Utah Mormons were right all along...the Simpsons proves that there is no God
Haole
On the most recent episode of The Simpson Homer, while working out the
details of a flat tax system, inadvertantly proves that there is no God.
Homer's devout next-door neighbor checked Homer's facts and found that
Homer had it right.
So, all those Utah Mormons who were yelling about how faithful LDS
shouldn't watch The Simpsons turned out to be right after all, The
Simpsons really does promote Godlessness.
My apologies for ever defending the show.
-Haole
--
...smashing up the woodwork too...
fmhlaw
The show is banned in my house because of the total disrespect it shows
between family members, people at work and school, etc. But if it's
Homer Simpson that "proves" there's no God, I'd be inclined to think,
doofus that he is, that he actually proved the opposite and just got his
conclusions fouled up.
Scott Marquardt
>My apologies for ever defending the show.
Good grief, surely you jest. I didn't see the show, so I could be wrong,
but it seems to me they were just lampooning the intractible character of
systems concocted by the feds. That is, "if you can understand how such a
system would actually work, you'd be as capable of proving the
non-existence [or existence] of God." The satire is playing on the
intractibility of *that* argument, suggesting that anyone who could settle
one could just as well settle the other.
There, so much for my Hegelian argument from the chair. I'm not prepared
for someone who say the episode to say "Bzzt! Wrong!" ;-)
FWIW, I'm no Simpson's fan. More banal network drivel, AFAIC.
- Scott
Kathryn Simpson
"fmhlaw" <fmh...@home.com> wrote in message
news:1VO66.65135$HQ4.3...@pouncer.easynews.com...
> The show is banned in my house because of the total disrespect it shows
> between family members, people at work and school, etc.
Here too. Been banned for years in this house for the very same reason,
even though the show was named after our family. ;=)
If Bart Simpson were one of our Simpson kids, he'd... well, he'd know better
than to be so disrespectful to his parents and teachers. <g>
--
Regards of the NW,
Kathy
http://www.nwdaily.com/sales.htm
Hedgehog
Simpson" <kjsi...@centurytel.net> wrote in regards to the TV show the
Simpsons:
> "fmhlaw" <fmh...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:1VO66.65135$HQ4.3...@pouncer.easynews.com...
> > The show is banned in my house because of the total disrespect it shows
> > between family members, people at work and school, etc.
> Here too. Been banned for years in this house for the very same reason,
> even though the show was named after our family. ;=)
Lisa Simpson and Marge Simpson are completely disrespectful?
The old adage about pessimism and optimism is that the pessimist sees the
glass as half empty and the optimist sees it as half full. It occurs to
me that Mormonism, as portrayed on this newsgroup, is just about the most
pessimistic religion I have ever seen.
After all, can't the Mormon nit-picker find something to despise in any
television comedy? Hawkeye Pierce was a drunk and a womanizer. Ralph
Kramden continually threatens his wife with physical abuse. Is there
anyone here who finds Lucy's character from I Love Lucy a role model?
If Mormons hate the Simpsons, then what television comedies do they watch?
Wouldn't it be best for Mormons to give up television altogether and spend
that time studying the Scriptures?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Jonathan Burk
last week's episode was one of the best. As with any satirical comedy, it
is very upsetting to those who take it at face value. And over the last 10
years, "The Simpsons" has made fun of everyone, so I have no doubt they've
made a lot of enemies. Although I can't remember them ever picking on
Mormons specifically, I've always felt their "satire" of organized religion
was right on, especially their depiction of the brainwashed, squeaky-clean
"Born Again Christian" family.
There have been a few episodes which were a little raunchy, and I didn't
finish those. But generally speaking, "The Simpsons" has always had a
theme of tolerance, humor, and family togetherness that shone through the
jokes and highjinx. Especially last week's. In fact, when it was over, my
wife turned to me and said "What a sweet show." The episode was a great
example of the love a father can have for a daughter, and would have done
any Sacrament meeting talk proud.
And I never heard anyone complain about Calvin in "Calvin and Hobbes", who
was 10x worse than Bart.
And my favorite quote from last week:
Homer (calling automated stock quote service): Animatronic Services.
Automated Service: Animatronic Services, +8.
Homer (screaming for joy): Yahoo!!
Automated Service: Yahoo, -3 3/4.
Homer (confused): Hey, what is this crap?
Automated Service: Fox Broadcasting, -2.
Another thought that just came up. The scene in question that started this
thread was Homer (now extremely smart), confronts Ned Flanders with a paper
on which he's written a theorem that "proves there is no God". Ned looks
over the theorem, and can't find fault with it, so he panics and lights it
on fire to destroy the evidence. Then we see Homer placing copies of the
paper on cars along the street. I thought this was a satire on those
religions who have been accused of destroying or hiding evidence that would
damage their history. So maybe they _were_ attacking Mormons, among others.
But since TCoJCoLDS would _never_ destroy or hide evidence that brings
history into question, Mormons have no reason to be offended by this scene.
Lucky us.
Jonathan
Haole <maj...@bungie.net> wrote in message
news:4ZE66.56231$HQ4.3...@pouncer.easynews.com...
Raymond Bingham
In particular his target of Utah mormons was probably a bent
toward those who feel the need to defend Utah mormons.
Though I note that I know more Out-of-Utah Mormons who
don't watch the show, than Utah Mormons... ;)
Best regards,
PS. I have a whole collection of their tapes, so I'm one
of those eeeevil mormons, I suppose. Unfortunately I no
longer have broadcast Teevee, so have to buy the tapes, and
so I missed last week's episode. :-( Simpsons is one of
the few shows I wanted broadcast (cable) teevee for, others
were Babylon 5 (and any possible follow ups) and Xena
Warrior Princess... ;-) Yes, it is now painfully clear
how eeeevil I am.
--
Raymond Bingham | 100 % PURE Uninformed Unabashed Opinion
"A good rule of thumb: Never give Microsoft root access."
I hate spam!
hedg...@scripps.edu (Hedgehog) wrote:
> If Mormons hate the Simpsons, then what television comedies do they
watch?
Terry Rakolta watched Married With Children to get a list of sponsors
to whom she could write letters demanding they stop paying for such a
raunchy show... one letter from her was all it took to scare Pepsi away.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Kathryn Simpson
"Hedgehog" <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote in message
news:04076.81430$HQ4.4...@pouncer.easynews.com...
> Lisa Simpson and Marge Simpson are completely disrespectful?
Marge is enabling his behavior. ;=) Not something I want to teach my child
about parenting.
>
> The old adage about pessimism and optimism is that the pessimist sees the
> glass as half empty and the optimist sees it as half full. It occurs to
> me that Mormonism, as portrayed on this newsgroup, is just about the most
> pessimistic religion I have ever seen.
If I gave you a 2 pound steak, that had a maggots crawling around only one
side of it, would you eat the half that wasn't moving? Would you nit-pick
it off??
I wouldn't. I'd throw out the whole steak and any others that were from the
same package and probably wouldn't get my meat from the same store again
until I was sure they cleaned up their act. Does that mean I won't buy any
meat again? Absolutely not. Does it mean I wouldn't go to any grocery store
again? Certainly not.
You sound as if you think I'm condemning all of TV simply because I deem one
show inappropriate for my child? Who's being judgemental here, you or me?
When people resort to plotting reasonable decisions as extremism, it takes a
decision completely out of context and that is frustrating. Using
appropriate judgement is my responsibility as a parent. I really shouldn't
have to defend that. :=)
> Wouldn't it be best for Mormons to give up television altogether and spend
> that time studying the Scriptures?
Nah, then we'd miss Conference, Music and the Spoken Word, and Touched by an
Angel. ;=)
--
Regards of the NW,
Kathy <--who watches ER, but the kids aren't up that late. ;=o
Haole
<cine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Although I can't remember them ever picking on
> Mormons specifically,
There have been at least 3 times. My favorite is when Kodos and Klang show
up on the doorstep of OFF* and Homer sayas "Oh great...Mormons."
-Haole
*Our Favorite Family, aka The Simpsons
I hate spam!
> "The Simpsons" has been one of my family's favorite shows for 10
years ...
Those who can't stand the Simpsons certainly would never be able to
watch South Park which - through selected viewing - can bring about
some great lines.
Among my favorites involved a heaven/hell sequence. Sitting amongst
all of the fire and brimstone a group of people were questioning why
they were there. "I was a devout Methodist!" "I was a Jehovah's
Witness!" "Catholic!" "Why are we here?" One of the demons in charge
called out "Mormon was the correct answer. We were looking for Mormon."
A short time later a group of people wearing white shirts and ties were
seen amongst the clouds, offering jello salad and popcorn balls while
singing songs about how drugs are bad for the family.
Ranks right up there with Sam Malone (Cheers) saying "Mormons can't
send flowers? I knew they couldn't dance but I didn't know they
couldn't send flowers."
Haole
<thean...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <YR376.83607$HQ4.4...@pouncer.easynews.com>,
> "Jonathan Burk" <cine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "The Simpsons" has been one of my family's favorite shows for 10
> years ...
>
> Those who can't stand the Simpsons certainly would never be able to
> watch South Park which - through selected viewing - can bring about
> some great lines.
How about when the "snake" (of the firework variety) goes wildly out of
control and crosses the Utah border, killing 2 missionaries and a guy they
were baptizing in a river? I think "we thank thee o god for a prophet" was
even the background music to that scene...
Kathryn Simpson
"Jonathan Burk" <cine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:YR376.83607$HQ4.4...@pouncer.easynews.com...
>...Mormons have no reason to be offended by this scene.
Interesting, I'm not offended as a "Mormon" to "The Simpson", I'm offended
as a parent.
I find the disrespect that Bart shows towards virtually everyone as
offensive and not something I want my children to get a 1/2 hour's dose of
every day or any day, for that matter.
--
Regards of the NW,
Kathy
http://www.nwdaily.com/sales.htm
Hedgehog
<kjsi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> You sound as if you think I'm condemning all of TV simply because I deem one
> show inappropriate for my child? Who's being judgemental here, you or me?
Which animated characters do form appropriate role models for Mormon
children? Bugs Bunny? Tom and Jerry? Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner?
Animaniacs?
> When people resort to plotting reasonable decisions as extremism, it takes a
> decision completely out of context and that is frustrating.
Hey, this is the first post I have seen which discusses children viewing
the Simpsons. I was merely reacting to the apparently extreme
characterization of the Simpsons as nothing but disrespect between family
members. It's like saying Shakespeare is trashy because King Lear is a
lousy father. Even Matt Groening wouldn't ask you to base your life on
the Simpsons. It's just a TV show.
> > Wouldn't it be best for Mormons to give up television altogether and spend
> > that time studying the Scriptures?
>
> Nah, then we'd miss Conference, Music and the Spoken Word, and Touched by an
> Angel. ;=)
If you have cable, watch Farscape! I'd be interested in Mormon opinions
on their use of words such as frell/frelling.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Vincent Woolf
Trivia question: What Mormon appeared in the last episode of Married With
Children?
Vincent
iphigenia
:
: Those who can't stand the Simpsons certainly would never be able to
: watch South Park which - through selected viewing - can bring about
: some great lines.
Just want to interject at this point that I quite like the Simpsons. I'm
capable of understanding that the entire show is satire, biting social
commentary. I don't understand people that say they dislike it because of
Bart's bad behaviour, &c. - isn't it clear that the show *isn't* putting
that forth as a good way to bring up kids?
: Among my favorites involved a heaven/hell sequence. Sitting amongst
: all of the fire and brimstone a group of people were questioning why
: they were there. "I was a devout Methodist!" "I was a Jehovah's
: Witness!" "Catholic!" "Why are we here?" One of the demons in charge
: called out "Mormon was the correct answer. We were looking for Mormon."
:
Husband and I were watching this episode and both of us just about fell on
the floor laughing - we completely didn't expect it and it was really well
done. The interesting thing is that they managed to get the LDS culture (as
depicted in Heaven) just about dead on. If they hadn't, it would have been
annoying, not amusing, but they did a good job.
--
iphigenia
hear the passion in their voices,
see the heaven in their eyes
Haole
<kjsi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> "Hedgehog" <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote in message
> news:04076.81430$HQ4.4...@pouncer.easynews.com...
> > Lisa Simpson and Marge Simpson are completely disrespectful?
> Marge is enabling his behavior. ;=) Not something I want to teach my child
> about parenting.
I don't leave parenting to the television.
> > The old adage about pessimism and optimism is that the pessimist sees the
> > glass as half empty and the optimist sees it as half full. It occurs to
> > me that Mormonism, as portrayed on this newsgroup, is just about the most
> > pessimistic religion I have ever seen.
> If I gave you a 2 pound steak, that had a maggots crawling around only one
> side of it, would you eat the half that wasn't moving? Would you nit-pick
> it off??
I'll bet you are going to say no. You have the luxury of living in an
opulent society which gets to throw away food at will. Myself, I have been
in situations where the non-maggot side would have been a luxury, and I
probably would have eaten the side with maggots as well/
In any case, my experience with people who get nuts about the Simpsons is
that they haven't actually seen the show (at worst) or don't get what it
is about (at best). They usually say something like "Bart is
disrespectful", but Bart is just one of the show's characters, and often a
rather minor one.
I few years ago I read an excellent article by a reputable academic that
demonstrated how the Simpsons was the only tv show at that time that
consistently portrayed religion in a positive light.
And many episodes have an excellent message, think of the episode
detailing Maggie's birth (which could practically be a "will I be happy"
video) as a clear example. Or Homer reconciling with his father. Or....
One other thing that boggles my mind in these sorts of discussions is the
assumption that since the show is animated, it must be geared towards
little kids. It's not.
Raymond Bingham
>If I gave you a 2 pound steak, that had a maggots crawling around only one
>side of it, would you eat the half that wasn't moving? Would you nit-pick
>it off??
All I can think of to answer this question is Homer saying,
"Mmmmmmmmm, 2 pound steak."
Best regards,
PS. "Maggots? Extra protein? Woo-hoo!"
Raymond Bingham
>> Although I can't remember them ever picking on
>> Mormons specifically,
>There have been at least 3 times. My favorite is when Kodos and Klang show
>up on the doorstep of OFF* and Homer says "Oh great...Mormons."
This was the reference that came to my mind too. I thought
it was hysterical.
For clarification, Kodos and Klang are both mult tentacled, one eyed, g
green aliens who laugh maniacally. They come to Homer's door. Hehehe.
For those of you who've been door to door tracting, it's very funny,
as you've probably often been received with more alarm/disgust than
would a big green, one-eyed, multi-tentacled alien from outer space. ;-)
Best regards,
Raymond Bingham
>In article <dLa76.409$4V3.1...@news01.micron.net>, "Kathryn Simpson"
><kjsi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>> You sound as if you think I'm condemning all of TV simply because I deem one
>> show inappropriate for my child? Who's being judgemental here, you or me?
>Which animated characters do form appropriate role models for Mormon
>children? Bugs Bunny? Tom and Jerry? Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner?
>Animaniacs?
It's not necessarily a matter of role-model. There's content issues as
well.
The most wholesome thing my kids watch are probably VeggieTales. We
will let the kids watch a Veggie on Sunday, while all the other stuff
we keep on the shelf.
I don't think that Simpsons is intended for children, many don't
understand sarcasm and the ones that do, you wish they didn't. ;-)
Even so, my kids like Simpsons, and they're young. But mostly they
like it because Dad likes it. So if I'm not there they don't choose
to watch it. They choose something like Poke'mon instead.
>If you have cable, watch Farscape! I'd be interested in Mormon opinions
>on their use of words such as frell/frelling.
Is Fascape any good? I saw one episode when I was visiting someone who
had Cable, and the story was too involved (it assumed I understood the
basics about the characters, and I didn't) for me to really get into
it. It looked a lot like the Dark Crystal type muppets. Still I love
Sci-fi on Teevee, I even like things like Voyager (something most
B5 purists cringe at... ;-).
Haole
v...@star.arm.ac.uk (Vincent Woolf) wrote:
Gordon Jump, appearing as Mr. Tot.
Kelly wants to marry her boyfriend Lonnie, and Lonnie's folks turn out to
be millionaires, and Mr. Jump plays Lonnie's dad.
This episode was originally aired as the 2nd half of a one-hour block of
MWC, followed by a small announcement that the show was over. It was taped
in front of a small audience of family and friends of people associated
with the show. It was not intended by the producers to be the last
episode, but Fox Executives pulled the plug on the show.
My favorite MWC ep? "My Dinner with Anthrax".
-Haole, will provide Fox Network Trivia for food
> OK then,
>
> Trivia question: What Mormon appeared in the last episode of Married With
> Children?
>
> Vincent
>
> I hate spam! wrote:
> >> If Mormons hate the Simpsons, then what television comedies do they
> >watch?
> >
> >Terry Rakolta watched Married With Children to get a list of sponsors
> >to whom she could write letters demanding they stop paying for such a
> >raunchy show... one letter from her was all it took to scare Pepsi away.
--
Kathryn Simpson
"Haole" <Maj...@bungie.net> wrote in message
news:VCk76.97546$HQ4.5...@pouncer.easynews.com...
> > Marge is enabling his behavior. ;=) Not something I want to teach my
child
> > about parenting.
> I don't leave parenting to the television.
What a leap to twist my response into something you can condemn. If I were
leaving parenting to the television, I wouldn't care about whether or not
the kids were watching "The Simpsons", now would I?
> I'll bet you are going to say no. You have the luxury of living in an
> opulent society which gets to throw away food at will. Myself, I have been
> in situations where the non-maggot side would have been a luxury, and I
> probably would have eaten the side with maggots as well/
Again, the sidestep. I'm going to have to put my ballet slippers on to keep
up with all the dancing going on.
In the United States, at a restaurant where you could order most anything
your heart desires, you would reject a maggoted steak. You and I both know
that.
With all the good stuff that is on telivision and the other positive things
we can do, I don't exactly think the Simpsons qualifies as a luxury or
something that needs to be salvaged. I prefer to offer my children the best
available rather than let them forage through trash to get a meal.
> In any case, my experience with people who get nuts about the Simpsons is
> that they haven't actually seen the show (at worst) or don't get what it
> is about (at best). They usually say something like "Bart is
> disrespectful", but Bart is just one of the show's characters, and often a
> rather minor one.
Who went nuts? I've seen the show, I've found it lacking in positive value
for my children (or myself) and since I'm the parent, I've decided that it's
not appropriate for my children (or myself). I haven't asked to have it
banned from TV, we just ban it from OUR TVs. I haven't told other parents
that they are evil to allow their kids to watch it (or watch it themselves)
but if those kids are visiting our home, they'll have to do without their
daily dose of Bart. So... exactly how am I going nuts?
It's not about censorship, it's about choices.
> I few years ago I read an excellent article by a reputable academic that
> demonstrated how the Simpsons was the only tv show at that time that
> consistently portrayed religion in a positive light.
I've read articles that say that living together before marriage and
drinking alcohol are ok too, but it doesn't mean I have to believe them.
> One other thing that boggles my mind in these sorts of discussions is the
> assumption that since the show is animated, it must be geared towards
> little kids. It's not.
I spoke about those things I have responsibility for... myself and my kids.
--
Regards of the NW,
Kathy
http://www.nwdaily.com/sales.htm
MyTwoCents
back on.]
Until I began picking up my 10 year old niece from school I didn't realize
what horrible television shows were on after school. The 10 year old sat
down at the TV after watching Full House (which I let her watch because it's
a good moral show) and changed the station to Third Rock from the Sun
....where by the way the topic was breast implants. I heard this and asked
her to change the channel. She changed it to Roseanne where the topic was
the youngest son getting uncontrollable erections in school ... In my home
the only station on when little ones are around is the Family Channel. And
even then I have to screen some of the cartoons ... as the Simpson's came on
directly and the topic there was Apoo trying to impregnate his wife ...they
were talking about how much sex they had ... GIMME A BREAK ! What's left ?
The people who are against censors tell us if we don't like it ..turn it off
....well it has come to the point where I just can't turn it on at all ...
what about MY rights ?
"I hate spam!" <thean...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:rL676.85956$HQ4.4...@pouncer.easynews.com...
David Bowie
: "Hedgehog" <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote...
<snip>
: > The old adage about pessimism and optimism is that the pessimist
: > sees the glass as half empty and the optimist sees it as half
: > full. It occurs to me that Mormonism, as portrayed on this
: > newsgroup, is just about the most pessimistic religion I have
: > ever seen.
: If I gave you a 2 pound steak, that had a maggots crawling around
: only one side of it, would you eat the half that wasn't moving?
: Would you nit-pick it off??
You know, i find it somewhat ironic that you got after Haole for what you
claimed was a "sidestep" of this question (it was, BTW, a *completely* valid
answer, you may want to reread it), when your response above really pretty
much ducked the issue Hedgehog raised. Consider:
There is good and evil in the world. There is nearly nothing that is purely
good *or* purely evil--most of what we're deciding between is actually
shades of grey, rather than black or white. You, it would seem from your
steak/maggot example, would rather completely avoid *all* shades of grey. I
would respond by saying that it's not possible to do that and still be
willing to live on earth--there's good and evil here, so why not just avoid
earth life altogether so that you don't deal with the maggots?
I would respond to Hedgehog's point, myself, by saying that Mormonism as
presented on this newsgroup isn't pessimistic, but rather the fact that the
most outspoken social critics (of any sort) tend to be fond of pointing out
negatives to the exclusion of positives makes anything discussed on a forum
such as this one likely to appear negative. After all, Mormons like me who
think that the world actually *isn't* such a hideous place don't have all
that much to complain about, so our voices aren't going to be nearly as loud
in our optimism as those like Kathryn's are in their pessimism.
Therefore, it's not that Mormonism is pessimistic (although i will allow
that there's an unfortunate Calvinist pessimism among many adherents of the
faith that you hear echoes of every once in a while), it's that this forum
amplifies the pessimism that's there while not equally amplifying the
optimism.
<snip>
: You sound as if you think I'm condemning all of TV simply because
: I deem one show inappropriate for my child? Who's being judgemental
: here, you or me?
I don't quite follow--according to your own analogy, if something's
partially evil, it must be discarded completely. Therefore, since TV
programming is partially evil, to be consistent, you must reject it
entirely. I presume from what i quoted immediately above that you don't
reject *all* TV programming, but if that's the case you may very well want
to rethink the validity of your steak/maggots analogy--after all, analogies
likening food to pretty much anything tend not to work if you look at them
at all closely.
<snip>
David, who finds Touched by an Angel more evil than good
--
David Bowie Department of English
Assistant Professor Brigham Young University
db....@pmpkn.net http://humanities.byu.edu/faculty/bowied
The opinions stated here are not necessarily those of my employer
Jerry James
<noo...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
> The people who are against censors tell us if we don't like it ..turn it off
> ....well it has come to the point where I just can't turn it on at all ...
> what about MY rights ?
Where did you get the idea that you have a right to watch programs you
like on TV?
Okay, I'm going to try desperately to steer this back on-topic. How's
this? We Mormons say we believe in seeking after things that are
virtuous, lovely, or of good report. Most of the things in my life that
are virtuous, lovely, or of good report have nothing whatever to do with
TV.
I like romping on the living room floor with my children (although I'm
starting to worry a bit since we discovered significant cracking in one
of the support beams running down the center of the room! I only weigh
180 pounds, I swear!).
I like reading books to my kids, and telling extemporaneous Spaceman
Benjamin stories to my eldest son.
I like playing board games with my wife ... when the kids aren't
around.
I like creating new and exciting capabilities with my programming
skills.
I like reading a book that:
(a) makes me think really hard;
(b) shows me that something I would never have thought of is possible;
(c) explores human motivations and the struggle of good & evil in an
entertaining way;
(d) encourages me to better myself in some way and gives me some idea
of how to do so.
I like researching my family history. It appeals to the latent
detective inside me.
I like watching kittens play (and I've been known to join in from time
to time, after forgetting about how scratched up I got the last time I
did that).
I like viewing pieces of art that appeal to my sense of esthetics. I
even like viewing pieces of art that don't appeal to my sense of
esthetics when I am in a "critical thinking" state of mind. (That is,
the former is restful, but the latter requires effort.)
This is certainly not an exhaustive list, but these are things that I
find worthwhile uses of my time. They are pursuits of things that I
think are virtuous, lovely, or of good report. I won't deny that such
things can be had on TV, but I know many people who blow a LOT of hours
per week watching TV, and then complain that they can never keep up with
responsibility XYZ or activity ABC. Well, duh.
--
Jerry James, who has to practice sounding like a self-righteous jerk
from time to time just in case he ever decides to go into politics
Kathryn Simpson
> Okay, I'm going to try desperately to steer this back on-topic. How's
> this? We Mormons say we believe in seeking after things that are
> virtuous, lovely, or of good report. Most of the things in my life that
> are virtuous, lovely, or of good report have nothing whatever to do with
> TV.
These are matters of choice. Not condemning others for their choices, but
using our agency to make our own choices. I'm glad there are lots of
alternatives, and as long as my family is not compelled to participate in
the alternatives we don't like, I don't see a need to rant and rave about
how subliminally negative some of those alternatives can be to one's values
if we can avoid them ourselves.
Now, if we can't avoid them and they are forced upon us (like in the
classroom), then we have a parental responsibility to have our voices heard
that we find certain material or activities offensive.
Our kids will grow up with choices all around them. I don't want to shelter
them from life. I just hope that one of the things we instill in them is
that it's ok to choose "that which is lovely, virtuous, or of good report"
without worry about what others may think of them.
It makes me sad when people call us idealistic because we have high
expectations of our children and strive to teach them to choose a good book
over a mediocre one, to choose the challenging road towards learning and
growth rather than an easy path of amusement, to expect their teachers to
give them homework rather than pray that they can slide through the year, to
help the lady who just spilled her grocery bag rather than stand with their
friends and laugh.
It's all about choices.
Kathryn Simpson
"David Bowie" <db....@pmpkn.net> wrote in message
news:zro76.100536$HQ4.5...@pouncer.easynews.com...
> You know, i find it somewhat ironic that you got after Haole for what you
> claimed was a "sidestep" of this question (it was, BTW, a *completely*
valid
> answer, you may want to reread it), when your response above really pretty
> much ducked the issue Hedgehog raised. Consider:
I think you failed to read my entire post, where I said....
"In the United States, at a restaurant where you could order most anything
your heart desires, you would reject a maggoted steak. You and I both know
that."
I do not believe that you or Haole, both educated enough to know that
spoiled or infected meat carries all kinds of health risks, would accept a
maggoted steak when you had plentiful other options.
> There is good and evil in the world. There is nearly nothing that is
purely
> good *or* purely evil--most of what we're deciding between is actually
> shades of grey, rather than black or white.
There are shades of gray, that is for sure, but my point was why do we even
have to consider the darker shades, when there is so much plentiful light?
Why go to a restaurant that only serves spicey food when you don't like
spicey food, when there are lots of other options?
Haole made it sound like there weren't options, when in fact, there are lots
of options. That is where I felt he side-stepped. This also addresses the
erroneous assertion that I'm pessimistic. I'm not pessimistic, I think
there are lots of wonderful alternative choices, and I would choose one of
them for myself and my children rather than something I consider
objectionable.
Pessimistic would be to say that there are not good alternatives. I've never
said that and I don't think that. I do think that you have grossly
misconstrued both of my posts.
>You, it would seem from your
> steak/maggot example, would rather completely avoid *all* shades of grey.
Again, if I have a choice between 1000 restaurants that serve questionable
meat and 1000 restaurants that serve clean meat, I'll take my family to
dinner to the latter.
I've thrown-out questionable meat at our house and I don't consider it a
waste, because I'd rather be safe than sorry where our health is concerned.
If I were marooned on an island, and it was the only food available, and I
were absolutely desperate, I might take a chance. But such is not the case
with TV programming. There are good alternatives and there is the good old
"off" button too.
> I
> would respond by saying that it's not possible to do that and still be
> willing to live on earth--there's good and evil here, so why not just
avoid
> earth life altogether so that you don't deal with the maggots?
When you have the choice of crawling through the sewers of life or walking
on the clean sidewalk, which do you choose? I choose the sidewalk and I'll
spend my life encouraging my children to do the same. That's my job, I'm
their mom. ;=) The Prophet encourages us to choose the clean road.
There are times when I've had to take a detour and crawl through a sewer,
but those are the exceptions, not the rule, and there was usually a dang
good reason. But I'm in the sewer so infrequently that my senses don't get
dulled to the point of embracing the dirt around me. I look forward to
cleaning up and getting back on the sidewalk.
> I would respond to Hedgehog's point, myself, by saying that Mormonism as
> presented on this newsgroup isn't pessimistic, but rather the fact that
the
> most outspoken social critics (of any sort) tend to be fond of pointing
out
> negatives to the exclusion of positives makes anything discussed on a
forum
> such as this one likely to appear negative.
So, am I a social critic just because I make choices different than Haole or
you?
>After all, Mormons like me who
> think that the world actually *isn't* such a hideous place don't have all
> that much to complain about, so our voices aren't going to be nearly as
loud
> in our optimism as those like Kathryn's are in their pessimism.
I think you are being extremely and erroneously judgemental.
> I don't quite follow--according to your own analogy, if something's
> partially evil, it must be discarded completely.
That's your interpretation of what I said, not mine.
> Therefore, since TV
> programming is partially evil, to be consistent, you must reject it
> entirely.
That's a bunch of bull and you know it. Just because someone uses a tool
for evil purposes doesn't make the tool evil. It is the choices people make
that are evil or good and all shades of grey in between. Medicine, in
appropriate dosages is used for good. A person makes a choice to take the
right dosage and not more (or less). Yet, in inappropriate dosages,
medicine can kill. Is all medicine evil? Of course not! Must I reject all
medicine because I wouldn't feed my child even a small dose of strichnine?
Of course not.
>I presume from what i quoted immediately above that you don't
> reject *all* TV programming, but if that's the case you may very well want
> to rethink the validity of your steak/maggots analogy--after all,
analogies
> likening food to pretty much anything tend not to work if you look at them
> at all closely.
I presume that you completely misunderstood my point. Whether it was
intentional or not, I haven't a clue.
Raymond Bingham
>"Kathryn Simpson" <kjsi...@centurytel.net> wrote...
[snip]
>: You sound as if you think I'm condemning all of TV simply because
>: I deem one show inappropriate for my child? Who's being judgemental
>: here, you or me?
>I don't quite follow--according to your own analogy, if something's
>partially evil, it must be discarded completely. Therefore, since TV
>programming is partially evil, to be consistent, you must reject it
>entirely. I presume from what i quoted immediately above that you don't
>reject *all* TV programming, but if that's the case you may very well want
>to rethink the validity of your steak/maggots analogy--after all, analogies
>likening food to pretty much anything tend not to work if you look at them
>at all closely.
Actually Moroni doesn't really talk much about "shades of grey" (as you
seem to be fond of doing, not here but in the above conveniently snipped
portion ;-), when he talks of good. He defines good as anything that
persuades man to come unto Christ. So one must ask oneself, Do the
Simpsons bring me to Christ?
There have been a number of episodes that I have found DO inspire me to
be a better person. One benefit of stiff sarcasm or stupidity in the
case of Homer, is that it underlines behaviors that we all tend to
naturally, but don't make sense. Homer is SO stupid, that when we
see ourselves behaving in the least bit like Homer, it helps us to
see where were're headed. The whole notion of reductio ad absurdum
is valid.
I remember once reading a book about battling depression, that part of
the problem that many folks who are depressed face, is that they
believe lies about their persona, and harbor irrational fears about
the implications of their behavior. A persona like Homer, helps to
illustrate where stupid behaviors lead. I mean who hasn't wanted to
run over a tire shredder, or ignore their wife, eat donuts without
the least bit of concern, or sleep during work? We can then laugh
at ourselves, and not get so darned depressed, cuz if Homer is doing
it, it's clearly human nature. In general, the Simpsons don't
usually misrepresent the negative consequences in a contrived way
like some shows do on teevee. Sometimes they do, but if they do,
they often make fun of themselves.
For example, When Lisa uncovers an archaeological dig and finds the
skeleton of what appears to be an angel. The show portrays religious
folks as a bit stupid. But in the end, Lisa too was pulled into
the con, as objectively intellectual as she might have been.
They've made fun of religious types, because let's face it,
we are peculiar people. And they make fun of politics, and the
perception of politics. They make fun of environmentalists,
scientists, sports fans, the booze industry, teevee, the Fox
Network (the guys that pay them to stay on the air), television
journalism, the Kennedys, George Bush, Baywatch, Celebrities,
etc, etc, etc...
One of my favorite episodes is when they make fun of violence
in children's cartoons. Essentially Marge ends up putting a
stop to it, and the world becomes a demonstratably better
place because the kids stop watching teevee altogether.
So once you look past whatever offense you want to take with
the show, you have to ask if you could get virtue from it.
Does it bring you closer to Christ? And if you can answer
that for yourself, and if you're a parent, for your children,
then great! But that doesn't entitle anyone to make that
judgement for anyone else... I simply don't know what makes
my neighbor come closer to Christ, and I've no business
telling them they're doing it wrong.
>David, who finds Touched by an Angel more evil than good
I've always been disturbed by the title of that show, probably
because I've watched too many Simpsons episodes. ;)
Raymond Bingham
[snip]
>It makes me sad when people call us idealistic because we have high
>expectations of our children and strive to teach them to choose a good book
>over a mediocre one, to choose the challenging road towards learning and
>growth rather than an easy path of amusement, to expect their teachers to
>give them homework rather than pray that they can slide through the year, to
>help the lady who just spilled her grocery bag rather than stand with their
>friends and laugh.
I agree with your Kathryn, however, I would caution you in sounding
judgemental. You can make this decision for yourself, and your family,
but you can't for other people's families. Making a bold statement
like, the Simpsons are unsuitable for EVERYONE is imo, denying them
the right to choose for themselves. Your stewardship is your family,
and I respect you for taking a stand against a popular trend for the
sake of your family's spiritual welfare, but if you suggest (and I'm
not certain you have, but it is easy to read things into these posts)
that all LDS should accept your decision as their own, then you're
mistaken.
Returning to the latest scandal thread, I have actually been quite
uplifted by the Simpsons, and find it to beone of the best shows on
Teevee. That sounds absurd, my wife thought I was crazy, until I
actually got her to sit down, and watch a show.
She knew my sense of humor was a bit twisted, and sure enough,
when she attempted to view things from my perspective, as opposed to
the one she'd been handed, she could see where the show could be
quite enjoyable and even virtuous. That doesn't make it perfectly
so, series teevee in general has episodes that hit and miss, but there
were a great many classic episodes that I felt presented intelligent
issues in a very entertaining fashion.
But just as you and I may have totally different senses of humor,
we may likewise find certain things inappropriate for our homes or
what not. And that's okay... So I guess while I agree with your
comments, I also agree with what others have been saying about a
show like Simpsons or Teevee in general over "books".
Kathryn Simpson
"Raymond Bingham" <ra...@fc.hp.com> wrote in message
news:cut76.106075$HQ4.5...@pouncer.easynews.com...
> I agree with your Kathryn, however, I would caution you in sounding
> judgemental. You can make this decision for yourself, and your family,
> but you can't for other people's families. Making a bold statement
> like, the Simpsons are unsuitable for EVERYONE is imo, denying them
> the right to choose for themselves.
I wholeheartedly agree that it's not my place to call "The Simpsons"
unsuitable for others. That is for them to decide for themselves. I would
also agree that I didn't do that. I made a statement about how *I* feel
about it. I made no implication that there was an official Church position
on it.
Now, if we were talking about pornography, then I think that I can
reasonably state that the position of the Church is to condemn it and that
it is evil to participate in it. And if I were to make a statement to that
effect, I would say something like... "The position of the Church on
pornography is....".
> Your stewardship is your family,
> and I respect you for taking a stand against a popular trend for the
> sake of your family's spiritual welfare, but if you suggest (and I'm
> not certain you have, but it is easy to read things into these posts)
> that all LDS should accept your decision as their own, then you're
> mistaken.
I appreciate that you respect that. Thanks.
When you speak in this forum, I take your posts as that of Raymond Bingham,
not as a spokesperson for the Church and not as Church doctrine, unless you
try and put something forth and state that it is Church doctrine. If you do
put something forth as Church doctrine, and I disagree that it is Church
doctrine, I'm sure that I've demonstrated by now that I'm not afraid to
question it.
I would hope that others take my posts similarly. Now, if I tried to use an
official title in my sig, one might construe that I'm trying to imply that I
speak on behalf of the institution associated with that title. But I don't.
So that should not be an issue here either.
Further, I shouldn't have to qualify my statements each and every time that
I post , that I am speaking for myself; as that should be the default
understanding. If people read something into my posts and misconstrue that
I am trying to speak for anyone or any group other than myself and my
family, well... they are flat out wrong and have no basis to make such an
assumption. It's their faulty assumption and I'm not going to buy into it.
> Returning to the latest scandal thread, I have actually been quite
> uplifted by the Simpsons, and find it to beone of the best shows on
> Teevee. That sounds absurd, my wife thought I was crazy, until I
> actually got her to sit down, and watch a show.
And you are entitled to do that. I wouldn't stop you. I certainly wouldn't
use your "Simpson" watching as any reason not to sustain you in any capacity
you serve within the Church. Further, I wouldn't really think any less of
you either.
I'd hope that you'd give me the same courtesy if you saw me drinking a can
of Pepsi. <g>
Now, if I had knowledge that you were promoting pornography as something
that should be acceptable and endorsed by society, I think I'd have some
problems sustaining you. By the same token, if you saw me drinking a beer,
instead of that Pepsi, I'd certainly think you might have some issues about
sustaining me in a calling.
> She knew my sense of humor was a bit twisted, and sure enough,
> when she attempted to view things from my perspective, as opposed to
> the one she'd been handed, she could see where the show could be
> quite enjoyable and even virtuous. That doesn't make it perfectly
> so, series teevee in general has episodes that hit and miss, but there
> were a great many classic episodes that I felt presented intelligent
> issues in a very entertaining fashion.
ok.
> But just as you and I may have totally different senses of humor,
> we may likewise find certain things inappropriate for our homes or
> what not. And that's okay... So I guess while I agree with your
> comments, I also agree with what others have been saying about a
> show like Simpsons or Teevee in general over "books".
And that's fine with me. :=)
Hedgehog
Simpson" <kjsi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> I do not believe that you or Haole, both educated enough to know that
> spoiled or infected meat carries all kinds of health risks, would accept a
> maggoted steak when you had plentiful other options.
Actually, meat doesn't have to be particulary old to have maggots on it
nor does it have to be spoiled. At any rate, this maggot and the meat
analogy sounds much like other analogies presented on the newsgroup in the
past: motor oil on the wedding cake, dog poop in the lemonade, etc.
The problem I see with such analogies is that they promote a sort of
"zero-tolerance" attitude toward the world. What's wrong with that?
Well, if I can find one thing wrong with the LDS Church, then clearly the
whole institution is evil, right?
Personally I think there is something very seriously wrong with the LDS
Church. For one thing, I don't feel Mormons take the Book of Mormon
seriously enough. Sure they shake it at us non-Mormons in an attempt to
scare us, but they don't seem at all interested in understanding it. They
don't seem to care at all what it teaches them so long as it can be used
as a rhetorical weapon.
A while ago we had a Book of Mormon study in this newsgroup. We started
out listing a number of doctrines and practices that set Mormons apart
from other Christian denominations. We then set about looking for these
in the Book of Mormon chapter by chapter. The result was that nothing was
found. One person pointed out there were a few characters interested in
genealogy in the Book of Mormon.
On an even more basic level, should't Mormons be concerned with what
apostasy and corruption is so that they won't make the same mistakes as
the mainstream?
Kathryn Simpson
> The problem I see with such analogies is that they promote a sort of
> "zero-tolerance" attitude toward the world. What's wrong with that?
> Well, if I can find one thing wrong with the LDS Church, then clearly the
> whole institution is evil, right?
It wasn't my intent to promote zero-tolerance. It was my intent to say that
I wouldn't eat something that was obviously gross if I had 1000 other
options. ;=) Hardly zero-tolerance. Maybe 1:1000 in-tolerance. ;=)
> Personally I think there is something very seriously wrong with the LDS
> Church. For one thing, I don't feel Mormons take the Book of Mormon
> seriously enough. Sure they shake it at us non-Mormons in an attempt to
> scare us, but they don't seem at all interested in understanding it.
I don't view the Book of Mormon as something to scare people with. In fact,
I think just the opposite, it is something that will bring them great joy.
> They
> don't seem to care at all what it teaches them so long as it can be used
> as a rhetorical weapon.
Funny, i see more anti-mormons shaking it as a rhetorical weapon, instead of
helping people understand the "good word of Christ". :=)
> A while ago we had a Book of Mormon study in this newsgroup. We started
> out listing a number of doctrines and practices that set Mormons apart
> from other Christian denominations. We then set about looking for these
> in the Book of Mormon chapter by chapter. The result was that nothing was
> found.
Ah, so you proved that there is lots of common ground with other Christian
denominations, cool! ;=)
> On an even more basic level, should't Mormons be concerned with what
> apostasy and corruption is so that they won't make the same mistakes as
> the mainstream?
Well, you have hit upon one of the more interesting themes of the Book of
Mormon, the cycle of humility, obedience and prosperity, followed by pride
and wickedness, followed by repentance, and then cycling back again. ;=)
We could all learn from the cycle that repeats itself over and over again in
the Book of Mormon. Much like our lives, where we sometimes seem to be a
pendulum, swinging back and forth, eventually (hopefully) centering on
Christ.
John Johnson
> Personally I think there is something very seriously wrong with the LDS
> Church. For one thing, I don't feel Mormons take the Book of Mormon
> seriously enough. Sure they shake it at us non-Mormons in an attempt to
> scare us, but they don't seem at all interested in understanding it. They
> don't seem to care at all what it teaches them so long as it can be used
> as a rhetorical weapon.
I'll agree with you on this statement. Many menbers *don't* take the Book of
Mormon nearly seriously enough. It's the most important volume of scripture
that we have (if any one volume could be more important than the other), and
it makes us unique. Pres. Benson said that " . .. the Book of Mormon
constantly testifies of Christ . . .", Joseph Smith told us that " . . .a
man could draw nearer to Christ by reading the Book of Mormon, and abiding
by it's precepts, than any other book." There are many similar quotes that I
could dig out if I wanted to, but the point is this: we, as members of the
Church generally don't realize the importance and value of the Book of
Mormon.
> A while ago we had a Book of Mormon study in this newsgroup. We started
> out listing a number of doctrines and practices that set Mormons apart
> from other Christian denominations. We then set about looking for these
> in the Book of Mormon chapter by chapter.
You seem to have a different recollection of this than I do. I recall
numerous doctrines and practices delineated in the Book of Mormon that makes
Mormonism unique. However, the point of the Book of Mormon isn't that it's
the end all and be all of LDS doctrine, or that it *absolutely must* contain
unique and different doctrines (neither it, or any of it's authors, nor it's
translator makes that claim so why should we?), but that it helps to clarify
and expound on doctrine already available. That's the true power of the Book
of Mormon.
> On an even more basic level, should't Mormons be concerned with what
> apostasy and corruption is so that they won't make the same mistakes as
> the mainstream?
Yes we should. After all, the prophets of ancient Israel preached against
corruption and apostasy within the Church at least as much, if not more,
than they did against corruption without. I think that many members fall
into the trap of thinking that because they do all the external things
necessary, they're OK, when in reality their hearts may not be right. In
fact, I believe that this is a common failing with most people, and
something that we do need to be on the look out for.
There's varying degrees of apostasy and corruption. I think you make a good
point about members of the Church also needing to watch out for it. The
parable of the ten virgins is directed to Church members. Some of us aren't
going to be ready at the Second Coming. I think that the following council
from Nephi is good council:
""For behold, at that day shall he rge in the eharts of the childrenn of
men, and stir them up to anger agtainst that which is good.
"And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security that
they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well--and
thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to
hell.
"Therefore, wo be unto him who is at ease in Zion!" (2 Nephi 28:21,22, 24)
--
John Johnson
fmhlaw
Raymond Bingham wrote:
>
> Kathryn Simpson (kjsi...@centurytel.net) quipped:
> [snip]
> >It makes me sad when people call us idealistic because we have high
> >expectations of our children and strive to teach them to choose a good book
> >over a mediocre one, to choose the challenging road towards learning and
> >growth rather than an easy path of amusement, to expect their teachers to
> >give them homework rather than pray that they can slide through the year, to
> >help the lady who just spilled her grocery bag rather than stand with their
> >friends and laugh.
>
> I agree with your Kathryn, however, I would caution you in sounding
> judgemental.
The biblical injunction isn't against judgment per se, only against
unrighteous judgment. We can and should exercise righteous judgment.
David Bowie
: "David Bowie" <db....@pmpkn.net> wrote...
: > You know, i find it somewhat ironic that you got after Haole for
: > what you claimed was a "sidestep" of this question (it was, BTW,
: > a *completely* valid answer, you may want to reread it), when
: > your response above really pretty much ducked the issue Hedgehog
: > raised. Consider:
: I think you failed to read my entire post, where I said....
: "In the United States, at a restaurant where you could order most
: anything your heart desires, you would reject a maggoted steak.
: You and I both know that."
It depends, actually. How hungry am i? Was it just dipped in maggots or have
they been there a while? You have to remember that i'm the sort of person
who, if i were faced with the dog feces in the brownies object lesson (i
assume you know of it--it's an object lesson to show how "only a little bit"
of something bad can ruin the whole thing), i'd eat a brownie to point out
the shortcomings in the object lesson. (Besides, i figure the heat would
kill any bacteria in the brownies, so aside from grossing everybody else out
i figure it'd be pretty safe.) I'd probably like to see the steak rinsed off
and then thrown under the broiler 'til it was very, very well-done, but
believe me, if it would wreck a flawed object lesson i'd at least have a
bite.
<snip>
: > There is good and evil in the world. There is nearly nothing that
: > is purely good *or* purely evil--most of what we're deciding
: > between is actually shades of grey, rather than black or white.
: There are shades of gray, that is for sure, but my point was why
: do we even have to consider the darker shades, when there is so
: much plentiful light?...
Of course, we have the problem here that you haven't IMO demonstrated that
we should think of The Simpsons as being a dark shade of grey.
Also, the above was simply an introduction to the rest of my post--it's hard
to write a response to something that wasn't even written to get a response.
: ...Why go to a restaurant that only serves spicey food when you
: don't like spicey food, when there are lots of other options?
If you don't like spicy food, by all means don't eat spicy food. *I*,
however, like spicy food, and so i would ask you to please refrain from
decrying spicy food based solely upon your dislike for it, because by saying
spicy food is a Bad Thing you are, in a way slashing at those who like spicy
food--you're saying they're traffickers in a Bad Thing.
<snip>
"That" in the following is avoiding everything that's even a little bit
questionable regarding its place in the good-evil continuum.
: > I would respond by saying that it's not possible to do that
: > and still be willing to live on earth--there's good and evil
: > here, so why not just avoid earth life altogether so that you
: > don't deal with the maggots?
: When you have the choice of crawling through the sewers of life
: or walking on the clean sidewalk, which do you choose? I choose
: the sidewalk and I'll spend my life encouraging my children to
: do the same. That's my job, I'm their mom. ;=) The Prophet
: encourages us to choose the clean road.
I find it somewhat odd that in the bit that i snipped above you got after
Haole and, to a lesser extent, me for making it appear that there are
limited choices in the world--but in the bit i quoted above you make it seem
like there's no middle ground between the sewers and the sidewalk. There
*are* choices, you know--and there's plenty of places where there aren't any
sidewalks.
Note, though, that you seemto have started responding before you finished
reading my post--by the end of my post, i'd said that i recognize that
you're not saying that we have to avoid anything which is the least bit
questionable, but the steak/maggot example you gave made it seem
so--basically, i was pointing out flaws in your original argument and giving
you a chance to clarify. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that you took it
that way.
<snip>
: > I would respond to Hedgehog's point, myself, by saying that
: > Mormonism as presented on this newsgroup isn't pessimistic,
: > but rather the fact that the most outspoken social critics
: > (of any sort) tend to be fond of pointing out negatives to
: > the exclusion of positives makes anything discussed on a
: > forum such as this one likely to appear negative.
: So, am I a social critic just because I make choices different
: than Haole or you?
No, you're a social critic because you make criticisms of society. Wherever
did you get the idea you're transmitting in the above-quoted line?
<snip>
: > I don't quite follow--according to your own analogy, if
: > something's partially evil, it must be discarded completely.
: That's your interpretation of what I said, not mine.
It's very directly what your analogy said--you said you'd reject all of a
steak that was only half-covered in maggots. You should have read to the end
of the paragraph, though, where i said that i could tell it wasn't your POV,
but it's what your analogy had pointed toward.
<snip>
David, who wishes people would read before they respond
Nathan Packer
wrote:
[snip]
>
>I don't think that Simpsons is intended for children, many don't
>understand sarcasm and the ones that do, you wish they didn't. ;-)
>
>Even so, my kids like Simpsons, and they're young. But mostly they
>like it because Dad likes it. So if I'm not there they don't choose
>to watch it. They choose something like Poke'mon instead.
The character profiles as portrayed in the Simpson represent the ends
of the spectrum - tail of the curve so to speak. Any person who has
worked with incompetent co-workers can recognized Homer as a parody of
that class of worker. The boss is a parody of the boss from hell.
Lisa, Maggie, Bart, Lisa, Religion, school, town government -- all are
just a step or two out of normal specs.
Watch the Simpsons with your children and observe their reactions. I
find that my children have a healthy awareness of the situation and we
enjoy the show together. Moreover, I don't worry that my children are
learning negative behavior.
Every parent has to assess a child's ability to understand the plot
nuances; however, if your child can understand the concept of
caricature, or if you can help them understand the concept, they will
benefit.
Nathan (I think, therefore, I must be around here someplace) Packer
Vincent Woolf
object lessons.
In the UK a few months ago they had a TV series on "disgust." The show showed
how disgust is a useful instinct--it keeps us from eating or coming into
contact with things that might make us ill. Then they gave examples of how
disgust has been used by religions and political groups to promote their brand
of morality. Nazis compared jews to rats and other vermin. Blacks in the
United States and South Africa were thought of as dirty. Since disgust is a
powerful emotion such comparisons are effective, especially if the people being
taught already feel the marginalized people are unclean and just need another
comparison to push them over the edge. It's especially useful because "disgust
transfers." Put one roach in a 50 gallon pot of soup and the whole pot is
disgusting.
Perhaps it would be useful to think of counter-examples where the flaw doesn't
ruin the whole object. If I have a large wooden plank and one end has been
ruined (stained, crushed, etc.) I don't throw out the whole plank. I just cut
off the ruined end and use the rest of the plank as I was planning. Some
flaws in wood actually make the wood more valuable. Or if I have a big block
of cheeze and a bit of mold is growing on it, I have no problem cutting off the
moldy bit and eating the rest.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be careful what we view as entertainment,
or that chastity before marriage isn't important (from the infamous wedding
cake example), but rather that we should be careful about the analogies we
use in explaining ourselves and look carefully at the analogies others use
to see how well they really apply to the principle being put forward.
Vincent
Lynn Gazis-Sax
<Oen76.99237$HQ4.5...@pouncer.easynews.com>:
[snipped]
>erections in school ... In my home the only station on when little ones
>are around is the Family Channel. And even then I have to screen some
>of the cartoons ... as the Simpson's came on directly and the topic
>there was Apoo trying to impregnate his wife ...they were talking about
>how much sex they had ... GIMME A BREAK ! What's left ?
I don't know that I'd have a problem with my nine-year-old niece watching a
show in which a fictional and animated married couple talk about how much
fun they have having sex with each other. And I can't say that I really
see why this last, at least, of your three examples should offend Mormon
moral/ethical beliefs; aren't married couples supposed to enjoy their
attempts to produce children? It seems like more a matter of taste than a
matter of morality.
>
>The people who are against censors tell us if we don't like it ..turn it
>off ....well it has come to the point where I just can't turn it on at
>all ... what about MY rights ?
Well, none of us really has a right to good or uplifting television. I do
wish, though, that the trend to make TV shows out of putting *real people*
in morally dubious situations ("Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire,"
"Temptation Island") would go away.
ObLDS: Salon magazine recently had an article
(http://www.salon.com/sex/world/2001/01/11/mormon/index.html) about a
CleanFlicks video store, operating in the Salt Lake City area, which edits
films to suit Mormon sensibilities. Has anyone on this group used this
store? If so, what do you think of it?
--
Lynn Gazis-Sax
http://www.notfrisco.com or http://www.alsirat.com
Lynn Gazis-Sax
<7bH76.118577$HQ4.6...@pouncer.easynews.com>:
>
>"Hedgehog" <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote in message
>news:FQF76.117543$HQ4.6...@pouncer.easynews.com...
>> A while ago we had a Book of Mormon study in this newsgroup. We
>> started out listing a number of doctrines and practices that set
>> Mormons apart from other Christian denominations. We then set about
>> looking for these in the Book of Mormon chapter by chapter. The
>> result was that nothing was found.
>
>Ah, so you proved that there is lots of common ground with other
>Christian denominations, cool! ;=)
I have a slightly different perception from Hedgehog; my memory is that one
or two things were found (I think the most distinctively Mormon doctrine in
the Book of Mormon is probably the discussion of the Fall in either 1 or 2
Nephi, I forget which). But yes, most of the doctrines people found in the
Book of Mormon study were, in fact, ones where common ground could easily
be found with other Christian denominations. I *tried*, when I expounded
my section, to look for differences from the Bible, and didn't find really
doctrinally significant ones, just ones roughly comparable to the
differences between one book of the Bible and another.
>
>> On an even more basic level, should't Mormons be concerned with what
>> apostasy and corruption is so that they won't make the same mistakes
>> as the mainstream?
>
>Well, you have hit upon one of the more interesting themes of the Book
>of Mormon, the cycle of humility, obedience and prosperity, followed by
>pride and wickedness, followed by repentance, and then cycling back
>again. ;=) We could all learn from the cycle that repeats itself over
[snipped]
Yes, what's most distinctive and interesting about the Book of Mormon isn't
that it shows doctrines different from mainstream Christianity, but rather
the way it arranges the themes. That continually repeating cycle being one
of the more notable.
Ironically, for a book whose doctrine differs from that of mainstream
Christianity mainly in its more positive view of the Fall, I find one of
the more interesting aspects of the book to be its depiction of the lure of
pride, and the ultimate destruction of the Nephites.
DingoBlue
starters, it is one of very few TV shows that even deals with religion.
Banning it because Homer proves there is no God just shows a lack of a sense
of humour. Other american sit-coms totally deny both God and religion. If
you ban the Simpsons, then you should also ban every other american sit com
and TV show other than Touched by an Angel and Seventh Heaven (a great
show - how that got produced in America, I will never understand) If you
want to ban something, ban South Park, which seriously promotes hatred
against many groups, in particular Mormons. But banning Simpsons? Get a
life, and take a look at everything else on Amercan television.
Ann Porter
news:WPK76.121858$HQ4.6...@pouncer.easynews.com...
> Raymond Bingham wrote:
> > I agree with your Kathryn, however, I would caution you in sounding
> > judgemental.
>
> The biblical injunction isn't against judgment per se, only against
> unrighteous judgment. We can and should exercise righteous judgment.
Only in the JST.
I try (with varying degrees of success) to limit my judgments of others to
"there but for the
grace of God go I."
Best,
Ann, who sees a sinner every time I look in the mirror
Ann Porter
news:FQF76.117543$HQ4.6...@pouncer.easynews.com...
> On an even more basic level, should't Mormons be concerned with what
> apostasy and corruption is so that they won't make the same mistakes as
> the mainstream?
We're way too secure (smug?) in our confidence that we'll never fall into
apostasy again to be concerned about what it looks like, 'cause it can't (by
definition) be us.
Best,
Ann, who really, really fears this belief
Kathryn Simpson
"Lynn Gazis-Sax" <lynn...@alsirat.com> wrote in message
news:Ido86.22241$r7.11...@pouncer.easynews.com...
> Ironically, for a book whose doctrine differs from that of mainstream
> the more interesting aspects of the book to be its depiction of the lure
of
> pride, and the ultimate destruction of the Nephites.
The lure of pride and ultimate destruction of the Nephites is a cycle we see
in other areas of the world as well. Isreal is an excellent example. Look
where their pride, in the OT, kept creating the same cycles.
Germany is another example, and a much more recent one.
:=)
Hedgehog
Simpson" <kjsi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> > The problem I see with such analogies is that they promote a sort of
> > "zero-tolerance" attitude toward the world. What's wrong with that?
> > Well, if I can find one thing wrong with the LDS Church, then clearly the
> > whole institution is evil, right?
>
> It wasn't my intent to promote zero-tolerance.
Would you eat meat that had one maggot on it?
> > A while ago we had a Book of Mormon study in this newsgroup. We started
> > out listing a number of doctrines and practices that set Mormons apart
> > from other Christian denominations. We then set about looking for these
> > in the Book of Mormon chapter by chapter. The result was that nothing was
> > found.
>
> Ah, so you proved that there is lots of common ground with other Christian
> denominations, cool! ;=)
No. In my opinion it shows that the LDS Church has wandered from the iron rod.
The LDS Church has made itself into all that Smith condemned in JS-Hist in
my opinion. It is sectarian in the extreme. It is obsessed with the
forms of righteousness rather than with the substance. It large amounts
of its time seeking confrontation and contention with other Christians
rather than seeking loving understanding and reconciliation.
When I suggested that LDS members in the southern United States should
engage in ecumenical dialogue with Methodists and Baptists, the consensus
response was that dialogue was useless because Mormons and Protestants are
doctrinally so far apart. Yet right now on this newsgroup the same people
are arguing that you can believe *anything* you want and still be a
Mormon. It is being argued that orthopraxy is more important than
orthodoxy. But many Protestants in the South have a praxis that is very
similar to LDS praxis: Water baptism, the Lord's Supper, Temperance,
Chastity, etc. There are probably even many Protestants who don't
particularly care for the Simpsons.
Peace,
Hedgehog
who neither has a tattoo nor regularly watches the Simpsons
Kathryn Simpson
> Would you eat meat that had one maggot on it?
Nope, but neither would I deny you the opportunity to eat it.
Though, admittedly, I would get upset if it was served to my child in her
school lunch. :=o
> The LDS Church has made itself into all that Smith condemned in JS-Hist in
> my opinion. It is sectarian in the extreme. It is obsessed with the
> forms of righteousness rather than with the substance. It large amounts
> of its time seeking confrontation and contention with other Christians
> rather than seeking loving understanding and reconciliation.
I don't see the LDS Church seeking confrontation and contention with anyone.
Examples please?
I hate spam!
"Kathryn Simpson" <kjsi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> I don't see the LDS Church seeking confrontation and contention with
anyone. Examples please?
Many missionaries are very actively seeking confrontation and
contention - especially in the first several months when they often
seek out JWs to "teach them a lesson".
Kathryn Simpson
> Many missionaries are very actively seeking confrontation and
> contention - especially in the first several months when they often
> seek out JWs to "teach them a lesson".
If you have proof of this, I strongly encourage you to call the Mission
President over the missionaries involved. That is not Church policy and
*if* it happens, it is because a young missionary apparently didn't/doesn't
have a sensible or mature senior companion. Just because a missionary, in
an isolated incident, acts inappropriately, doesn't establish Church Policy.
:=)
Can you give me a legitimate example where there is officially sanctioned
Church policy to be confrontational and contentious?
Raymond Bingham
>comparison to push them over the edge. It's especially useful because "disgust
>transfers." Put one roach in a 50 gallon pot of soup and the whole pot is
>disgusting.
A professor of mine once divulged that at icecream factories, the
USDA sets standards for food, in which one of the measures was a ration
named something like bug parts per viable food. And the bug parts
of the equation was NOT 0 in order to be considered acceptable food.
Of course, we love to bash these analogies online. Of course one
wonders if one can truly 'overstate' the consequences of sin, though.
It's a sorrow that unless you've been mired in it, you probably are
blissfully ignorant of it. Sure, there are ways out, but there are
many more ways to become more entrenched and miserable.
I was talking with a friend lately, and he brought up an interesting
issue, that was somewhat related to these analogies. He wanted to
know to what degree we were expected to fear God. Fear of God is
commonly dismissed as "respect for" or "reverence", but is that entirely
true? Certainly God is a fearsome being to the wicked. And we've all
fallen from his perfection.
I guess in my friend's sunday school, some parent had made the comment
that they used fear to teach their children. He found that notion
appalling. Yet, I have to admit that in some cases a healthy dose
of fear can actually be a good thing. Not if it brings us to paralysis,
but if it keeps us far from danger. For example, my kids would walk
in front of a car, into the open street, were it not that I've had to
be very sharp with them. They simply don't understand the
consequences of their actions, and rather than see them get splatted
on the road (yes, I know hedge will find this amazing) I resort to
ANYTHING that will get them to respect the rules of pedestrians and
traffic.
Now one wonders... are there moral laws with similar dire
consequences for those who do not respect them? If so, then
are these "examples" as drastic as they may appear, completely
innappropriate?
I'm curious to hear opinions. (And no, I'm not advocating one
train of thought here, so please don't turn this into an
opportunity to attack me... ;-)
Raymond Bingham
[snip]
>The LDS Church has made itself into all that Smith condemned in JS-Hist in
>my opinion. It is sectarian in the extreme. It is obsessed with the
>forms of righteousness rather than with the substance. It large amounts
>of its time seeking confrontation and contention with other Christians
>rather than seeking loving understanding and reconciliation.
I fail to see how one can claim the whole church has become this,
because members are willing and honest enough to acknowledge that
at times they possess these attributes.
The restoration was, after all, to humans.
I hate spam!
"Kathryn Simpson" <kjsi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> Can you give me a legitimate example where there is officially
sanctioned Church policy to be confrontational and contentious?
There are historical examples (some of which may or may not be true) of
great figures such as J. Golden Kimball being fairly confrontational.
More to the point, though, Jesus' actions used in the cleansing of the
temple were certainly confrontational. His speakings among the Jews
certainly raised contention. If there is ever a need to cast out an
evil spirit, confrontation should certainly be used.
What I'm saying here is that what lies behind the
confrontation/contention is key in determining whether or not it is
justified/right.
David Bowie
<snip>
: Of course, we love to bash these analogies online. Of course one
: wonders if one can truly 'overstate' the consequences of sin, though.
: It's a sorrow that unless you've been mired in it, you probably are
: blissfully ignorant of it. Sure, there are ways out, but there are
: many more ways to become more entrenched and miserable.
At least some of us (well, at least me) don't just bash these sorts of
analogies online, we bash them in Real Life<tm>. And the reasons for this
tendency include the fact that yes, one *can* truly overstate the
consequences of sin! If one overstates the consequences of sin to the extent
that it ruins another's hope and makes it harder for a person to believe
themselves capable of repentance, then we have truly overstated the
consequences of sin.
This is why a lot of sin analogies don't work. We're told in the scriptures
that repentance makes it as if the sin never, ever happened--so even the
analogy where a nail (sin) is pounded into a board (us) and then pulled out
(repentance) doesn't work, 'cause real repentance wouldn't leave a hole.
Of course, sometimes i think that our Puritan selves in the Mormon church
get scared with this idea that maybe, just maybe, one sin won't ruin our
lives after all. And maybe, just maybe, that Puritan streak is a Bad Thing
for us Mormons.
<snip>
(I remind everyone of Mencken's--i think it was him, but it sounds like it
could have been Bierce, too--definition of Puritanism: The haunting fear
that somewhere, someone in the world is happy. The frightening thing is that
every once in a while i experience a sacrament meeting that makes me fear
that that's a definition of Mormonism, too.)
David, who's happy
David Bowie
<snip>
: Can you give me a legitimate example where there is officially
: sanctioned Church policy to be confrontational and contentious?
Well, in the canon we're told to contend against the Church of the Devil.
Aside from that, it may depend on how one defines confrontation and
contention. As Naomi Rivkis used to point out over and over on a.r.m., to
many, many Jews, being proselyted is a "confrontational and contentious" act
against them.
David, who notes the request for policy, not examples
MyTwoCents
You are speaking in blanket statements. Please show us documentation
that any missionary has "seeked out" and singled out Jehovah's Witnesses to
"teach them a lesson". I must say being a member and a stake missionary I
have often come across the exact opposite....the J-Dubs are the ones that
have the big vendetta against the Mormons and seek them out to banter.
"I hate spam!" <thean...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:zaQ86.50133$r7.25...@pouncer.easynews.com...
Raymond Bingham
>"Raymond Bingham" <ra...@fc.hp.com> wrote...
><snip>
>: Of course, we love to bash these analogies online. Of course one
>: wonders if one can truly 'overstate' the consequences of sin, though.
>: It's a sorrow that unless you've been mired in it, you probably are
>: blissfully ignorant of it. Sure, there are ways out, but there are
>: many more ways to become more entrenched and miserable.
>At least some of us (well, at least me) don't just bash these sorts of
>analogies online, we bash them in Real Life<tm>. And the reasons for this
>tendency include the fact that yes, one *can* truly overstate the
>consequences of sin! If one overstates the consequences of sin to the extent
>that it ruins another's hope and makes it harder for a person to believe
>themselves capable of repentance, then we have truly overstated the
>consequences of sin.
But we have no power to repent of sin of our own will. Christ can bake
us a new cake or has power over the molecules to change or perfecly eliminate
the sin, but in many ways, the analogy works, if applied to only a small
degree, and not used in an "overboard" sense.
Un-repentant sin, is very much a spoiled person, at least from God's
perspective. It renders us unclean, and unworthy to return to God's
presense. Of course we all have sinned, and unless we have repented
of those things... well then we're all gonna have poopy lemonade. ;-)
>This is why a lot of sin analogies don't work. We're told in the scriptures
>that repentance makes it as if the sin never, ever happened--so even the
>analogy where a nail (sin) is pounded into a board (us) and then pulled out
>(repentance) doesn't work, 'cause real repentance wouldn't leave a hole.
And I agree with you. I don't think they work that well. Often there's a
tendency to dwell upon the sin, to the point where it becomes "daggers"
to the innocent (as Jacob would put it).
I was hoping that we might discuss the aspect of fear in teaching. And
where the balance lies between where the fear becomes ridiculous, and
the principle is compromised. I mean, let's look at the scriptures.
They're repleat with stories of the sinner going to hell, and punishment
for sins, and the destruction of the wicked, etc.
Sometimes I find myself squemish to fully explain why God would treat
some who commit "whoredoms" in the same terms as the scriptures use. Of
course I'm a "Mercy Junky", I suppose.
[Snip commentary about Mormon Puritan ancestors]
It's a shame we can't go back to puritan times and observe it more
carefully. I am aware of the negatives of the society, but I'd love
to view it, to see if they really were as miserable as so many claim.
Not that I could live it, but just for curiosity's sake...
Best regards, Raymond
Raymond Bingham
[snip]
> I must say being a member and a stake missionary I
>have often come across the exact opposite....the J-Dubs are the ones that
>have the big vendetta against the Mormons and seek them out to banter.
This could go both ways I suppose. Though I agree that in general
those of the Jehovah's Witnesses most often sought out me while I was
on my mission. Heck, everyone thought we were J-dubs, and they've really
done a number on the people of Italy. Often people were surprised at how
different we were, if they took time to listen. I have to admit that
I didn't always turn the other cheek with the Dubs.
I do remember one time when we were stuck in the mountains of Abruzzo, in
Italy, and hitched a ride on a tour bus that had just returned from a Jdub
convention in Rome. The driver assumed we were JW, and we just smiled
and didn't contradict him at all... ;-)
Best regards,
I hate spam!
"MyTwoCents" <noo...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
> You are speaking in blanket statements. Please show us documentation
that any missionary has "seeked out" and
> singled out Jehovah's Witnesses to "teach them a lesson".
What kind of documentation? How about "I recall talking about just
this thing with other missionaries at a district/zone meeting while on
my mission"? It happened. I've also seen first hand (and gone along
with) missionaries who set out in the morning saying "I'd like to find
<take your pick - Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, Evang...> today."
I went many times to discuss the church with the Catholic priest in one
town - missionaries had been "seeking him out" for 15 years before I
had gotten there trying to convert him. There were a several dozen
missionaries of whom I knew directly with special JW sections of their
notebooks listing scriptures and strategies designed with the specific
intent of trapping them in contradictions and leaps of illogic. I
still have my list somewhere, buried in a closet I suppose.
Does this documentation suffice?
MyTwoCents
them of being contentious and stalking them at home. If more people would
get the nerve to be honest with them they wouldn't bother them.
"Kathryn Simpson" <kjsi...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:SAY86.58760$r7.28...@pouncer.easynews.com...
Kathryn Simpson
"David Bowie" <db....@pmpkn.net> wrote in message
news:Wi296.64356$r7.31...@pouncer.easynews.com...
> Well, in the canon we're told to contend against the Church of the Devil.
And how are we told to "contend against the Church of the Devil"? Church
policy and doctrine tell us to first to get our own lives in order (practice
the first principles of the gospel, so that the Devil has no control over
us). Then we are to teach the Gospel to others. Teaching the Gospel does
not mean we have to tear anything else down. Using a line from "Fields of
Dreams", "...if we build it, they will come". )
> Aside from that, it may depend on how one defines confrontation and
> contention. As Naomi Rivkis used to point out over and over on a.r.m., to
> many, many Jews, being proselyted is a "confrontational and contentious"
act
> against them.
Gotta wonder over there again some time. <g>
If one is shoving the Church down someone's throat, then we aren't being
respectful. That is wrong and we need to get back to working on the first
principles of the Gospel again, before we go back out and try to convert our
friends.
> David, who notes the request for policy, not examples
yeah, sometimes I too can learn. ;=)
Kathryn Simpson
> Does this documentation suffice?
<sarcasm=on>
Oh yeah, you've convinced me. Because missionaries make appointments with
and teach Catholics and Jehovah Witnesses (who apparently are letting them
into their homes) and then have the audacity to even come prepared, it is
quite obvious that the Church has policy to be contentious and
confrontational.
<sarcasm=off>
By your logic, when I prepare my Sunday School lesson, in advance, it is
evidence that I plan to be contentious and confrontational, just because I
studied the appropriate material in advance and even tried to prepare it in
such a way that it was most meaningful to my target audience (age group)?
Tom Moore
> The Simpsons has some bad points, however there is still much
> to defend. For starters, it is one of very few TV shows that
> even deals with religion. Banning it because Homer proves
> there is no God just shows a lack of a sense of humour.
God is superior to everything and either exists or does not exist. Since
existance is superior to non-existance, God exists. QED
Why does Homer get everything wrong? Doh.
> But banning Simpsons? Get a life, and take a
> look at everything else on Amercan television.
If I had a life, I wouldn't be watching TV ;)
--
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds
www.tom-moore.co.uk
Tom Moore
> Christ can bake us a new cake or has power over the
> molecules to change or perfecly eliminate the sin, but
> in many ways, the analogy works, if applied to only a
> small degree, and not used in an "overboard" sense.
Does cake mixture dream of being sponge? Why then should we have problems
imagining how things will be when our lives are over?
> >This is why a lot of sin analogies don't work.
Right in the middle of sin is I Perhaps not strictly an analogy, but
centring on oneself, is at the root of most, if not all, sin.
> It's a shame we can't go back to puritan times
> and observe it more carefully.
Then I'd get a chance to persecute all of you, and you'd all have to leave
England, for the americas, in a little boat, captained by Scott Marquardt,
with Raymond Bingham at the Helm ;)
Raymond Bingham
>"Raymond Bingham" <ra...@fc.hp.com> wrote
>> Christ can bake us a new cake or has power over the
>> molecules to change or perfecly eliminate the sin, but
>> in many ways, the analogy works, if applied to only a
>> small degree, and not used in an "overboard" sense.
>Does cake mixture dream of being sponge? Why then should we have problems
>imagining how things will be when our lives are over?
Well, any analogy is downright stupid, when it comes to real life. I mean,
what cake really dreams of being the perfect cake when it ends up getting
eaten. I mean, even in the parables, when the righteous are compared to
"fruit" it often bothers me, because I keep thinking of what happens to
fruit, in the long run it all ends up as poop... or fertilizer... ;)
[snip]
>> It's a shame we can't go back to puritan times
>> and observe it more carefully.
>Then I'd get a chance to persecute all of you, and you'd all have to leave
>England, for the americas, in a little boat, captained by Scott Marquardt,
>with Raymond Bingham at the Helm ;)
Hehehehe... Now wait a sec... I want to "observe it" not
partecipate in it... ;-) With the difficulty I have conforming
to the corporate culture in my own job, I doubt it'd be long
before I was burned at the stake... or was in exile, or something
like that... ;-)
Best regards,
Hedgehog
(Raymond Bingham) wrote:
> It's a shame we can't go back to puritan times and observe it more
> carefully.
Unless you were very well behaved, you might get into trouble and perhaps
even put to death. Puritans in colonial America put a couple of Quakers
to death. I see no reason to think they'd be any more accepting of
Mormons. They didn't come to America to have tolerance for other
religions.
Peace,
Hedgehog
who can't even imagine explaining what he does for a living to someone
from the 1600's.
Raymond Bingham
>> It's a shame we can't go back to puritan times and observe it more
>> carefully.
>Unless you were very well behaved, you might get into trouble and perhaps
>even put to death. Puritans in colonial America put a couple of Quakers
>to death. I see no reason to think they'd be any more accepting of
>Mormons. They didn't come to America to have tolerance for other
>religions.
How European of them... ;)
(I didn't say I wanted to LIVE with them. I just wanted to be an
invisible observer. See how their society worked, etc. I also wonder
if the put to death thing was a Puritan church policy (hah) or if
it was just a human nature type thing... that was not completely
excepted by their religion.)
Best regards,
Joe Steve Swick III
Can you give me a legitimate example where there is officially sanctioned
Church policy to be confrontational and contentious?
Some would consider the Church's past policy of cooperation with the US
government in the harrassment and incarceration of Mormon Fundamentalists to
qualify as "confrontational and contentious."
Cheers,
JSW
Kathryn Simpson
"Joe Steve Swick III" <jsw...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:nT2a6.11052$0e.4...@pouncer.easynews.com...
> Some would consider the Church's past policy of cooperation with the US
> government in the harrassment and incarceration of Mormon Fundamentalists
to
> qualify as "confrontational and contentious."
By "Mormon Fundamentalists", do you mean former members of the Church who
are practicing polygamy, which violates the laws of the land? If so, Church
Policy is firm in that we believe in "honoring and sustaining the laws of
the land". :=) That is not contentious or confrontational, that is obeying
the law.
Following your example... am I contentious and confrontational just because
I provide whatever assistance and testimony necessary to prosecute a
lawbreaker when I witness or am the victim of a crime?
Nathan Packer
We had a few, and only a few missionaries, who adopted this approach.
Usually, it was the boys that spent four years in seminary and thought
they could whip anybody in a bible bash. It didn't take long before
they came across a JW or a minister, who I swear, had the bible
memorized. And memorized to the extent that they would take part of
one verse and mix a part of another verse and present it so smoothly I
could only stand in awe.
The arrogance lasted only a few months and it didn't take a directive
from headquarters to humble the elder.
Nathan (I think, therefore, I must be around here someplace) Packer
Hedgehog
<jo...@idf.centerpartners.com> wrote:
> > A while ago we had a Book of Mormon study in this newsgroup. We started
> > out listing a number of doctrines and practices that set Mormons apart
> > from other Christian denominations. We then set about looking for these
> > in the Book of Mormon chapter by chapter.
>
> You seem to have a different recollection of this than I do. I recall
> numerous doctrines and practices delineated in the Book of Mormon that makes
> Mormonism unique.
Did you mean a posteriori or a priori?
If you recall, we listed a set of things that tend to set Mormons apart
before we started. Then we read through the book. I can't recall any of
what we listed beforehand being found once we actually turned to the text
itself. Let's consider one example: Proxy baptisms for the dead. Where
in the Book of Mormon is any evidence whatsoever for this practice? Care
for another example? Three Kingdoms of Glory? How about another? God is
a material being and the universe was contructed from pre-existing
materials.
Now if you mean do you have no objection to this verse or that verse
(provided it is read with the proper "mental reservations") then yes, I
suppose you found something. But you didn't find what we set out to look
for. And my guess is that most of what you found doesn't really set you
apart from other Christian denominations.
When most people here talk of Moroni's challenge, they seem to assume that
if the Book of Mormon is true then the LDS Church must be true, but anyone
who understands even the first thing about LDS history and theology can
see otherwise. For example, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are considered
true by Mormons and yet Mormons consider the Catholic Church to be
"apostate and corrupt" and not fully restored even though the Catholic
Church extols the truth and inspiration of those works. Therefore members
of a particular denomination can carry true Scriptures around and yet not
be on the right path. If it is true for Catholics, then it is true for
Mormons.
So let's say a particular person in the year 2001 prays about the Book of
Mormon and gets a positive result. The person assumes that the LDS Church
is the one true Church, but as we have seen that doesn't necessarily
follow. The LDS Church extols four standard works. Most of the
distinctively LDS doctrine comes from the D&C and the Pearl of Great
Price, not from the Book of Mormon. So our hypothetical convert assumes
that if the LDS Church is true, then those other two portions of the
Standard Works must be true.
Now as an outsider, here is what worries me. The RLDS apparently has a
quite similar version of the Book of Mormon. Sure they may be some minor
textual variants, but I'd gather nothing earth-shattering. My
understanding is that the RLDS have a quite different version of the
Doctrine and Covenants and that they don't recognize the Pearl of Great
Price as inspired. There are never many RLDS in this forum and so I am
open to correction on these matters, but that is my current
understanding. Now of course as a member of the LDS Church, you are
likely to argue that your version of the D&C is correct while "theirs" is
corrupt and changed, but as an outsider I ask why couldn't it be the other
way around? Or why couldn't it be that both the RLDS version *and* LDS
version are changed?
RLDS have the same Bible and the same Book of Mormon and yet come up with
radically different understandings of the Restoration. Now if the Book of
Mormon really does have so many distinctively Mormon ideas in it, why is
that the case?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
lynn...@alsirat.com (Lynn Gazis-Sax) wrote:
> Ironically, for a book whose doctrine differs from that of mainstream
> Christianity mainly in its more positive view of the Fall, I find one of
> the more interesting aspects of the book to be its depiction of the lure of
> pride, and the ultimate destruction of the Nephites.
How do you know that isn't part of the message? The Nephites had a more
positive view of the Fall and that lead to pride and other sins and thus
to their destruction. Consider that in the LDS view, Adam and Eve were
caught in a sort of double-bind. They were told not to eat the fruit and
yet they were also told to reproduce and to do that they needed to eat the
fruit. Likewise, the Book of Mormon starts with a character in a
double-bind. Nephi is asked to obey the Law of Moses, but to obey it he
needs to get a copy of it and the only way he can do that is to commit a
murder in cold blood.
This double-bind of Nephi's and how he chooses to resolve it seems to be
the very thing that leads to the downfall of the Nephites. The Nephites
have to read the Adam and Eve story with that spin in order to justify
their founder and namesake. Yet it is Nephi's use of Laban's sword which
leads to internecine conflict with the Lamanites.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
> I have a slightly different perception from Hedgehog; my memory is that one
> or two things were found (I think the most distinctively Mormon doctrine in
> the Book of Mormon is probably the discussion of the Fall in either 1 or 2
> Nephi, I forget which).
Was that one of the a priori doctrines in our list which we made prior to
the Book of Mormon study? When Daniel recently asked what one has to
believe in order to be a Mormon, did anyone list the Book of Mormon view
of the Fall as one of the items? Is it really all that distinctive if one
compares it to the Exultet in the Liturgy of the Easter Vigil ("O Happy
Fault of Adam")?
I think it fails on all three counts, but if I am misremebering, feel free
to point that out.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
Simpson" <kjsi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> Germany is another example, and a much more recent one.
I think you'll have to expand on this a bit for me. How exactly is
Germany like the Nephites? Are you discussing WWII?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
Simpson" <kjsi...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> "Hedgehog" <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote in message
> news:QjG86.40217$r7.20...@pouncer.easynews.com...
> > Would you eat meat that had one maggot on it?
>
> Nope, but neither would I deny you the opportunity to eat it.
Then isn't the point of the maggot analogy zero tolerance? After all, if
even one maggot is too many, the only correct number of maggots is zero.
So should God behave the same way with us? We have all sinned and all
fall short of the perfection of God--at least if we are judged on our own
merits. Should God consider us maggot-infested meat to be cast off? Or
should God allow us redemption through the grace of Christ?
This also gets us back to the issue of Orthopraxy. Is the Thirteenth
Article of Faith telling Mormons to watch the Simpsons and seek the good
that is in it? Is it asking Mormons to avoid the Simpsons as evil and
watch some other drek on television? Or is it asking Mormons to avoid
television altogether?
I know at least one Mormon in this newsgroup who doesn't own a
television. I'd like to suggest that Haole watches the Simpsons with open
eyes to what good there might be in it.
Is the Simpsons the piece of meat or is television broadcasting as a whole
the piece of meat? If I refused any meat with one maggot, then I couldn't
watch any shows that showed negative aspects of human nature. Would I
have to declare King Lear an abomination? Let's not even discuss Oedipus
Rex.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
(Raymond Bingham) wrote:
> Hedgehog (hedg...@scripps.edu) quipped:
> [snip]
> >The LDS Church has made itself into all that Smith condemned in JS-Hist in
> >my opinion. It is sectarian in the extreme. It is obsessed with the
> >forms of righteousness rather than with the substance. It large amounts
> >of its time seeking confrontation and contention with other Christians
> >rather than seeking loving understanding and reconciliation.
>
> I fail to see how one can claim the whole church has become this,
> because members are willing and honest enough to acknowledge that
> at times they possess these attributes.
I am under no obligation to prove that the each and every member of Church
is apostate and corrupt. All I need to do is show general trends and that
those trends are concerning.
For example:
Given Joseph Smith's interpretation of James 1:5 and given Moroni 10:4,
how can Hinckley possibly say he doesn't know whether the Snow couplet or
the King Follett discourse is doctrinal? Can't he just ask God?
What happened to continuing revelation?
I consider the question about those documents a very fair question to ask
a Prophet/Religious leader. Those documents have been around for well
over a hundred years. The question presumes no special historical or
scientific knowledge. The documents are not obscure. The subject matter
is of frequent discussion both amongst Mormons themselves and between
non-Mormons and Mormons All Hinckley has to do is ask God.
If Hinckley is really worried about the sound byte problem, have him write
up a 50 or 100 page discourse and publish that in the Book of Mormon.
Then when Larry King asks Hinckley about it, all Hinckley has to do is say
"Call the 800 number and you can get a free copy of a Book of Mormon with
a 50 page answer to your question."
Peace,
Hedgehog
Ann Porter
> In article <u_J76.121195$HQ4.6...@pouncer.easynews.com>, "John Johnson"
> > You seem to have a different recollection of this than I do. I recall
> > numerous doctrines and practices delineated in the Book of Mormon that
makes
> > Mormonism unique.
>
> Did you mean a posteriori or a priori?
>
> If you recall, we listed a set of things that tend to set Mormons apart
> before we started. Then we read through the book. I can't recall any of
> what we listed beforehand being found once we actually turned to the text
Hedge, I don't recall that the original list was meant to be all-inclusive.
Certainly, if something came up in the reading that wasn't on the list, it
should be included?
Best,
Ann, who thinks all our unique stuff is either in the D&C or folk Mormon.
Ann Porter
> If Hinckley is really worried about the sound byte problem, have him write
> up a 50 or 100 page discourse and publish that in the Book of Mormon.
> Then when Larry King asks Hinckley about it, all Hinckley has to do is say
> "Call the 800 number and you can get a free copy of a Book of Mormon with
> a 50 page answer to your question."
He'd have to put it in the D&C. That's the part of the canon that's still
open.
Best,
Ann, who often wonders about the Gospel of Thomas, though
Kathryn Simpson
You asked... Would you eat meat that had one maggot on it?
I replied... Nope, but neither would I deny you the opportunity to eat it.
Then you asked...
> Then isn't the point of the maggot analogy zero tolerance? After all, if
> even one maggot is too many, the only correct number of maggots is zero.
Yes and no. I have zero tolerance for maggots on my steak. However, you
can have as many maggots on your steak as you desire. That's the American
way. ;=)
Is either of us "correct"? Yes, both of us are, for ourselves. Are either
of us wrong? No, we just have a different individual tolerance for maggots.
If maggots on steaks became manditory or banned, though, I'd be the first in
line to protest and I'd imagine I'd meet you on the way to the rally. ;=)
Replace "maggots" with "capers". Would my position be any different?
Absolutely not (but it might be an indication that I don't care for capers.
;=)
> So should God behave the same way with us?
Yes.
> We have all sinned and all
> fall short of the perfection of God--at least if we are judged on our own
> merits.
True, without the atonement and repentence, we all would fall short.
> Should God consider us maggot-infested meat to be cast off? Or
> should God allow us redemption through the grace of Christ?
A television series is not a person. I didn't say anything about casting
off a person, I talked about a personal choice to cast off what I consider
to be an unacceptable object. I would never cast off a person.... ok,
well... if I did cast-off a person, I would feel really guilty and repent.
;=)
There is a huge difference between casting-off an object and casting-off a
person.
> This also gets us back to the issue of Orthopraxy. Is the Thirteenth
> Article of Faith telling Mormons to watch the Simpsons and seek the good
> that is in it? Is it asking Mormons to avoid the Simpsons as evil and
> watch some other drek on television? Or is it asking Mormons to avoid
> television altogether?
I have avoided that thread. <g>
> I know at least one Mormon in this newsgroup who doesn't own a
> television. I'd like to suggest that Haole watches the Simpsons with open
> eyes to what good there might be in it.
And that is each's personal decision, which I respect. Just as I expect you
to respect my opinion. And you should have the expectation that I will
respect yours. So... eat all the maggoted steak you want, or put capers on
it. ;=)
> Is the Simpsons the piece of meat or is television broadcasting as a whole
> the piece of meat?
Ah, well, at least we agree that it is not a person. <g>
> If I refused any meat with one maggot, then I couldn't
> watch any shows that showed negative aspects of human nature. Would I
> have to declare King Lear an abomination? Let's not even discuss Oedipus
> Rex.
I think that would be your own personal decision and as long as your
personal decision didn't force me to partake, so be it. That's the American
Way. ;=)
Joe Steve Swick III
Some would consider the Church's past policy of cooperation with the US
government in the harrassment and incarceration of Mormon Fundamentalists to
qualify as "confrontational and contentious."
___Kathy Simpson___
By "Mormon Fundamentalists", do you mean former members of the Church who
are practicing polygamy, which violates the laws of the land?
---
Yes, that would be them.
___Kathy Simpson___
If so, Church Policy is firm in that we believe in "honoring and sustaining
the laws of the land". :=) That is not contentious or confrontational,
that is obeying
the law.
-----
"Contentious and Confrontational" refers to the Church's specific actions in
spying on polygamists, reporting their movements ot the government, and
directly encouraging the prosecution of Fundamentalists and the breakup of
their families, separating husbands from wives, and mothers from children.
The Church went to great effort and expense to encourage the prosecution of
these folks.
___Kathy Simpson___
Following your example... am I contentious and confrontational just
because I provide whatever assistance and testimony necessary to prosecute a
lawbreaker when I witness or am the victim of a crime?
-----
I'm surprised to see you characterize this issue in this way. Heber J. Grant
had been a polygamist, and wilfully violated this same law, along with
numerous other Church leaders. That they would then turn around and REPORT
on the activities of others who had done no worse than they themselves, and
experess openly and publicly the fond hope that those folks would end up
behind bars, is the height of hypocrisy.
Further, there is a vast difference between inherently criminal acts such as
theft, robbery and murder, and a consensual act such as polygamy. The former
may indeed have "victims." Inasmuch as the latter is consensual and
fully-informed, there are none. The Church actively gathered information,
copied down license plate numbers, listened at windows to private
conversations, counted children in households, etc. WITH THE INTENT of
getting state and local officials to jail these folks. Can you imagine the
Church using these same surveillance techniques to track down adulterers and
fornicators, and report THEM to the police, encouraging them to throw all
such behind bars? That would be ludicrous -- and so is their behavior in
regards to Mormon Fundamentalism. It is definately "confrontational and
contentious" in its character. I didn't hear Heber J. Grant say that he
thought MUSLIMS who had brought more than one wife to the United States, and
quetly cohabited with them in violation of the law, ought to do time behind
bars. It seems his ire was selective.
Now, there are some recent cases in which Fundamentalists have been guilty
of abuse. I personally believe that any case in which the rights of
individuals have been demonstrably violated ought to be prosecuted to the
full extent of the law. But might I sugget that this is more of a problem in
"monogamous" society, and that Fundamentalists have been unfairly
scapegoated because of the unpopularity of their lifestyle.
Hedgehog
(Raymond Bingham) wrote:
> (I didn't say I wanted to LIVE with them. I just wanted to be an
> invisible observer. See how their society worked, etc. I also wonder
> if the put to death thing was a Puritan church policy (hah) or if
> it was just a human nature type thing... that was not completely
> excepted by their religion.)
From: http://www.closeup.org/punish.htm#colonial
"Massachusetts was the first American jurisdiction to prohibit cruel and
unusual punishments with its adoption of the Massachusetts Body of
Liberties in 1641. The Puritans, however, did not consider execution cruel
and unusual punishment, and they even authorized it for some religious
offenses. Moreover, this was an era when physical punishments were common
and public shaming was considered an acceptable punishment for certain
offenses in all colonies, including Massachusetts."
Here's an interesting one: http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/events/1786.htm
"At the time of the American Revolution, all 13 states had laws that
specified the death penalty for sodomy, but for different reasons. In New
England, a strong Puritan influence dominated the formation of laws, and
sodomy was condemned for Biblical reasons. The Puritans wanted New England
to be like
John Calvin's Geneva, a theocracy guided by God's laws. The place where
they found God's laws was in the Old Testament book, Leviticus, which had
been a rule book for holy living of the ancient Hebrews."
Most likely there were no special exceptions for homosexual acts committed
as a young teenager, as the Mormon CHI contains. So if one had been
granted clemency for such an act by the LDS Church, don't tell the
Puritans.
From: http://www.lairdcarlson.com/celldoor/Bio_Address/AinsRelicofPast.htm
"Justifying their use of capital punishment on the Old Testament law of
Leviticus ' the Puritans of New England, the same crowd that brought us
Thanksgiving, put to death a teen-aged servant named Thomas Granger for
bestiality. Leviticus had written: 'The man who lies with an animal, he
must die and the animal must be killed.' Young Tom could not identify the
specific animals he acted lewdly with, so all the animals were cast into a
pit and killed as he watched then he was put to death, in September 1624.
Before you decide the Puritans were right in following Leviticus, let me
hasten to add that the Old Testament also prescribes the death penalty for
disobedient children. Could those who gather in support of the death
penalty today who use 'eye for an eye' as a justification for their
support stone a child to death?"
"The infamous Salem witchcraft trials of 1692 in Massachusetts were
another legal remedy, Nineteen men and women were executed on the strength
of very dubious testimony by others who may have been coerced into saying
such things as: 'Her yellow bird sucked betwixt her fingers.' I am sure
every little old lady in America today who shares her world with a canary
who eats from her hand
would be astonished that such behavior could be considered the work of the
devil, and that they would be subjected to capital punishment for such
carryings on with their feathered companions."
One can only imagine what they would do to a Mormon. Yes, being an
invisible observer would be best.
Peace,
Hedgehog
who thinks search engines are wonderful things.
Hedgehog
(Raymond Bingham) wrote:
> Well, any analogy is downright stupid, when it comes to real life. I mean,
> what cake really dreams of being the perfect cake when it ends up getting
> eaten. I mean, even in the parables, when the righteous are compared to
> "fruit" it often bothers me, because I keep thinking of what happens to
> fruit, in the long run it all ends up as poop... or fertilizer... ;)
The D&C teaches that life is one eternal round. The fertilizer is
absorbed by the tree and becomes fruit once again.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Joe Steve Swick III
Before you decide the Puritans were right in following Leviticus, let me
hasten to add that the Old Testament also prescribes the death penalty for
disobedient children. Could those who gather in support of the death
penalty today who use 'eye for an eye' as a justification for their support
stone a child to death?"
While Leviticus provides a "legal weighting" for certain behaviors, it is
important to note that while crimes such as adultery and unfilial behavior
were considered to MERIT death (and Leviticus uses that language), the
number of cases in which such behaviors were rewarded with death were far
and few between.
Particularly of note in this regard was the prohibition against adultery.
The surrounding laws were intentionally so exacting as to evidence allowed,
preconditions, witnesses, etc, that it was viritually impossible to convict
someone. So, our perceptions of these laws, and the reality of them, is
sometimes very different.
It remained for later Christians, separated by the culture and legal
framework, to apply levitical punishments so harshly.
Just my .02.
JSW
Paul Robichaux
hedg...@scripps.edu (Hedgehog) wrote:
>Would you counsel your fellow Mormons to not watch beauty pageants or
>Baywatch?
Well, if any of 'em asked me I might counsel them to avoid watching or
reading (or listening to, or ...) anything for the purpose of
titillating their sexual desire. Think about it: if Joe Mormon has a
foot fetish and spends all his time reading the Payless catalog, how is
that different from someone with more "conventional" desires lusting
after the Baywatch babes?
IMHO, it's not just *what* you watch or look at, it's *why*. I think
Manet's paintings probably pass that test, at least for me. There are
lots of other things that wouldn't.
Peace,
-Paul
--
Paul Robichaux <pa...@robichaux.net>
Robichaux & Associates <http://www.robichaux.net>
NT & Exchange deployment, planning, and consulting
<http://www.robichaux.net/writing/man-exchange.html>
Hedgehog
<pa...@robichaux.net> wrote:
> In article <Hela6.32395$0e.13...@pouncer.easynews.com>,
> hedg...@scripps.edu (Hedgehog) wrote:
>
> >Would you counsel your fellow Mormons to not watch beauty pageants or
> >Baywatch?
>
> Well, if any of 'em asked me I might counsel them to avoid watching or
> reading (or listening to, or ...) anything for the purpose of
> titillating their sexual desire.
So in your interpretation of Mormon theology, sexual desire is itself bad?
For example, would it be bad for a husband and wife to spend half an hour
reading and discussing the Joy of Sex by Alex Comfort before adjourning to
the bedroom?
> Think about it: if Joe Mormon has a
> foot fetish and spends all his time reading the Payless catalog, how is
> that different from someone with more "conventional" desires lusting
> after the Baywatch babes?
As I mentioned to Raymond some time ago, I don't claim to have a
comprehensive understanding of human sexuality. Is it certain that the
Mormon foot fetishist is really feeling exactly what we mean by sexual
lust? If all of his sexual desire and feeling really revolve around feet,
might not he then be incapable of fathering children? Wouldn't it be
sinful for such a person to marry knowing that he could never engage in
conventional intercourse?
> IMHO, it's not just *what* you watch or look at, it's *why*.
In that case, it appears to me that the foot fetishist might actually be
in a different boat than the happily married man with "plain vanilla"
sexuality.
> I think
> Manet's paintings probably pass that test, at least for me. There are
> lots of other things that wouldn't.
I guess one of the things I am concerned about is Manet's paintings were
considered controversial when they were new and now that they are part of
the "western canon" it is hard for us to see them with the same eyes as
the first viewers. Many people today were offended at Mapplethorpe's
photography, but what if people in 2132 think of them as classics?
Do we have any comments from 19th century Mormons about Manet?
It has been asserted on this newsgroup that BYU does not allow nude models
in its art classes. If Manet's women were painted after nude models,
doesn't that make them morally questionable in that sense?
Or what of Lewis Carroll's nude photographs of children. Some people seem
to feel those are pornography and others think that Carroll is being
judged unfairly my anachronistic standards. Is Carroll seeing the nude
bodies of children as innocently beautiful, or is the artistry of the
photos a cover for Carroll's baser lusts? Can one make the decision
without actually viewing the photos? And once one views the photos,
hasn't one already then exposed oneself to potential sin?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
<annp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Hedge, I don't recall that the original list was meant to be all-inclusive.
> Certainly, if something came up in the reading that wasn't on the list, it
> should be included?
Certainly the list wasn't intended to be all inclusive, but it was
supposed to cover the major distinctive characteristics.
Let's say I have a book that I insist is a cook book for Italian cuisine.
You read through it and say, "Hey, Hedgehog, this looks more like a
Chinese cookbook to me." I flip it open and on page 23 it uses the word
"fork" and we all know that Italian chefs sometimes use forks. Ta Da!
That's a lot different that setting up criteria in advance. We know it to
be an italian cook book if it discusses eggplant parmagiana, spaghetti,
lasagna, pesto, etc. Then we flip open the book and find Kung Pao Shrimp,
Sweet and Sour Pork, Fried wontons, etc.
Remember we do have the RLDS and they also have the Book of Mormon and
they differ in a number of important ways from the LDS. Why are they
getting different recipes from the same cookbook?
I remain unconvinced that a person who thought the Book of Mormon is true
would naturally want to join the LDS Church.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Raymond Bingham
[snip]
>As I mentioned to Raymond some time ago, I don't claim to have a
>comprehensive understanding of human sexuality. Is it certain that the
>Mormon foot fetishist is really feeling exactly what we mean by sexual
>lust?
I actually believe WE don't know all about human sexuality, either.
You made the extrapolation, though, that perhaps God doesn't know
or understand sexuality. And that's where we disagreed. I think
God understands it well, even if he does possess gender, it doesn't
preclude Him from understanding it.
LDS do believe that gender had some premortal aspect, and will likewise
have some eternal significance to it, at least that was what I seemed
to understand from the Proclamation on the Family.
Lynn Gazis-Sax
<ijma6.32829$0e.14...@pouncer.easynews.com>:
a) I don't remember for sure, but I think that it wasn't on the list of a
priori doctrines.
b) My feed is spotty on receiving that thread, but I found Daniel's post in
Dejanews, and no one seems to have cited the Book of Mormon view of the
Fall (and one or two people have said in the past that taking a more
negative view of the Fall wouldn't interfere with getting a Temple
Recommend, IIRC).
c) I don't recall hearing about any happy fault of Adam in either Anglican
or Orthodox Easter services (but then, I've missed a lot when I've gone to
Orthodox services, due to my limited Greek), so I can't say. I think that,
say, C.S.Lewis would find the Mormon view of the Fall distinctive (at
least, differing sharply from his reading of Christianity). And I do think
that, overall, it is a strong difference between mainstream Christianity
and Mormonism. On the other hand, "Fall Upward" readings of the Fall
aren't entirely unheard of within more mainstream denominations, and some
Mormons seem perfectly willing to speak of Adam's and Eve's choice as a
sin. So it might be that there is some gray area of overlap between
mainstrain Christian and Mormon views, here.
Other than this view of the Fall, I don't see anything in Book of Mormon
theology which would be inconsistent with 19th century US Protestantism of
an Arminian bent; it differs doctrinally from the Bible mainly in being
more explicitly consistent with such standard Protestant views, on points
where the Bible might be more capable of multiple interpretations.
--
Lynn Gazis-Sax
http://www.notfrisco.com or http://www.alsirat.com
Scott Marquardt
>Other than this view of the Fall, I don't see anything in Book of Mormon
>theology which would be inconsistent with 19th century US Protestantism of
>an Arminian bent; it differs doctrinally from the Bible mainly in being
>more explicitly consistent with such standard Protestant views, on points
>where the Bible might be more capable of multiple interpretations.
So whaddya think, Lynn? Do you think the signal variation within Mormonism
is as wide as the noise level within orthodoxy, so to speak?
The implication, if so, seems obvious.
- Scott
Raymond Bingham
>Let's say I have a book that I insist is a cook book for Italian cuisine.
>You read through it and say, "Hey, Hedgehog, this looks more like a
>Chinese cookbook to me." I flip it open and on page 23 it uses the word
>"fork" and we all know that Italian chefs sometimes use forks. Ta Da!
>That's a lot different that setting up criteria in advance. We know it to
>be an italian cook book if it discusses eggplant parmagiana, spaghetti,
>lasagna, pesto, etc. Then we flip open the book and find Kung Pao Shrimp,
>Sweet and Sour Pork, Fried wontons, etc.
The first time I ever had Chinese Food was when I was in Italy on my
mission. It was markedly different than Chinese Food here in America,
as it was more Italianized. Ironically I had Sweet and Sour Pork, too,
I think, either that or Chicken.
There are different variants of Chinese food, the Italianized is better
than most American, at least the Italianized, I had was good... ;)
Best regards,
PS. What was the topic? (Who hasn't read this topic, just throwing in
random comments... ;)
Hedgehog
(Raymond Bingham) wrote:
> Hedgehog (hedg...@scripps.edu) quipped:
> [snip]
> >As I mentioned to Raymond some time ago, I don't claim to have a
> >comprehensive understanding of human sexuality. Is it certain that the
> >Mormon foot fetishist is really feeling exactly what we mean by sexual
> >lust?
> [snip]
>
> I actually believe WE don't know all about human sexuality, either.
> You made the extrapolation, though, that perhaps God doesn't know
> or understand sexuality.
As I recall, what I said was that under folk Mormon theology, God's
understanding of sexuality would be no better than ours. To put it in
terms of existentialist philosophy, God's maleness is just part of the
facticity of the the universe and has no more meaning than any other fact.
> And that's where we disagreed. I think
> God understands it well, even if he does possess gender, it doesn't
> preclude Him from understanding it.
I understand that you disagree with me. I just haven't heard you
articulate on what basis you disagree.
For example, let's go back to our hypothetical foot fetishist. Let's say
his fetish is so overwhelming that he is unable to father children.
Likewise the homosexual who is completely overwhelmed by his choice might
be unable to father children. Finally we can consider a celibate monk,
either Buddhist or Catholic. Logically all these cases should be the
same. All can't father children and so all are barred from becoming a
God. Yet Mormons don't treat all the cases the same. So what gives?
Mormonism doesn't particularly have a problem with polygamy--at least so
long as it is polygyny. In a polygamous marriage, are three-somes
allowed? Why or why not? Based on the Plan of Salvation, I see nothing
terribly wrong with the women doing what they want together. Let's see:
consenting adults, check; in a marriage relationship, check; open to
children, check. In fact, having wife 1 pleasure wife 2 after hubby has
had sex with her might even increase her chances of conception if wife 2
has an orgasm. Apparently there is some evidence that the muscular
attractions associated with orgasm help move the semen into the fallopian
tube.
So explain God's take on sexuality? Why does he seem (and Mormons seem)
so squeamish in ways that have no relationship to the Plan of Salvation.
Why doesn't Mormon moral theology seem to have any relationship to the
greater part of LDS theology?
> LDS do believe that gender had some premortal aspect, and will likewise
> have some eternal significance to it, at least that was what I seemed
> to understand from the Proclamation on the Family.
So if God isn't female now, he never was. If he is not gay or a foot
fetishist, he never was. So in what sense are his insights into human
sexuality better than ours?
Peace,
Hedgehog
David Bowie
: <annp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: > Hedge, I don't recall that the original list was meant to be
: > all-inclusive. Certainly, if something came up in the reading
: > that wasn't on the list, it should be included?
: Certainly the list wasn't intended to be all inclusive, but it
: was supposed to cover the major distinctive characteristics.
: Let's say I have a book that I insist is a cook book for Italian
: cuisine...
<snip for the QuoteBot>
: That's a lot different that setting up criteria in advance. We
: know it to be an italian cook book if it discusses eggplant
: parmagiana, spaghetti, lasagna, pesto, etc. Then we flip open
: the book and find Kung Pao Shrimp, Sweet and Sour Pork, Fried
: wontons, etc.
I don't think this is a good analogy for what happened with the Book of
Mormon study.
If we wanted to go with the Italian cookbook analogy, it's more like we'd
set up a list of what might be in an Italian cookbook, and then started
reading the cookbook to find out if it was an Italian one--only to discover,
at one point, that we'd been silly enough to have left pasta off the
original list.
You seem to be saying that, because it wasn't on the original list, pasta
can't be thought of as something that comes up in Italian cuisine.
<snip>
Of course, some of us who participate, me included, weren't worried about
the whole unique doctrines thing, but rather were more focused on meaning
and application of that meaning.
David, who now wants some Chinese noodles
--
David Bowie Department of English
Assistant Professor Brigham Young University
db....@pmpkn.net http://humanities.byu.edu/faculty/bowied
The opinions stated here are not necessarily those of my employer
Raymond Bingham
[snip]
>As I recall, what I said was that under folk Mormon theology, God's
>understanding of sexuality would be no better than ours. To put it in
>terms of existentialist philosophy, God's maleness is just part of the
>facticity of the the universe and has no more meaning than any other fact.
Ah... was that it?
So what's the deal? Because something *IS* in terms of facticity,
does that automatically make it inexplicable?
Could it be that God has gender, and understands a reason behind it,
and still it IS that way, and there are no gods without gender, etc?
This is probably one of those areas where I would flunk philosophy.
Best regards,
Ray McIntyre
I enjoyed Hedgehog's comments. It is true that the LDS & RLDS church get
VERY different messages from the BoM & D&C (which is significantly different
from the LDS version).
Part of this may simply be because of the differing PoV of the two groups,
another part may be because the RLDS has required that its paid ministers be
professionally trained (ie a seminary or university of some kind) and so the
ministers involved have had opportunities to perceive other world views.
Thats my [short] take on it anyway
Ray McIntyre
Lynn Gazis-Sax
<5FBb6.4825$a7.2...@pouncer.easynews.com>:
>So whaddya think, Lynn? Do you think the signal variation within
>Mormonism is as wide as the noise level within orthodoxy, so to speak?
>
It would seem so, yes.
>The implication, if so, seems obvious.
That whatever Apostasy is, agreement on doctrine apparently isn't the cure.
Hedgehog
<db....@pmpkn.net> wrote:
> I don't think this is a good analogy for what happened with the Book of
> Mormon study.
> If we wanted to go with the Italian cookbook analogy, it's more like we'd
> set up a list of what might be in an Italian cookbook, and then started
> reading the cookbook to find out if it was an Italian one--only to discover,
> at one point, that we'd been silly enough to have left pasta off the
> original list.
> You seem to be saying that, because it wasn't on the original list, pasta
> can't be thought of as something that comes up in Italian cuisine.
Yet as your tagline pointed out, a mention of noodles alone is not
sufficient to prove the book is an Italian cookbook rather than chinese.
I'm sorry but I don't see the LDS/Young/SLC Church as being either the
solution to the issues posed in JS-Hist nor do I see it as the best
embodiment of what the Book of Mormon teaches.
Changing the topic a bit....
I was looking at Robert J Matthews' book on the Joseph Smith Translation
last night and he had a very interesting quote from Brigham Young.
"And I have heard ministers of the gospel declare that they believed every
word in the Bible was the word of God. I have said to them 'you believe
more than I do.' I believe the words of God are there; I believe the
words of the devil are there; I believe that the words of men and the
words of angels are there; and that is not all--I believe the words of a
dumb brute are there. I recollect one of the prophets riding, and
prophesying against Israel, and the animal he rode rebuked his madness.
"Do you believe all this is the word of God? If you do you certainly
believe more than I do. The words of the Lord are the words of the Lord,
and the revelations God has given concerning himself are true." JD 14:280
Do the same insights apply to other parts of the Standard Works? Are the
words of Nephi not to be indentified uncritically with the word of God?
Are the words of Smith in the D&C not to be indentified uncritically with
the word of God?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
(Raymond Bingham) wrote:
> Ah... was that it?
>
> So what's the deal? Because something *IS* in terms of facticity,
> does that automatically make it inexplicable?
>From an existentialist perspective, yes. Meaning does not come from the
essence of things.
> Could it be that God has gender, and understands a reason behind it,
> and still it IS that way, and there are no gods without gender, etc?
It could be that the golden plates Smith found were forgeries produced by
elves in the Black Forest. ;) If you are allowed to discuss any option,
then all options are open, right?
> This is probably one of those areas where I would flunk philosophy.
I have never taken a formal class in philosophy.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, God doesn't seem to have a better
grasp on human sexuality than we have, so why should I make the assumption
that he does?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Kathryn Simpson
> As I pointed out in an earlier post, God doesn't seem to have a better
> grasp on human sexuality than we have, so why should I make the assumption
> that he does?
I think God has a better grasp on all things than we do, that's why He's
God. :=)
alquijano
<04076.81430$HQ4.4...@pouncer.easynews.com>,
hedg...@scripps.edu (Hedgehog) wrote:
> Wouldn't it be best for Mormons to give up television altogether
>and spend that time studying the Scriptures?
>
Only in America. An understatement worthy of Mark Twain.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Raymond Bingham
Wouldn't that be cool!? I love Elves. I hope they really exist.
> If you are allowed to discuss any option,
>then all options are open, right?
I think this is unfair. I asked a question about the nature of
existentialism. If something exists in an existential sense, does
that immediately devoid it of meaning? Wouldn't that make God
devoid of meaning?
>> This is probably one of those areas where I would flunk philosophy.
>I have never taken a formal class in philosophy.
>As I pointed out in an earlier post, God doesn't seem to have a better
>grasp on human sexuality than we have, so why should I make the assumption
>that he does?
So are you arguing that because he has given us no revelation in such
regards, but has indicated that such things exist, that such a case
by definition denotes cluelessness by God? That seems a bit on the
spurious side... ;)
Ann Porter
news:mlld6.160744$a7.53...@pouncer.easynews.com...
> Hedgehog (hedg...@scripps.edu) quipped:
> >In article <Ilhc6.71924$a7.22...@pouncer.easynews.com>, ra...@fc.hp.com
> >(Raymond Bingham) wrote:
> [snip something about elves]
>
> Wouldn't that be cool!? I love Elves. I hope they really exist.
Elvis Costello is a Mormon?
Best,
Ann
Hedgehog
<annp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Raymond Bingham <ra...@fc.hp.com> wrote in message
> > Wouldn't that be cool!? I love Elves. I hope they really exist.
> Elvis Costello is a Mormon?
I think you mean to say that Bud Abbot was a Mormon.
Peace,
Hedgehog
who thinks that one was just too easy.
Kathryn Simpson
> I think you mean to say that Bud Abbot was a Mormon.
Bruce Babbit is a Mormon? <g>