this a product of my own incapacity
and not some intrinsic silliness of their ritual. That being said, I tend to keep such things to
myself rather than pointing the finger at those cultures and saying, 'How foolish!' That is, I
do have an objection to, as you say, someone's pointing and saying, 'Look at how silly those
people are.'

I firmly believe that with enough education and exposure to a ritual practice, a person can ultimately
see the beauty in any ritual; I think most people are too lazy or too 'theophobic' to try. I think that,
rather than striving to make divisions amongst what I believe are arbitrary differences among
humankind, trying to see the beauty which expresses itself in many forms across the human
race is a much more noble calling, one which I really make a conscientious effort to do (and
routinely fail to my shame).

Nemesio

[nested quotes suck]

Originally posted by Nemesio
Going back before the time of myths, the idea of 'nakedness' being equated
with dirtiness is pretty well established. Adam and Eve were naked and they were ashamed.

Too bad for Adam & Eve! Things were different in Tahiti ...

The comments on TV are irrelevant. The existence of anally fixated has nothing to do with whether some garment is ridiculous.

I say, anything that compels a person to be more mindful of the Divine is
something worth doing, wearing or possessing, no matter how silly it seems from our
socialized perspectives.

I'm sure you can think of a few exceptions to that rule, eg. the dignified garments of the sacrificial priests in old Mexico.


I have no problem with someone's contending that undergarments
reflect an older or flawed notion of sacred. I have no problem with someone's contending that
people who think that the idea that clothing brings you closer to God is misguided. I do have
a problem with someone's saying: Look at that guy! Isn't he stupid? He's wearing holy underwear!

I'd simply say that holy underwear looks silly. I wouldn't automatically infer that the wearer is stupid. Although for some reason the story of the Emperor's new clothes comes to mind.

Maybe you think this makes me a prude, but I don't really care what you think anyway.

I find you somewhat peculiar, but your comments are sometimes interesting.

Originally posted by TheSkipper

Emerson said: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Since I find "little hobgoblins" to be robustly funny there is a great deal to make me laugh in this country from the spiritual to the political. It is made all the more funny because I'm as guilty as people who wear holy un ...[text shortened]... Taking ourselves too seriously is when the real trouble starts!

EDIT: Got rid of bold.

I like the notion that we are all, probably, in some form, wearing holy underwear.

What about women/females only being able to get into heaven through a husband?

Originally posted by Nemesio
But this is precisely what Big Mac did, and what I rebuked him for: he was not casually or neutrally
observing that Mormon's have strange (foreign) practices. He was misrepresenting them in an
uncharitable light, not to further understand or come to respect LDS or even come to a point
of bemused acceptance, but in an effort to disparage that particular reli ...[text shortened]... Christian (a person
called to act with love towards all other humankind, to see Christ in them).

And now you are misrepresenting me.
Are you attempting to "give me a taste of my own medicine?"
How was what I said "uncharitable?" Because I listed things about the LDS that led me to say they were not "good Christians?"
How should I come to "further understand or come to respect LDS or even come to a point of bemused acceptance?" Enlighten me.
You claim that I am a Christian. Who says? What does that mean to you? Define your terms here.
You fully disclose that you are not a Christian and that you find all religious action used as means of getting closer to the divine as silly. But, of course, you don't call the person stupid for following it so long as they're consistent in their beliefs. So, have you never laughed in your adult life at a situation that you found funny, even if others found it serious? And, at which point did I call LDS members stupid?
And, since you claim to not be a Christian, how could you tell me what a Christian is called to do? You say a Christian should act with love towards all other humankind, to see Christ in them. Those are two very different things. Where did you get this half-truth from? Are you making this up as go? Are going by what other wrong people tell you? You are not getting these things from the Christian Bible. Love? yes. Divine spark? no. You accuse me of not living up to a standard that I have not agreed to live up to. I find such behavior deplorable, especially in a person who labels himself open-minded and educated. Sound familiar?

You claim that Joseph Smith based his teachings on sacred undergarments on Jewish Tradition that he just happened to know about. Really?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I like the notion that we are all, probably, in some form, wearing holy underwear.

Or in some cases holey underwear.

Originally posted by Nordlys
Or in some cases holey underwear.

In my case wholly....


Nemisto I say, anything that compels a person to be more mindful of the Divine is
something worth doing, wearing or possessing, no matter how silly it seems from our
socialized perspectives.

Bosse I'm sure you can think of a few exceptions to that rule, eg. the dignified garments of the sacrificial priests in old Mexico.


This is more to the point as to how I why I was posting in the first place. If harm is done by the practice, then surely the issue is wider than just the adherents (and surely especially when they are younger).

Originally posted by Big Mac
And now you are misrepresenting me.
Are you attempting to "give me a taste of my own medicine?"
How was what I said "uncharitable?" Because I listed things about the LDS that led me to say they were not "good Christians?"
How should I come to "further understand or come to respect LDS or even come to a point of bemused acceptance?" Enlighten me.
You clai ...[text shortened]... sacred undergarments on Jewish Tradition that he just happened to know about. Really?

I really don't have time to help you with reading comprehension.

You made fun of LDS by either misrepresenting them (non-whites are of Satan or they become
'gods' of other worlds) or disparaging them (speaking of their long-defunct polygamist history,
one which your tradition shares and making fun of attire they consider sacred). If you cannot
see this as uncharitable -- something which Jesus explicitly commands you to be -- then I can't
really help you.

I have not given you a taste of your own medicine because I have not made fun of Christianity.

I can't tell you how to come to at the very least accept the LDS. You're going to have to work
on that yourself (or not). Making fun of them, however, ought to rub you as something you
ought not do, since I'm sure you don't like when people make fun of Christianity.

I did not claim you were a Christian (although you, historically, referred to yourself as a
'fellow believer' when talking with other Christians). I said, 'If you are indeed a Christian...'
then you ought to be sensitive to when non-Christians make fun of your tradition. It was my
hope that this would engender empathy towards LDS as you make fun of them.

I have never disclosed (fully or partly) that I am or am not a Christian. I'm certainly not a
Christian as defined by the likes of you, or by any of the fundamentalists on this site, but that's
evident in the content of my posts. What my religious leanings are, where I derive my spiritual
nourishment, the manner in which I commune with the Divine, and those who comprise my
spiritual advisors are to be known to my Father in secret.

Further: I didn't say all religious action was silly. I said they are all equally silly. It wasn't
a qualitative judgment, it was a comparative one. I believe (and respect) the different ways
in which people try to get closer to God; some are less effective or ineffective for me and
so I don't practice them. Some ways are more effective for me. I am not about to take my
experiences and insist that they are the universally best ways to get in touch with the Divine.
For me, the sacred undergarments don't serve to remind me of my promises to God, any more
than wearing a yarmulke makes me respect my station before the Lord. However, if such holy
clothing does help their respective wearers, why should they be made fun of?

And whether I am a Christian (by yours or any definition whatsoever) or not doesn't mean I'm
unable to read the sacred Scriptures and interpret them. Jesus told His Disciples to love one
another as He loved them (St John 15:12), and to love your enemies and do good to those
who hate you (St Luke 6:27ff.). You failed to do so, and of this there can be no dispute. You
can be mad at me or embarrassed generally for pointing it out (it doesn't bother me), but it
doesn't change that fact. It's you who has to reconcile with the person you wronged before you
go to the altar of the Lord.

And if you believe that you and your tradition is the only one in which the Divine spark lives, then
I believe you live a sad life.

Lastly, I don't know where you got the idea that I said Smith based his teachings on the
sacred undergarments in Jewish Tradition. I said that he was clearly familiar with ancient
Jewish tradition because he was obviously a scholar of the Bible in which sacred clothing is
very clearly described.

It's my opinion that you should strive not to misrepresent people or institutions. Jesus didn't
do it, and it seems contrary to His teachings to do so. But you'll do what you want, I suppose.

Nemesio