Masochistic Progmos?

[PaloAltoCougar]

As support for what I said, I site thousands upon thousands of posts on this site. There is endless lamentation about LDS opposition to same sex marriage, humiliation over historical racism, ridiculing LDS sexual obsession, complaints about goofy and dull meetings, acknowledging benighted BOM historicity defense, and so on. Nary a magical moment described.

I try not to rise to SU's bait, but this post still has me smiling for a variety of reasons, including the final declaration which suggests a rather selective reading pattern. One wonders if he reads certain books cover-to-cover by going around the outside.

But sure, this board is brimming with gripes about the Church, and on a lesser scale there are loads of gripes about spouses, children, the police and restaurants that offend us, and yet we hang in there with most of them.

[Pheidippides]

I try not to rise to SU's bait, but this post still has me smiling for a variety of reasons, including the final declaration which suggests a rather selective reading pattern. One wonders if he reads certain books cover-to-cover by going around the outside.

But sure, this board is brimming with gripes about the Church, and on a lesser scale there are loads of gripes about spouses, children, the police and restaurants that offend us, and yet we hang in there with most of them.

I'm asking this honestly - not trying to point a finger or make accusations - but at what cost?

For example: a majority of this board are in favor of gay marriage being allowed, correct? Which puts you in direct conflict with one Dallin Oaks, a man that in theory is sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator. (I use him instead of Boyd Packer but take your pick).

That's fine and I don't have anything but sympathy for you on that score. You are not required to agree and in fact Christofferson seems to have acknowledged that openly. The progmos SU maligns so readily would seem to agree with me on that. The sympathy comes because of broad-brush strokes that paint all mormons in the same light. Whatever. Community is the big deal.

But how do you deal with the fact that your money is going to support the movement against gay marriage? How do you reconcile the fact that your dollars pay for the conference sessions in which the nasty talks are spewed and fund the amicus brief that went to the Supreme Court? These are not mandatory dollars like taxes; the only penalty for not paying them resides in the community if the theology is not important. Just one example but a prominent one.

I am asking this honestly because I couldn't do it but clearly others can in good faith.

[Uncle Ted]

I'm asking this honestly - not trying to point a finger or make accusations - but at what cost?

For example: a majority of this board are in favor of gay marriage being allowed, correct? Which puts you in direct conflict with one Dallin Oaks, a man that in theory is sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator. (I use him instead of Boyd Packer but take your pick).

Not correct. I am in favorite of getting government completely out of the business of marriage. Marriage is between the interested parties and their god. Therefore, I am good with Dallin. Boyd is on his way out so I don't care so much where I sit with him.

That's fine and I don't have anything but sympathy for you on that score. You are not required to agree and in fact Christofferson seems to have acknowledged that openly. The progmos SU maligns so readily would seem to agree with me on that. The sympathy comes because of broad-brush strokes that paint all mormons in the same light. Whatever. Community is the big deal.

But how do you deal with the fact that your money is going to support the movement against gay marriage? How do you reconcile the fact that your dollars pay for the conference sessions in which the nasty talks are spewed and fund the amicus brief that went to the Supreme Court? These are not mandatory dollars like taxes; the only penalty for not paying them resides in the community if the theology is not important. Just one example but a prominent one.

I am asking this honestly because I couldn't do it but clearly others can in good faith.

I have been paying my tithing directly to BYU. I ran the idea by bishop a number of years ago and he was cool with it.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I'm asking this honestly - not trying to point a finger or make accusations - but at what cost?

For example: a majority of this board are in favor of gay marriage being allowed, correct? Which puts you in direct conflict with one Dallin Oaks, a man that in theory is sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator. (I use him instead of Boyd Packer but take your pick).

That's fine and I don't have anything but sympathy for you on that score. You are not required to agree and in fact Christofferson seems to have acknowledged that openly. The progmos SU maligns so readily would seem to agree with me on that. The sympathy comes because of broad-brush strokes that paint all mormons in the same light. Whatever. Community is the big deal.

But how do you deal with the fact that your money is going to support the movement against gay marriage? How do you reconcile the fact that your dollars pay for the conference sessions in which the nasty talks are spewed and fund the amicus brief that went to the Supreme Court? These are not mandatory dollars like taxes; the only penalty for not paying them resides in the community if the theology is not important. Just one example but a prominent one.

I am asking this honestly because I couldn't do it but clearly others can in good faith.

I'll acknowledge in advance that the comparison isn't entirely apt, and allow that I'm not going to be a candidate for Profiles in Courage, but I'm willing to fund various Church-related endeavors with which I may not agree, much the way I do so with governmental activities I may oppose. If I were convinced that the Church, or the government for that matter, were heading irretrievably down a perilous path, I might feel differently, but as time passes, I believe good institutions come around eventually to a better way. And while I wait, there is a lot of good to enjoy.

[RC Vikings]

But how do you deal with the fact that your money is going to support the movement against gay marriage?

I like to think my money is going toward buying land in Florida and an apartment building in Philadelphia.

[Pheidippides]

Not correct. I am in favorite of getting government completely out of the business of marriage. Marriage is between the interested parties and their god. Therefore, I am good with Dallin. Boyd is on his way out so I don't care so much where I sit with him.




I have been paying my tithing directly to BYU. I ran the idea by bishop a number of years ago and he was cool with it.

Then the question is not for you (I have a lot of interest in that position though. The practical side of me thinks it has a snowball's chance, but I wouldn't be opposed to that in the slightest). I would point out, however, that Dallin is definitely saying exactly the opposite of that position and has consistently since 1984.

I'll acknowledge in advance that the comparison isn't entirely apt, and allow that I'm not going to be a candidate for Profiles in Courage, but I'm willing to fund various Church-related endeavors with which I may not agree, much the way I do so with governmental activities I may oppose. If I were convinced that the Church, or the government for that matter, were heading irretrievably down a perilous path, I might feel differently, but as time passes, I believe good institutions come around eventually to a better way. And while I wait, there is a lot of good to enjoy.

I get that. It's the same thing when I buy bottled water; I know you guys are eventually going to dry up because of it but bottled water is so convenient! And tasty if you get the flavored kind. Does La Croix come from California?

Your own drought problems aside (seriously, can you take some of the rain we are getting murdered with here? I just want to ride my bike in the sun for once), the idea of good vs. evil institutions is a false dichotomy. I do question what "good" means and suggest that I probably don't agree that it is such, but that's the value judgment that makes our paths different.

I like to think my money is going toward buying land in Florida and an apartment building in Philadelphia.

I personally hope that part of my past funds made it into the hunting preserve.

[Uncle Ted]

I like to think my money is going toward buying land in Florida and an apartment building in Philadelphia.

I make sure my money is going toward buying an engineering building at BYU.

[Katy Lied]

I see the church's unpopular positions with respect to social issues as much more fungible than PDip or SU. They charge that the church will never give in on some of these issues. I say it moves more slowly than the general population. You quit because you socially shifted faster than the church chooses to.

[Uncle Ted]

Then the question is not for you (I have a lot of interest in that position though. The practical side of me thinks it has a snowball's chance, but I wouldn't be opposed to that in the slightest). I would point out, however, that Dallin is definitely saying exactly the opposite of that position and has consistently since 1984.

Well, yeah, Dallin is in favor of marriage legally defined as being between a man and a woman with government involved but given the way things are going I think he would quickly come around to a more Libertarian way of doing things. I don't see the LDS church recognizing same sex marriages while he is alive, however.

[Pheidippides]

I see the church's unpopular positions with respect to social issues as much more fungible than PDip or SU. They charge that the church will never give in on some of these issues. I say it moves more slowly than the general population. You quit because you socially shifted faster than the church chooses to.

We will see in 50 years. I don't disagree, so but I'm not going to wait to find out. In the meantime, I'm not convinced that the good exists in isolation (or at all in some cases). As I said, worked out well for me.

Implicit in all of this is lack of belief on some level, in case that's not clear. For a down-the-list literal believer this is a different calculus.

[Green Monstah]

Doesn't most of my tithing money go toward BYU and its sister schools? :rockon1:

[SeattleUte]

Just a guess, but you seem at peace with your decision. I don't remember you labeling people who believe as those with only half a brain.

lol. I'm not at peace with my decision because I don't regard anyone who believes the Book of Mormon is a genuine ancient record of actual ancient history to be intellectually honest or I don't regard them to be educated or even reasonably informed? I don't follow your logic. And guess what: About everybody here agrees with me, just as do most of educated or reasonably informed and intellectually honest people worldwide.Take a look at Lebowski's recent contributions to the historicity thread.

In another post you speculated that it might be "guilt" that fires my critique of Mormonism. My friend, you are a product of your generation. Fortunately, you see less and less among even LDS statements such as yours that anyone who has demonstrable, articulable, concrete and specific reasons for criticizing the LDS institution -- again, reasons not outside the mainstream of educated or informed Americans including millions of Mormons themselves --must be afflicted with a character defect.

Remember when Black Diamond Bay once said that she dated a boy who had apostatized and determined that he was possessed of an evil spirit? lol.

[Jeff Lebowski]

lol. I'm not at peace with my decision because I don't regard anyone who believes the Book of Mormon is a genuine ancient record of actual ancient history to be intellectually honest or I don't regard them to be educated or even reasonably informed? I don't follow your logic. And guess what: About everybody here agrees with me, just as do most of educated or reasonably informed and intellectually honest people worldwide.Take a look at Lebowski's recent contributions to the historicity thread.

In another post you speculated that it might be "guilt" that fires my critique of Mormonism. My friend, you are a product of your generation. Fortunately, you see less and less among even LDS statements such as yours that anyone who has demonstrable, articulable, concrete and specific reasons for criticizing the LDS institution -- again, reasons not outside the mainstream of educated or informed Americans including millions of Mormons themselves --must be afflicted with a character defect.

Remember when Black Diamond Bay once said that she dated a boy who had apostatized and determined that he was possessed of an evil spirit? lol.

Remember when MikeWaters said if Satan joined the board he would behave exactly like SU? Ha. Good times.

[Katy Lied]

When you (PDip) first left the church, I was impressed by how loyal you still were, and how loving and understanding you were of believers. You took the line of, "Yeah, it's not for me, but I have no quarrel if you think it's for you." Over time you are getting shriller and saying stuff like "But how can you reconcile..." which is another way of saying "How can you possibly still believe in light of the fact that..." You've lost that loving feeling for us, baby.

[SeattleUte]

Remember when MikeWaters said if Satan joined the board he would behave exactly like SU? Ha. Good times.

You know you're experiencing a metaphysical mutation when statements made in writing just a few years back appear quaint.