the Ogre

PC,Do not say shame on us. That is wrong. Did you do this? I know many LDS who are guilty of the same hatred (some of it is evident on this board). This was done by the many as opposed to the few. Are Jewish people somehow exempt from hatred? No, of course not and I know I would run into the idiots in many synagogue who do not welcome converts or welcome back those who have lived outside the covenant for generations. Shame on me for implying you are somehow guilty of other's stupidity. Aaron the Ogre

Moksha, I love you.

I am glad sarcasm is alive and well, by saying this I'm sure you recognize nothing is as simple as this line of reasoning. I don't think the church has changed its message. Secular-society certainly has. I think it is wrong to discriminate against anyone (I have issues with stupid people, but I'm working on it).The myth is that being gay is permanent. This is obviously not true, but it easier to think this was. I was watching some Fred W. Phelps footage last night on YouTube and he is of the opinion that homosexuality is the unforgivable sin. As Latter-day Saints, we know this is not true. There is only one unforgivable and being gay is not it. I think the key similarity between the two cases is sexual sin, but if you are not their bishop or stake-president, I don't see how it is you business even if you want to protect your children. There is a pedophile in my stake. He was released from prison years ago, but still is the recipient of hatred and shunning in the community. He still goes to church. He, like every one of us is welcome in church, but then again, it is no ones business what he did and who he did it too. I know because of gossip and invective directed towards him in the foyers. If all you want to do is relive the sins of others, then you need some bishop conversation as well. The next thing to do is tell your kids it is no one's business except the bishop's. This is not condoning homosexuality, it is an attempt at a cure for homophobia. Obviously, one's sexual preference is no-one's business unless the person in question makes it so and even then we, as Latter-day Saints, can not exclude them from sabbath worship (I think the acceptable exception is if they are making out in the pew, but then that is a problem for heterosexuals as well. I don't want to see two people making out in church).

I have a friend who is gay, active, and celibate. We commiserate each other on loneliness on a regular basis. He is temple endowed and an RM, but can't see himself in a relationship with a woman. He does not feel it would be appropriate (whatever that means). There have been a few problems in his ward. He has been accused of being a pervert and pedophile (neither true), but he still goes. He loves church a lot.Would there be problems for your friends? I think so. I'm straight, but single and so am viewed with suspicion by some and animosity by others. Should they go? Yes, and with you. They need someone who will be there to love them. If eventually they feel the need to make a change, then they will. If they never do, G-d still loves them and the church welcomes everyone. Everyone!!! I am glad you are there to support your friends, I hope everything works out.

Look don't patronize me. I and anyone else can post what I/we want when I/we want . . . we are on the internet. Duh. Pretty chaotic mess the internet -- people doing all sorts of uncivilized things. As such, it makes the perfect realm to experience "relativity" regarding opinion and experience. Look, I responded because what you said (a position preferencing one logic system over another) was the first thing in this tread that was interesting at all. Otherwise, the simple answer seemed self-evident and worth avoiding and obvious waste of time.

Yup . . . I am still friends with one of them. He is a nice guy (and smart) who had trouble think that J-sus is a Jew, but eventually he relented over the years. He is a Chr-stian Lay Minister and construction engineer living in Seoul, Gang-Nam in the same complex that I lived in when last there.Peace is one of the Asian representations for the Swastika. Obviously its interpretation depends on the individual and is thus relative.

Goodness, that is horrible.

PC: Thanks for the thread, it is a good one. I am a Chr-stian because of the example of my father. I was born a Latter-day Saint, but I knew from my father that conversion is the most important step a young man can take in his life. I gained a testimony of Joseph Smith very soon and learned a lot from his personal writing. I then moved to President Brigham Young and learned to love him. Eventually a true conversion came about because I learned to understand what kept these two great men moving: the love of J-sus Chr-st. I then read the scriptures and eventually took Moroni's challenge and received a witness I can not deny regardless of every human-philosophy I have studied over the years. I love J-sus Chr-st the man. I love J-sus Chr-st my G-d. I know though, if I did not have my father around, I would have accepted Judaism (probably the Conservative movement) as opposed to Chr-stianity because of the hatred I have experienced from other "Chr-stians" regarding the Mormonism of my ancestors. My maternal great-grandmother converted from Judaism with her husband and moved to Utah. They could barely speak English, but were happy here through the rest off their lives. Except for J-sus, there is nothing in Chr-stianity for me. The out-of-control neurotic hatred has always pushed me away. I have studied Chr-stian theology and mysticism for years and do not doubt the spiritual gifts you have made mention of, but the way many Chr-stians have allowed hatred and oppression of minorities to control themselves is more poison than I can swallow. -Aaron the Ogre

Rachelle, I am sorry this has happened to you. I have had many of the same emotions you have written about. My ex left me and my three children in 2002 and has never contacted us. I am so sorry for you. No one needs this kind of pain and this is never a part of anyone's plan. I was asked by my bishop if I would consider reconciliation. I thought about it for a long time. He asked because he and my stake president feel it is important that I should be married. They are both good men and told them I would, but it would depend on the manner of her return. She has to work for it. I think this is the same for your husband. He has to work for it. You are worth more than any weight of gold and you need to keep this in mind. Determine for yourself what it would take and make him work. Make sure he can commit to true change. He has to make a clean break from his past. Only you would know how to determine this, but I recommend fasting, prayer, the gospel, and consultation with a marriage counselor (it sounds like you might be meeting with one now). However, it might be impossible for him to come back. He might not want to ultimately. He might not be able to (for whatever lame reason he has). If this is the case, rely on family, the church, and friends and know the L-rd loves you and will not let you live alone and unhappy. My ex still has not come back and that bothers me very much. I sometimes hope for it. I am definitely not over her yet and I still blame myself for her departure. This holds me back, in my opinion. My inability to forgive her is also holding me back. Forgive him (when you are able to). Forgive the other woman (even if she doesn't deserve it). Forgive yourself (even if you have done nothing wrong) and rid yourself of these burdens. Love your little boy no matter what. Hold him close and make sure he knows how valuable he is to you. I hope the best for you. I hope you can find a way to make life better. -Aaron the Ogre

Jerk Onboard

Piers Anthony in his book On a Pale Horse shows us an interesting scene. Death takes the soul of a person and weighs it. Some souls go up and some go down and others dissipate (if I remember correctly). This is interesting. One because it is death who does the judging and too, provides a destination for those who do not believe in G-d (dissipation); Thanatos not G-d. The second because the book was quite popular in a secular world even if it is in the fantasy genre. As a fantasy character, Thanatos must use magic to make this judgement. Still, does anyone have the right to judge another of anything? You work in the prison system so the answer for the government is 'yes'. What about others: I don't think we can stop them. Everyone is judged by others. First impressions? Do I have the right to judge others according to the tenants of my faith? According to secular morality, 'no'. I have been told again and again that religion has no place in the academy. Eventually, I want to be one of those fools who teach freshman and sophomore English Composition. Even if I cannot judge someone based on their religion as a teacher, I have to recognize it is an important part of personal experience. Religion is a huge part of Western Civilization. Everyone, even the non-theistic, is touched by it, affected by, molded by it. It is a core part of human experience. In the secular world, my faith must be a hidden factor in how decisions are made, but this does not mean I can escape it. In fact, when I write, I have to work hard to remove religious advocacy even if I am discussing religion. When Thanatos made his judgments, he brought his humanity with him, his experience, and his faith and except for non-human magic he could not judge accurately. One of the problems is the impossibility of objectivity. No one alive is truly objective. I am not. I have loads of opinions and do not mind giving them. Everyone is the same. Everyone acts based on their experience, education, and beliefs. One of the counter-balances in the legal system for this lack of objectivity is the non-human law and a system of legal ethics. When crimes are committed, a decision must be made to determine if the action fits the parameters of the law. Even within the laws narrow view, humanity invades with its biases and interpretations must be given. Still, why does the law work? Because it is not human. This denial of humanity is what makes Thanatos' spell work. Humans are incapable of judging objectivity. Humans and our structures are the worst judges because we must use our very subjective-humanity to survive, to live, to interact with others. We can not escape our humanity or its consequences and as such make bad judges. Many people believe that because churches are filled by people, they are the creations of people. This means, for them, G-d is the creation of society and as such is suspect. If, as is evidenced by Evangelical belief, my G-d is not the same G-d they worship, then I am not qualified to make any determination about how an Evangelical lives and acts. If I do not believe in a god of any sort, then how can any religious person be trusted at all? This is true because G-d, as believed by all under the Abrahamic tradition, is so hard to understand. I have studied the Nicene Creed and taken classes on it and have come to conclusion that not even the professors understood it. This is the same for RAMBAM's thirteen articles of faith. If the nature of G-d is not easily understood, the how can the religious be trusted. Thanatos had an advantage according to Anthony, he knew G-d. He knew H-m and had a sort of interaction with H-m making it easier to understand H-m. Of course, Thanatos got to know Satan a lot better, but that in itself provides information about G-d. People make poor judges because of our mere existence, experience, and weakness. Religions can not be trusted because G-d as understood is abstract, mysterious, and simply incomprehensible. If religions do not understand their deity, how can they be trusted. IF mercurial people trust religions that can not define their core beliefs, then no religious person should be put in any position to decide anything. This is reinforced by religion's poor performance through the ages regarding individual rights and other offenses. Burned often by religion, secular-society does not trust anything produced by it or by those associated with it. In some things, religion is just too dangerous for society and as such can not be trusted. I then have to wonder what the effect would be if religion through the ages had always stuck by G-d. What if G-d were not some incomprehensible cloud outside space and time, isolated? What if G-d were personally accessible? Thanatos used magic as inhuman as the law and his relationship with an accessible G-d who is a person that can be spoken to to judge the dead. If religions had the same advantages, then I think religions could be trusted, but as it is now they can not and with good reason. Personally, in the last days, G-d will judge us. We will be there to help and H- will help us understand the why of all judgments in the way only a loving, personal, accessible G-d can. Only a perfected person will be capable of true objectivity and as such it is G-d who will do this. Will H- be assisted? I think so. Until then, in the view of secular-society, religions who have only used G-d as an excuse for tyranny do not have the right to judge. G-d, as a creation of religion according to the same secular-society, does not have the right to judge anything.

Oi . . . and Hello as well.

I'm supposed to be nice this time, so here we go:In Romans 10. 13 we find evidence for what you believe. I want to point out that it is Paul who is speaking here. Is Paul wrong? I do not think so. If you believe every phrase and turn of punctuation in the New Testament to be the exact Word of G-d, then that is fine to think it was Chr-st who said it. The Old Testament has record of this as well. My favorite example is Isa. 52. 7. I think where we divide is the LDS belief that being 'saved' is only the beginning. A good start. Yes, it is through grace that we are saved, but there is more to do other than simply hail and proclaim. Why? Modern revelation. We believe in modern prophets that guide us. I have no problem with anyone who thinks we are wrong. I do think it is mocking when someone comes to an obvious LDS site and shoves it down our throats, however -- think the fine art and science of trollmongery. Ignorant trollery bothers me a lot. I am not some of these others who will try to convince you otherwise. Most people who post the stuff you are in the way you are are looking for a fight. I am not interested in convincing you of anything. Believe what you will and stay ignorant, you'll be happier. J-sus Chr-st is my L-rd and S-vior. It is only through H-m that anyone can be saved and reach exaltaion. If you are one who thinks we Latter-day Saints are heading straight to hell for believing differently when no single other Chr-stian denomination is capable of agreement on anything, then have at you.

Apple, I think you are right on with this. I however love a good fight. When I was growing up with my five brothers, my dad's basic rule was "no broken bones and no blood on the carpet". It is something that needs to be worked on obviously, but please note that in many fields and industries scientific and engineering marvels could not exist without argument. I think the difference is when contention leads to violence. My last example comes from wives. Many times they get what they want because they are not afraid to fight a bit.

I get no say in this except to say, because I need forgiveness for the many things I have done I think you will be fine. God of course is the one who has the last say, but I think you will too. If you have not yet, then forgive yourself.

LOL . . . I'm doing Bill Clinton's after he dies. DIBS DIBS

I am glad you made this clear. It is neither. For me the cross is only representative of murder and oppression. Many others, however, do not feel the same way. Many feel it is a holy symbol that warms their hearts and helps them get to a holy state of being where they can commune better with deity. Too bad you relegate a legitimate logic system to the toilets. My experience is different then yours and so I will interpret symbols differently. Yes, I am LDS, but when I look at crosses, or apostrophes we will not see the same things. Is there a problem with this? No. There is a problem with insisting on a universal interpretation for everything. The best example of this is the swastika. When I first went to South Korea with the military in 1986, I saw a Buddha's Birthday parade being put on by elementary school children. They were all holding little swastikas. I was quite unhappy about that as were most of the other soldiers I was with, but it was explained to us by a KATUSA what was going on. Symbols do not mean the same thing to all people. Do not expect everyone to agree with you and do not think they lack the grey-matter to understand you ("cogent", my hairy white butt).

"Hail and Proclaim I'm Saved. I'm saved, pass the Bud, a Doobie, and while you're up turn on the Play Boy channel, and babe, when's your husband gettin' home we don't have a lot of time . . . errr, whatever."*** As per request: an edit. I find it very suspect when members of other faiths come to this website and do nothing but demean the well understood LDS Doctrine of Salvation (I of course love it when preaching comes via string theory -- I have a New Testament in anyway you want it so please give references and then make an argument, don't belittle through patronization as if I haven't read the scriptures). I love what is being said in Corinthians and know well their cousins in Ephesians, I have been involved in Interfaith forums for years (where, BTW, I do not preach or belittle or tear down the faith of others) and so know the argument quite well. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree and should be left at that. Really, then why did he post something in such ill-informed taste. It was a deliberate swipe at what millions in the world believe. What my mother believes, my grandmother, my sisters, my children, and even the people I love who are living a non-LDS life -- if he does not want to come across as offensive, he ought to work a little harder at it. If he can do nothing but bring hate to the table, then he deserves what he got.YES, it is by grace by which I will be saved (as well as being meek and mild . . . I'm neither of those obviously), but what is wrong with doing a few things along the way: think of the parable of the penny. What bugs me then is when some apologist is telling me to behave . . . yeah, whatever dude.

That was dang cool . . .

I can't speak of the Day of Judgement . . . I haven't been there yet. And PC, you know the LDS perspective quite well, so why rehash that with you. I suppose I might go to what is important for us to form strategies for: the Moment of Judgement. I'm a Chr-stian and bring with it the LDS experience. It is the experience I have to operate from and I do so happily. The Gospel of J-sus Chr-st is the gospel I love. This however is suspect by many. Too many who share the same faith are ideologically lazy or ideologically immature. This makes life difficult when people accept though as spoon-fed to them because to may I am then guilty by association. So when accused of bigotry by religiously desolate (think typical agnostics or atheists -- note: this does not apply to every non-religious person) one has to just take it. Right? Well, maybe. It depends. I do not want to isolate or loose my friends who live outside the religious experience, but when they say things like "not even your G-d can judge me" all I can say is: "I don't know, I haven't heard from H-m personally on this. We generally only talk about family." This is a little different than most responses, but it works fairly well. The moment when one gets lumped into the stew of religious-nincompoops who try to speak for all faithful people is the moment I let them know the accuser has no knowledge of my experience or who I am. Flag-waving nimrodery has nothing to do with who I am or with my faith. I stand with the ensign on the mountains, nothing else matters. Right? Well, it depends on the relationship I have with the religiously disgruntled and what I want to do about it.

Without bringing up my internet conversations, we discussed this at my mom's last night. My sister had brought over a date who went on a mission to Tennessee. He had been shot at and met a gentleman who had shot at the missionaries before saying they should have just stayed in Utah. The kid is from Ohio and his comp was from England.This kind of bigotry is only one form of the problem and I do not think there is much that can be done about it. These kind of guys also have the other forms of traditional ethnic hate. It is often a part of the culture and environment they are raised in. I know some people feel that we should be proud of the nickname and there are some who have adopted it as a type of cultural identification and that the church is a type of extension of the culture. We are instructed to not rely on the arm of flesh and culture and society is part of this. Ultimately we can not rely on mormon culture any more than we can any other culture. We have to be able to abandon cultural-mormonism and simply be members of the church. Still the desire to have the term abandoned from official and print use is something we can accomplish. Wouldn't it be nice if when one reads about criminals on cnn.com the term mormon is not dragged into the story, thus aligning diverse missassociations that only perpetuate already help misperceptions. The same is true of scholarship and government reports. No group, ethnic or religious, should have to deal with this problem and generally does not and yet exceptions are made for our faith. When Woody Allen was in the press for his bad behavior, no one brought up his religious affiliation because it has nothing to do with his behavior. The same is true for the alleged-pedophiles in the FLDS faith in Texas and Hilldale/Colorado City and yet the connection is always brought up between the FLDS and mormons when the relationship is at best tenuous. This type of misassociation only perpetuates falsehoods. MormonTimes.com (an absolute rag) has documented other instances of this same sort of misassociation in the press and in my own research in religious philosophy, I have come across it. Even if people do not mind this type of hate-speech as a nickname, they should not tolerate semi-official slander in the press, academia, and the government. Eventually, a trickle-down effect will occur and the only people using the term will be the ignorant and hateful who can not let go of other forms of hate-speech.

You do see Willow. I inserted those two negative stereotypes in my original post to see if people noticed how negative and wrong those are. I think the word "mormon" is even more so. You object to "dirty red-neck trailer-trash" and I object to the use of the word "mormon". It is just that simple. If you don't like some bigotry, you should not like any. I do like your practice of clearing up what the word means and do the same, but only with love. It is with fellow Latter-day Saints where my fight lies. We need to stop using it and need to insist that official structures do the same.

Heather: thank you for responding. I appreciate your comments as much as I love this forum. Please do not take my response as an attack, it is meerly disagreement. Again, thank you very much for your time and your always consistent thoughtfulness. --Aaron the Ogre Right. With my Texas friend, I was not offended. He does not know better and for 80% of the people out there, they do not know better and can be forgiven, but the ignorant are not forgiven now for use of other forms of hate-speech like the 'n' word, the 'k' word, or other words like them (as a matter of fact, as a Latter-day Saint I must always forgive everyone and I do, but that does not mean I can not work to halt a bad practice or attempt to slow the tide of hate out there). I did not bar-b-que him for using the word, he is a pretty nice guy and I want the conversation to improve. The only people who deserve to have their feet held to the fire are the 20% who do or should know better like legal entities, the press, and academics. I actually remember this. Thank you for the reminder. Gordon B. always had such a gentle way of explaining things and yet his words carry the weight of concrete blocks. When I read this the first time I felt better about my predicament and yet it did not mitigate it enough to say to those who should know better, "you're okay, continue to be a bigot". When asked if I am a mormon, I have responded with pride and often with the statement, "true blue through and through". If you look closely at that statement, there is a qualifier "may". I do think it is possible to affect change in the official structures in our world and then eventually the rest of the population and will also heighten the profile of H- whom we do follow. I think that many have decided the fight is not worth fighting because we need to focus on proselytizing and yet how can we allow this good desire to be an excuse to allow bigotry. I don't know if pride in our people or acceptance of a nickname is sufficient reason. This is exactly how I feel, but what about those for whom there is no excuse. They must be with whom the change is made. The press does know better and yet they refuse to change because we allow them to continue as bigots. I know that there is praise in being meek. I know that many have also died in defense of this dirty, little nickname and their sacrifice can not be ignored. But meekness and the sacrifice of others is no reason why I should allow government, political, academic, and reporting structures to continue to propitiate a form of hate-speech just because our entire church and society is turning the other cheek. Eventually we run out of cheeks. Eventually investigators leave the church leaving not wanting to be caught up in the flames of bigotry. Eventually we as a people have to recognize the word represents a culture I know the church wants exorcised from doctrine and publications. Even in your standard quote you use the term "Mormon Church". I know you mean absolutely nothing bad in using it and in fact are working to clear-up perceptions that are founded on mistakes or plain falsehood, but truth be told there is no Mormon Church. There is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The D&C does not give revelation conferring upon us the name "Mormon Church". No one would have seen text from Rav Menachem M. Schneerson saying "the Jewish Church" much less "the K--- Church" (and yes the term "Mormon" is the equivalent of the 'k' word). He would have used the term "Chabad Lubavitch" ignoring the ignorance of others moving to clear-up misunderstanding (I'm using the past tense because Rabbi Schneersen has been dead for quite a while, but his followers do not call their religion "the Jewish Church"). Chabad has suffered from bigotry (they are the cliche jews you see in movies with side-curls and long black hats), but that does not stop them from trying to clear up all misconception. The sad thing is that there are many more Latter-day Saints then Lubavitcher Jews and yet we do nothing to stem this flow of misinformation. As much as I respect Mormon as a person and a prophet, I do not worship him. As much as I respect and owe Joseph Smith much, I do not worship him. I am not a Mormonite, a Youngite, a Smithite, a McConkieite (unlike some of you dudes), a Hinckleyite, or a Monsonite I am a Latter-day Saint and thus a Christian. I love and respect those other men, but I do not worship them. Joseph Smith is the prophet of our dispensation and yet when I was baptized and confirmed, I did not covenant to carry his name or Mormon's name. I covenanted to carry only one: Jesus Christ (to those of you who noticed, I did not hyphenate Chr-st's name--in this this instance and the one above with "chr[-]stian" I think it is appropriate). I think we as Latter-day Saints need to be all about clearing up misconceptions and the first is that the word Mormon is hate-speech. As hate-speech, no government official, academic, or member of the press should be allowed to use it. The word is offensive and it offends. I am not a m-----, I am a Latter-day Saint.

Waa Waa!!!

I work in the Lindon, Utah WalMart on State Street. Recently an assistant manager moved here from Texas. He and I have become pretty good friends. He asked me what are Mormons like. I told him that all the Mormons lived in Texas, wore weird clothing, and had more than one wife and all supported Texas Tech as the L-rd's University. He looked at me for a second and then he laughed. He thought that was pretty funny. He thought we would be like the Amish or something. The conversation went well. He is a great guy and I hope the conversation gets better. There are plenty of dirty red-neck trailer-trash in the church and in Utah, so he should feel welcome. I however did not tell him how much I hate the word Mormon. I have lived most of my life outside of Utah and hate how automatically that word generates a stereotype. Either it is like what my friend at WalMart thought or it is of the buttoned-down white accountant with seven-kids who votes Republican because we are told by church headquarters to do so. This has always stuck with me as one of the flash-points for my membership. I absolutely despise the cliche-mormons out there (BTW: my Bishop knows, so don't bother narking on me--he's trying to marry me off, remember) and I hate how the media is currently using the word. It to me is as violent a word as any racial or ethnic slur known to man. It has been used against me in the military and in corporate USA (I worked for AMEX for several years in corporate communications) and yet I am told I am wrong for feeling that way because Elder McConkie says Latter-day Saints accept the term. My response has always been along the lines of: Who is he to dictate how I feel about anything? Who is generalizing now? That can't be right, that book was written over 40 years ago. It's not doctrine anyway, read the inside cover--he says the whole book is his opinion. However, I always remember how much I loved listening to him speak when I was a teen-ager no matter where I was in the world. I was deeply affected when he died and cried with my parents and siblings when we heard the news (Besides, he was a general authority and an apostle and I do love him). I was able for a while to pass this sticking point, this paradox (and am still--the church is still and always will be true), but I refuse to see how this word can do anyone any good when all the world wants is to use it against us. The only people who seem to celebrate its use in the media are those nuts in the YFZ Ranch and down in Hildale/Colorado City. Ditch 'em I say. It is a word that causes pain and is used to discriminate. I think it is time for the church to drop it completely except when referring to the BoM, the Prophet Mormon himself, and in publications dealing with scripture. We should be past the need to use a word of hate to self-apply a type of identity that we no longer need. We should be able to discard this cultural-moniker and recognize what the name of our church is and enforce this with the media as they have stopped using these kinds of hateful, hurtful words for other religions and ethnic groups (in case you are not from Utah or California, Mormon is about the only way to describe the culture surrounding our religion whether pro or anti). I hope with all my soul we as a church can completely exorcize this type of hate-speech and this word in particular from our own lips! I am a Latter-day Saint and I am offended!