Reorganized LDS

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by All-American

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I refuse to consider myself a Mormon.

"Yes I will acknowledge that John Doe and Mary Doe are my parents, but I refuse to go by the name Doe."

Someday you will accept that you are a Doe, despite the imperfections of your family. Maybe a different sort of Doe, maybe someone who doesn't approve of everything that has gone on in the family, but nevertheless a Doe.

The alternative is to cut off ties to your family, not acknowledge them, and change your name (like Fawn Brodie's husband did).

But I don't think you are that sort.

I'm proud to be Mormon. I don't always feel that I fit in every way. But I own it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What words did I put in your mouth?

I give people who are doing service the benefit of the doubt. Someone who volunteers numerous hours helping their fellow man...I really don't see the point of sitting around questioning their motives.

Then don't. I have spent too much time around political SOBs to want to spend one minute more.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Christ ran for messiah, did he not? And was there not a vote of sorts? Won't he be king and ruler in the future? Sounds an awful lot like an adminstrative governmental position.

Christ didn't run for anything but was appointed based on worthiness and abilities but one who knew more than he. That wasn't campaigning and to liken it, shows me you're completely unaware of the makings of a political campaign, which I have seen and operated from the roots, to fundraising the message making. There may be likenesses via distant analogies, but Christ's government no more resembles man's government, than a man's brain resembles an ant's brain.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If one limits their service to only the most innocent, only the most worthy, where does that leave everyone else? It's not how Christ operated, based on my reading.

The children aren't being taken care of as it is. Priorities is all I'm saying. If one has a choice between the future being protected and helping the present, often I choose the future and the present is already determined.

Once the children are provided for, then move to the next group. But people often help the political group to be noticed and praised. In seeking praise, they have their reward.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by All-American

Not necesssary, Rocky. Robin actually makes a very good point.

Robin, as I recall, had his first major crisis over the church over the church's attitude toward gays/lesbians (and correct me if I'm wrong, Robin-- I'm not trying to put words in your mouth). It seems to me that there are a substantial number of people who leave the church because the behavior of the members of the church is entirely inconsistent with the behavior of people who are supposed to be "saints"-- literally, "holy" or "sanctified" beings. The discrepancy suggests two possible states: one, the doctrine is true and the members are really that sub-par; or two, "by their fruits ye shall know them."

I don't mean to categorize you, Robin, or any other individual for that matter, but I think that many members eventually pack up primarily because of the preposterously asinine society that somehow sprung up behind the church. This is very much the state I find myself in. I am an active member, but I often find church a grueling experience. I said before that I am a member because I believe in the origins of the church, in spite of the fact that it makes me miserable at times. This is the main reason why.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I refuse to consider myself a Mormon.

Actually neccessarily.

I consider myself LDS/Mormon. Same difference. I don't worry about irrelevant semantics.

[MikeWaters]

I'll acknowledge that there are people that have no voice nor influence.

Children.

The mentally ill. The homeless.

However, your approach it seems is to slight other groups instead of advocating for the underrepresented groups.

You don't think there are politics involved in getting help for children and mentally ill? Who is going to get in the ring on that one? If anything the crime is that there aren't enough people willing to wade into the politics to help these people. Why should AIDS activists working for better medical access and meds bother me? It doesn't. And there is no Mormon basis for being bothered by it. Just personal reasons.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'll acknowledge that there are people that have no voice nor influence.

Children.

The mentally ill. The homeless.

However, your approach it seems is to slight other groups instead of advocating for the underrepresented groups.

You don't think there are politics involved in getting help for children and mentally ill? Who is going to get in the ring on that one? If anything the crime is that there aren't enough people willing to wade into the politics to help these people. Why should AIDS activists working for better medical access and meds bother me? It doesn't. And there is no Mormon basis for being bothered by it. Just personal reasons.

The unrepresented need help first. Yes there is advocacy, but the unrepresented don't reward you, and there are abuses in AIDS monies, to a great extent, that those needing help don't get it, while others get rich of of the public investment.

Why should an AIDS activist also be front and centerline for gay rights? If you want to be a medical activist, then limit it to that, so that I can't question your motives.

I never refer to "Mormon" basis. You will find that most have no idea, outside of this forum that I am LDS. I make no big deal about and certainly don't use religious arguments in any economic, legal or intellectual arena.

My personal aversion to political charity is personal. I will not grant myself the right of ever be happy of anything I do, for fear of arrogance and pride. I do not want to be praised for anything. If I involve myself in something for which I can receive no praise, but which helps, then I know that I'm doing it for the correct reasons. If I receive denigration, then maybe I'm making a difference.

Now I distinguish pure charity from economic charity, where a person has an economic agenda but can use the laws to his advantage. My clients do this all the time, but it's not "charity."

And political charity is repulsive to me, using charitable causes to advance a political agenda makes it politics, not charity, even if there is a charitable angle. My aversion to politics, in the sense of the pure evil of it, runs to my core.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Actually neccessarily.

I consider myself LDS/Mormon. Same difference. I don't worry about irrelevant semantics.

Maybe I need to clarify what I mean by the two terms.

By saying I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I mean to say that I believe in the principles, doctrines, and tenants of the same. I do what I can to obey the commandments given through the leaders of that church, believing them to be called and ordained of God.

I consider the term "mormon" to describe the social scene that has grown in the wake of the Church, only part of which is of necessity a part of the church. Notice that the term "mormon" is not an officially accepted title, and in fact, the church frequently advises its members not to use it. In the term are embodied concepts and cultures such as wedding receptions in cultural halls, green jello, Richard Dutcher and his unholy spawn of Mormon movies, EFY CDs, and one hundred and seventeen other points of interest that have been adopted by Mormons as being part of their worship without any directive from God. I have very little esteem for "mormonism," as such.

[MikeWaters]

You mean that you don't like Mormon kitsch. Very different than the word Mormon.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You mean that you don't like Mormon kitsch. Very different than the word Mormon.

Fair enough.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

I want to hump licentiously...

This whole thread was worth reading just for this little gem. I may add it to my signature line. LMAO.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by All-American

Maybe I need to clarify what I mean by the two terms.

By saying I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I mean to say that I believe in the principles, doctrines, and tenants of the same. I do what I can to obey the commandments given through the leaders of that church, believing them to be called and ordained of God.

I consider the term "mormon" to describe the social scene that has grown in the wake of the Church, only part of which is of necessity a part of the church. Notice that the term "mormon" is not an officially accepted title, and in fact, the church frequently advises its members not to use it. In the term are embodied concepts and cultures such as wedding receptions in cultural halls, green jello, Richard Dutcher and his unholy spawn of Mormon movies, EFY CDs, and one hundred and seventeen other points of interest that have been adopted by Mormons as being part of their worship without any directive from God. I have very little esteem for "mormonism," as such.

lol...talk about overthinking something too much. Yes there is a pretty weird culture in Mormonism, but that's no shock. Mormon, LDS. Lighten up Francis.
It really isn't tha big of a deal. It really isn't. I mock the culture all the time, but I still am a Mormon/LDS and so are you.