steven, i was just wondering how closely you're associated with the church. I know you served a mission and went to BYU for a time but what are you're feelings towards it all now.
I still consider myself LDS. But, I am not that active. I would say I'm about 65% doctrinally associated and about 5% socially associated with the church.
that's cool i guess. btw i think you're really hot
I hope that 65% doctrinally associated will decrease even more - at least a little bit :-)
Hey, "Anonymous", who are you? Do I know you? Both of you?
I'm the first anonymous. I met you at the UVSC screening earlier this month but I doubt you remember me.
someone commenting to think you're hot.... That has to be a dude.
don't be so sure my young padawan
I drink my own pee!
Yes, Timmy, that's nice.
ok i'm not the anonymous that drinks their own pee. You're wrong bryan, I am female. my name's anne, i'm from tennessee and I live in provo.
just a little southern girl looking for some action
But Master Yoda said I should be mindful of the future...
Steven,I think criticism of the Church on this issue is unfair. While in the late 19th and 1st half of the twentieth century the Church frequently took stands on specific issues and legislation, the Church has moved away from that. While it still does happen, the LDS Church takes policy stances far less than most American religions today, and this is good thing. I appreciate the Church staying out of most policy discussions.A lack of formal support does not automatically imply opposition to specific legislation. To imply that the Church endorses torture simply because they don't support specific legislation is unfair.
What about the church's stance in the 70's and 80's with the ERA? Or the church's social/political stance on homosexuality? You mean Pres. Hinckley can get on Larry King and publically declare the church's position on gays, but refuses to publically take a stand against torturing God's children? Basically, that says this: "Two people of the same sex loving each other? Bad. People being brutally tortured? No comment." You don't see a problem with that?
Steven,The Church came out and opposed torture, but didn't speak to specific legislation. From the D-News (11/24) "The church "condemns inhumane treatment of any person under any circumstances," said church spokesman Dale Bills."That's pretty clear to me. The Church opposes torture under "any circumstances". Is it your position that any faith group in Utah that didn't sign the letter supporting specific legislation referenced in same article tacitly supports torture?I have not looked at the legislation, so I am unfamiliar with the nitty gritty specifics. It is those nitty gritty specifics that can often get a group into trouble for support. You are aware that U.S. legislation is infamous for irrelevent riders and the like. An institution like the LDS church that is persistently scrutinized by critics and others must be very careful about what is endorsed specifically.I am aware that the Church has taken political stances in recent decades. My argument is that they have become far less frequent than in the period from about 1850 to the end of WWII (especially the period from about 1910-1945).Your threshold is also unreasonable. That threshold being that the Church has taken stances on issues with less impact than torture. Using that reasoning, the LDS Church or any other institution should be condemned for taking any action to promote a position on an issue who's negative impact is less than the infinite evils in the world. In other words any institution who takes a stance on an issue with less impact (let's say hunger in the U.S.) than Darfur (for example) but does not speak out on Darfur is in tacit support of genocide. There will be, unfortunately, always a greater evil. BTW, I finished the DVD and loved it. I will be passing it along to the news director at KVNU tomorrow.
I think you bring up some good points. But, no, I don't believe that any faith group that didn't sign the letter tacitly supports torture. And I don't believe someone, in your example of Darfur, would necessarily support genocide. I just think they're apathetic about it. Sure, they'll put a "yellow magnetic ribbon" on the "SUV of their conscience", but at the end of the day, it's apathy. I just think they don't even want to think about it. Why didn't the church sign that letter? You claim that it might be because the church is a highly scrutinized organization and thus needs to be careful with what it endorses. But, it seems to me that the church is ungoing quite a bit a scruntiny for NOT signing it. Also, a church that claims that it is the ONLY true and living church of Christ on Earth, shouldn't feel the need to tip-toe around issues such as basic human rights. It doesn't matter what the legislation says. Americans don't care and won't even bother reading it. Americans get their news in 30 second taglines and spicy one-liners. That's how Presidents are elected. Dumbed down, simple-minded, and black and white. Name calling and labels. So when the average American reads the news report that says "Dozens of churches signed a piece of legislation against torture EXCEPT THE MORMON CHURCH", you don't think that's BAD PRESS? If the church truly cares about it's public image and how that same public scrutinizes, then they missed the boat with this one. Am I wrong?
Well I see someone hitting on Steve, and someone (I think I know who) likes pee and probably pooh pooh. The discussion about the Mormon Church is very interesting, I am in the same boat as steve is. Yeah thats bad press. It is sad when most "Mormons" claim republican and so they follow that party without even thinking or questioning the actions and motives behind their senate/ president. To many have blinders on thus the I don't have an opinion attitude. They will defend things, mostly things they don't have the facts on. Bad press is bad press, it doesn't matter where it comes from. Torture is horrible, and this press makes the religion that my family is part of look bad. My family and friends hate that kind of thing but if someone knows that I or my friends are Mormon then we get that negative notch against us. How many things can be cleared up if they would only say things that reflect their teachings, and not their biased opinions.
I must say that the image you've posted and the message you've implied (the LDS church supports torture) amounts to nothing more than what you criticize in your comment about soundbites and spicy one-liners. You don't want to sign my petition? Fine, then you must SUPPORT TORTURE! or LOVE BURNING THE FLAG! or HATE GAY PEOPLE! Wasn't that name calling and thoughtless discourse part of what This Divided State implicitly railed against (pretty effectively)?
First of all, the image is copied from Patriot Boy's BLOG (click on the link below the image). So I didn't create the actaul image. I just thought what hhe said on his BLOG was satirically funny. It's a site of mainly satire. And I don't think I was name-calling or practicing "thoughtless discourse". We were having an argument over the church's public image. And I think the facts present a valid argument. In fact, my argument, if you go back and read it, states that it's the simplified one-liners OF THE PRESS that I think could hurt the church. Headlines that scream, "DOZENS OF CHURCHES OFFICIALLY OPPOSE TORTURE, EXCEPT MORMONS." I think that's a terrible thing. So, I guess you and I are in agreement, Cody. Sound bites and spicy one-liners are too over-simplfied and can do a lot of uneccessary damage.
This is exactly why I've been rallying for years that churches, synagogues, mosques, etc have PR people. It'll really help prevent uncomfortable situations such as these...
Post a Comment