tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post8388304793092385863..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Professor Explains Why Mormons Don't Like Trump (and My Thoughts on Dissent)Jeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-53204279072619649262016-04-15T15:51:19.289-05:002016-04-15T15:51:19.289-05:00That is what I thought.
The kettle heard the fir...That is what I thought. <br /><br />The kettle heard the fire crackle and then had an imaginary conversation with a pot.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-65809610698109002912016-04-09T19:57:43.254-05:002016-04-09T19:57:43.254-05:00Prove it.
If that were true, you would have prov...Prove it. <br /><br />If that were true, you would have provided examples. After a lengthy back and forth, you admitted you were wrong on the original and simple item in question, only showing a discomfort with the word “fake”. As the vast majority of Mormons will tell you and contrary to your false assertion, after publically asking, “All opposed”, there is no public request to “consult with their local leader”. In General Conference, the opposed are difficult to identify, ergo no one asks them in private to “consult with their local leader”. As those observing you who are not Mormon have already figured out if consulting with the local leader is the answer, then there is no utility to asking all opposed publically, other than waving a Saddam Hussein style election result of 99.99% percent support. If the Mormon’s public “All opposed” is not disingenuous, then neither was Saddam Hussein’s.<br /><br />Sighhhh … Here is another example of your false assertions, which by the way, you asserted emphatically by saying, “I will repeat”. The Jehovah Witnesses OWN website has an entire explanation of why census numbers are higher than their officially published numbers. https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/how-many-jw-members/ I found this in 60 seconds, meaning you did not even try. For all those observing Brooks, please appreciate why I say there is no point in having a conversation with him.<br /><br />You wish Mormons to be simultaneously special and mainstream disingenuously whitewashing ALL nonmainstream characterizations, failing to realize how this incessant reflex stops you from being convincing to anyone but the choir, as the non-choir observing this thread is realizing.<br /><br />Ohh that is right Brooks, you Piled it higher and Deeper (PhD). At this level and given your latest rejoinder … I am rubber you are glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-39478210749628401802016-04-09T11:52:15.949-05:002016-04-09T11:52:15.949-05:00Something about pots and kettles comes to mind.Something about pots and kettles comes to mind.Brooks M. Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17097849558228531431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-37644745065560525152016-04-08T15:22:17.003-05:002016-04-08T15:22:17.003-05:00Disingenuous assessments, false assertions, and ma...Disingenuous assessments, false assertions, and many contradictions. You have made up your mind and do not want to be confused by facts or rational dialogue. No point in having a conversation with you.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15229986828707494702016-04-08T12:20:31.979-05:002016-04-08T12:20:31.979-05:00I am being honest in my opinions. Google defines ...I am being honest in my opinions. Google defines vote as, "a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands or by voice." I did read the definition before posting but not carefully enough. I was wrong; a sustaining vote is a vote. On the larger issue of whether it is fake, I must conclude that it is not. There is a procedure put in place and that procedure is generally known. When a person, not an issue, is presented for a sustaining vote, those in the congregation can sustain or oppose. A member can oppose if they know of a disqualifying behavior. Those opposed meet with a designated authority after the meeting to learn if there is a disqualifying behavior. If there is, the name might be removed from consideration. <br /><br />An opposing vote is not taboo and therefore infrequent but infrequent because members rarely know of disqualifying behaviors and because leaders, who are in a much better position to know disqualifying behaviors, don't call those individuals to hold positions of authority. Frequently, someone in General Conference both dissents by yelling and votes to oppose. They are asked to consult with their local leader. You seem not to like the procedure and call it a fake because: you don't know what it is intended to do or don't like the outcome. That does not make it a fake.<br /><br />Membership records count people who have been baptized and who have not been removed from the records of the church. They are not exaggerated or falsified. Using the records to note milestones does not exaggerate proselytizing success because all the records conform to church procedure. Membership records are used to minister to members. For every article written by the church about growth, there are many more hours spent locating and ministering to all members. Nor does the church generally distinguish between growth caused by birth and by baptism. <br /><br />You simply note that there are not as many members who regularly attend or associate with the church as there are members. Those are two different things. It is therefore not surprising that census records differ. I will repeat, the Jehovah's Witnesses do not report membership numbers so they cannot be compared with census numbers. <br /><br />Bad practices by missionaries are not encouraged by the church. When they occur, they are generally noted by a missionary, bishop, stake president, etc. One of my sons told his mission president of bad practices and was made a zone leader to stop them. I didn't encounter any during my mission. I suspect that my experience is the most common. All this points to the fact that the church adapts to dissent.<br /><br />My definition for measuring the ability of the church to adapt because of dissent did not change. Committed members dissent all the time. I frequently report my dissent to the correct authority and change is frequently made. Committed members are much more likely to dissent than uncommitted members. The uncommitted members are not at church. <br /><br />Mormanity can represent his opinion as to whether the church is a big-tenter or small but he does not represent the church. Nor do I, but I conclude that it is a big-tenter because it will baptize, with few exceptions, anybody who can pass the baptismal interview.Brooks M. Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17097849558228531431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-82528461156178676562016-04-07T15:01:50.389-05:002016-04-07T15:01:50.389-05:00You persist in being disingenuous.
Because someth...You persist in being disingenuous.<br /><br />Because something happens does not make it not taboo. It is a “fake vote”, because as you noted it is a not a vote, but even in LDS Conference you will sometimes here “the vote is noted”. There was never a question, be it about dissent or adaption. There was a statement of fact that the “All opposed” “fake vote” is disingenuous, something you are clearly being disingenuous about, further demonstrating the culture attitude.<br /><br />You claim the church does not exaggerate proselytizing success. This is simply false. To help you understand, the church’s magazine in the early 2000s announced a million members in Mexico. The Internet filled with Mormons describing how inaccurate the membership rolls are, with people that cannot be found, unknown addresses, and extremely weak baptism requirements. The now excommunicated John Dehlin spoke out against the unscrupulous baptism practices when he was young missionary in Guatemala. Your preferred channels of dissent ended with Dehlin finishing his mission in another mission. Census data from various countries, including Mexico, then proved these claims to be accurate showing LDS Church membership data inflated by three fold. Interestingly enough, the same census data showed the Jehovah Witnesses were vastly under-reporting their membership. This was all discussed over a decade ago, given your background, it is difficult to believe you are not familiar with it and easy to believe you are being disingenuous.<br /><br />You are free to define thriving in any way that makes you feel better. If commitment-of-members is the definition, then the FLDS are thriving. At any rate, your new definition of thriving changes your “prima facie evidence” for it from “adapts to dissent” to commitment-of-non-dissenters. I will take your new definition as conceding.<br /><br />Some organizations are big-tenters and some are small-tenters. When John Dehlin asked Mormanity if the LDS Church could be a big-tenter, Mormanity answered no, citing Paul. Trying to minimize the small tent nature of the LDS Church to “few organizations” like dissent is disingenuous.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-26894953234548052202016-04-07T10:42:03.291-05:002016-04-07T10:42:03.291-05:00Mormography,
You persist in mixing apples and oran...Mormography,<br />You persist in mixing apples and oranges when comparing Hertzberg's vocal dissent of church policy in "Mormons' Unchristian Policy on LGBTQ" and sustaining those called to positions within the church and no, it is not taboo, nor is it infrequent. It seems to happen every conference.<br /><br />You state that the church "does not like dissenting voices," a rather unremarkable observation given that few organizations do, I can think of none offhand. The question is if an organization adapts to dissent. We both agree that the church has adapted. <br /><br />You call the sustaining of officers a "fake vote." It is not a vote and those who are opposed to sustaining a local officer or the prophet of the church know that it is not. <br /><br />You claim that the church exaggerates proselytizing success. This is simply false. Every person baptized is a member of the church and has been since 1830. It is not meant to reflect growth of the number of people attending meetings. If you wish to measure growth, you can use the growth in congregations as a proxy.<br /><br />Is the LDS church growing relative to other religious organizations? The answer is yes and that is why you limited discussion to Evangelicals and Jehovah's Witness and other proselytizers. Even there, you probably get the facts wrong because you do not apply the same set of critical standards of evaluation to these organizations. First, Evangelicals are not a well defined religious organization. It is a term loosely used to define religious organizations that hold a certain set of changing beliefs. According to the National Association of Evangelicals, these beliefs do not include attending church meetings. They do not include proselytizing either.<br /><br />When you talk about growth of the Jehovah's Witnesses, how are you measuring growth? Their published data includes publishers and Memorial Service Attendance. To which do you refer? Both can produce measures of growth that are OK, both can be lead to exaggerated claims of growth and neither measure membership growth. Finally, and most importantly, why must the LDS church the criteria of very rapid growth relative to other proselytizers to be described as thriving? Why not measure by the commitment of members using contributions as a proxy?<br /><br />I will leave a discussion of assimilation to another day.Brooks M. Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17097849558228531431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86107446188714403762016-04-06T23:05:03.830-05:002016-04-06T23:05:03.830-05:00So it is or it is not taboo to vote opposed?
Let ...So it is or it is not taboo to vote opposed?<br /><br />Let me try again. Fact is, the LDS church is not a democratic institution (as you state) and it does not like dissenting voices either during a fake vote, in a church class, or when telling a devout friend. It would be much more honest to just do away with asking all those opposed and hold a “court of love” for Hertzberg. You probably knew that when you wrote about dissent.<br /><br />Your statement “That the church has thrived without the threat of violence since its founding provides prima facie evidence that it adapts to dissent.” Is kindaof a bizarre stretch of the words thrive and dissent.<br /><br />The LDS Church today is not the same church it was a 100+ years ago. Assimilation is a key reason. The core belief and practice of polygamy stopped after threat of extreme violence. Fundamental changing core beliefs and practices may be surviving, but is an odd definition of thriving. Today the LDS Church’s exaggerated claims of proselytizing success lags behind other proselytizers such as the Evangelicals, Jehovah Witness, etc. While this is surviving as a proselytizing entity, is not necessarily thriving.<br /><br />The Church continues to exist, ergo “adapts to dissent” is weak reasoning. Kinda of like stating, Bob Jones U. allows black students “provides prima facie evidence that it adapts to dissent.” More like, provides prima facie evidence it wants to keep its tax-exempt status. Or how about this one, Islam continues to thrive today “provides prima facie evidence that it adapts to dissent.” More like it has high fertility rates growing its base.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46471478345982703852016-04-06T15:36:33.127-05:002016-04-06T15:36:33.127-05:00Mormography,
Let me try again. Lindsay opposes pu...Mormography,<br />Let me try again. Lindsay opposes public dissent such as but not limited to publishing what he views as harsh criticism of church leaders and to some extent the policies they implement, protesting at church events and inviting the media to cover the protests. Raising your hand when asked for those who "are opposed" is not. Saying you disagree with a policy in a church class is not. Telling a friend that you disagree with a policy is not. Mormons, as a whole, like decorum and believe in following convention. Hertzberg broke that convention.<br /><br />Would Lindsay disagree with my distinction? I don't know but I suspect most practicing Mormons would not. <br /><br />There is another distinction between public dissent and the practice of sustaining or opposing when asked from the pulpit. The general leadership of the church does not give members a chance to acknowledge support or opposition to policy decisions. It is not a democratic institution. Dissenting from a policy is far different from being "opposed" to a person called to be a Sunday School teacher up to being "opposed" to sustaining the prophet. While focusing on the difference between dissent and opposed may have been hair-splitting, the real differences in the manner in which disagreement with church policy is expressed is not. You probably knew that when you wrote, "If dissent should occur in private, why is “All those opposed” asked publically?" <br /><br />Non-democratic institutions have channels to process dissent, the church included. Alderks, Jenne Erigero. “Effecting Change in the Church,” SquareTwo, Vol. 7 No. 2 (Summer2014) provides an example of such a channel. That the church has thrived without the threat of violence since its founding provides prima facie evidence that it adapts to dissent. I believe that most of that dissent is private and not public<br /><br />I like your information about the instant-runoff ballot. I am not sure that our two party system effectively eliminates factions. Factions seem to live within both parties, some thriving and others stayin alive. I will admit that my particular faction is barely stayin alive. <br /><br /><br />Brooks M. Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17097849558228531431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79062238333443066912016-04-05T15:09:16.591-05:002016-04-05T15:09:16.591-05:00Brooks M. Wilson – So, if Hertzberg had said, “pub...Brooks M. Wilson – So, if Hertzberg had said, “publicly opposing the new policy” vice “publicly dissenting from the new policy” Mormanity would have been OK with it? I am sure Mormanity would not agree with you. The fact is Brooks, publicly asking, “All those opposed” where opposing is taboo is disingenuous. Are you going to look up “disingenuous” and “insincere” and split hairs on those now? <br /><br />You make a great case for the instant-runoff ballot. The American forefathers were very weary of political parties, what they called “factions”. They preferred either no factions or many, many factions in order to negate the power of any one faction. Unfortunately, for them, what they created unintentionally ended up with two distinct parties, worse than the parliamentary system with multiple parties.<br /><br />The instant-runoff ballot where voters rank their preferred candidates the way you do would eliminate the need for primary elections. The idea did not exist at the time of the American founding. As great as the instant-runoff ballot is, political parties would probably still exist, as they serve the need to solve information overload with simplified branding.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-5297066023747918692016-04-05T14:16:45.908-05:002016-04-05T14:16:45.908-05:00I thought that Ben's article was interesting, ...I thought that Ben's article was interesting, the rebuttal here was interesting, and that they both deserved air time. <br /><br />Still, I thought that questioning Ben's relationship with the Church went a little too far. I know him and his family. He descends from Auschwitz survivors, so he has a unique perspective--one which certainly justifies concern about nationalistic impulses that could ultimately hurt certain minority groups. I remember his Sunday School lessons--he was always challenging assumptions by asking whether WE were the bad guy. It was uncomfortable but it made you think. It definitely got everyone to participate! <br /><br />I think there's room enough in the Church for this perspective. Maybe we even need it. Remember that most of the Israelites of the New Testament didn't realize the Savior had come.<br /><br />That said, I'm not going to defend everything Ben said in the WaPo piece. It seemed more of an opinion piece than a careful argument, and it stood on certain questionable assumptions. (For example, if it's true that Mormons are voting out of concern for their American-ness, why would they choose a self-proclaimed socialist over Trump in a one-on-one matchup, as polls suggest? Or why do Utah Republican voting patterns represent the Church?) To me, this article is kind of like one of Ben's old Sunday School lessons. He's throwing a hypothesis out there that feels a bit threatening, but gets us to think.<br /><br />I would have appreciated it if we could have just evaluated his arguments on their own merits and left the Church relationship part out of it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04255411060344954569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-19453310617842129702016-04-05T13:28:46.347-05:002016-04-05T13:28:46.347-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04255411060344954569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-16755009345328516172016-04-04T14:49:35.340-05:002016-04-04T14:49:35.340-05:00Hey (hi has been used) Mormography,
You write, &q...Hey (hi has been used) Mormography,<br /><br />You write, "If dissent should occur in private, why is “All those opposed” asked publically?" and then conclude, "A little disingenuous?"<br /><br />Dissent and opposed do not mean the same thing although there is overlap. Using online definitions from Google, Dissent means "hold or express opinions that are at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially expressed." Opposed means "eager to prevent or put an end to; disapproving of or disagreeing with." Lindsay defines dissent as,"becoming vocal critics," placing emphasis on expressing opinions." Assuming that Lindsay accurately expresses the opinion of the LDS church, calling for opposition rather than dissent is not disingenuous. <br /><br />I don't know why Mormons in Utah overwhelmingly supported Cruz over Trump but I believe that you miss possibilities. For example, today, I like Kasich better than Cruz, Cruz better than Clinton and Clinton better than Trump. For me, a vote for Cruz will not transfer to a later vote for Trump. In addition to ranking candidates, I also have a minimum standard and candidate must achieve. Trump does not meet my standard.Brooks M. Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17097849558228531431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-78112916484967897952016-04-04T07:08:06.536-05:002016-04-04T07:08:06.536-05:00How on earth can he claim Cruz is a bad choice for...How on earth can he claim Cruz is a bad choice for religious liberty? Is he unaware that Cruz has fought and won multiple cases before the supreme Court on religious liberty? I've never even heard kasich mention itAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14564000073750428550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-41007478167658809562016-04-02T00:22:24.830-05:002016-04-02T00:22:24.830-05:00The most interesting item from the exchange above ...The most interesting item from the exchange above is that Mormanity did not come to Steve’s defense. <br /><br />Steve cannot decide if the City Of Enoch is or is not taught in Sunday school. Steve displayed emotional irritation at the fact that the Mormon Canonical Concepts are deeply involved with national building and population migration constructed in a discriminatory manner by Divinity. His only retort was that all immigration is discriminatory (not an actual retort) without addressing Divinity’s involvement. Steve’s vast ignorance on the subject was displayed when his only supporting evidence of PEF (which of course does nothing to address the Canon) actually contradicted his position.<br /><br />When Mormanity interjected, he essentially confessed, indicating that the Canon does not apply to current proselytizing efforts, which of course was never argued against.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-88611655421850174132016-03-31T04:20:50.847-05:002016-03-31T04:20:50.847-05:00Who said differently?Who said differently?Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-3735895740135070422016-03-30T23:47:37.477-05:002016-03-30T23:47:37.477-05:00You may be glad to hear that Mormons preach to eve...You may be glad to hear that Mormons preach to everyone where it is legal, regardless of race. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-368179130418115862016-03-30T22:08:38.805-05:002016-03-30T22:08:38.805-05:00I invite all that have witnessed Steve’s disingenu...I invite all that have witnessed Steve’s disingenuousness, to read Mormon Canon Moses 7 for themselves. Regardless of current Mormon practice or political position, the fact is Mormon Canonical Concepts are full of nation building references and corresponding immigration policy. Discomfort with facts does not turn them into opinions.<br /><br /> https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/7?lang=eng <br /><br />V. 11 And he [sic He] gave unto me a commandment that I should baptize ….<br /><br />V. 12 And it came to pass that Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were the people of Canaan (v. 8 a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan)<br /><br />V. 19 And Enoch continued his preaching in righteousness unto the people of God. And it came to pass in his days, that he built a city that was called the City of Holiness, even Zion.<br /><br />V. 23 And after that Zion was taken up into heaven, Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-84055564978167228742016-03-30T21:48:49.575-05:002016-03-30T21:48:49.575-05:00Ha, yep delusional, talking donkeys and all. Perpe...Ha, yep delusional, talking donkeys and all. Perpetual immigration fund, let see ... in exchange for becoming Mormon, the Mormon church paid the expensive passage to America and only a super minority repaid the passage amount, hence the perpetual part was not so perpetual was it. Converts bought and paid for, sounds like discriminatory immigration to me.<br /><br />http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Immigration_and_Emigration<br /><br />-Mormography<br /><br />PS After overcoming your debilitating illness, can u please show me where I ever, ever claimed Utah should or should not do anything. Seems to me u would have been better off pointing to the BoM centuries of peace w interracial marriage turning "skin of blackness" into brown.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-19022537952525632162016-03-30T09:49:02.743-05:002016-03-30T09:49:02.743-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-90571676710864290922016-03-30T08:07:25.785-05:002016-03-30T08:07:25.785-05:00Hi Mormography,
You like to assert your opinions ...Hi Mormography,<br /><br />You like to assert your opinions as facts and make sweeping generalizations on top of it.<br /><br />- I did not conceded that the City of Enoch is obscure. Out of the thousands of pages of scriptures, I will concede that emphasis should be placed on being loving than whether there is a talking donkey.<br /><br />- Out of the exclusionary examples that I referenced, all but one were from the Bible so the argument can be made that religion in general is exclusionary but this isn't new, is it? After all, the majority of Christian religions require baptism to become a member, other ceremonies are required to become a member of other faiths, swearing an oath is required to become a citizen of the US, IV League universities allow only well connected students into its classrooms, etc.<br /><br />- Since the above examples are evidences of exclusionary practices, one could make the argument that society in general has strong justification codified for immigration discrimination.<br /><br />- The City of Enoch is not obscure, there is not "strong justification" for immigration discrimination in the Church, the history of the Church confirms this as well (perpetual immigration fund ring a bell?), and lastly, moving this conversation from the light hearted to the serious, you have no idea what delusional is about until you have met someone who is delusional. This mental illness cripples the person affected who has a hard time maintaining social relationships and is sometimes one step away from being homeless because of this debilitating condition.<br /><br />Steve<br /><br />PS - Utah opens its borders to refugees coming from the Middle East, most of whom will most likely be Muslims. You can keep making the argument that Utah should not being doing this but you will come off sounding like a bigot if you do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-20254275046008905812016-03-30T07:06:11.527-05:002016-03-30T07:06:11.527-05:00Steve -
Seeing as you concede the City of Enoch ...Steve - <br /><br />Seeing as you concede the City of Enoch is not something taught in Sunday School, ergo obscure, it is uncertain if you concede the obvious, that Mormon theology has strong justification for immigration discrimination, something you term tongue in check. Chuckling to facts, it appears that this is you playing dumb, turned into denial, turning into delusional.<br /><br />The entire premise of the Book of Mormon is that America is a land set apart by Divinity for special people. The City of Enoch was just an obscure (though canonical) example immigration theology, the Book of Mormon itself is full it. So, yes strong justification stands, along with the City of Enoch being an obscurer reference as you demonstrate.<br /><br />"And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be noplace for an inheritance"<br /><br />"Whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fullness of his wrath should come upon them." <br /><br />Mere excerpts of a running theme ...... To deny the strong justification for immigration discrimination is borderline delusional.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-56248442711538981932016-03-30T06:54:45.046-05:002016-03-30T06:54:45.046-05:00Steve -
Touche, I take your point well. Does thi...Steve - <br /><br />Touche, I take your point well. Does this adjustment clear it up? "Mormon theology has a strong justification for extreme immigration discrimination. Though obscure to most Mormons, According to Mormon legend, Enoch built a city …”<br /><br />Obscure -- Like many Catholics are not accustomed studying the Bible, many Mormons would have to think for a moment about the canonical City of Enoch, though not as obscure as something like the contradictory and non-canonical Adam-God Theory that Brigham Young in fact taught. Do you have a better word for this? <br /><br />You are right regarding such examples as the Book of Mormon and its many immigration anecdotes and mythologies all continuing the strong, strong justification of discriminatory immigration. Yes, the evolving world of Mormonism is now leading to contradictions making things that used to be obvious to all Mormons, less so today. Jaredites, Lehi, Columbus (not mentioned by name), are all were led to America via divine discriminatory immigration plans. Plans that sometimes even involve skin color. Divinity explicitly forbade Enoch from allowing Blacks into the City of Enoch. You acknowledge that most Mormons are not aware of this fact by mentioning Sunday School, which of course it is a silly distinct given the new essays are addressing significant items officially ignored for 150 years and much of what Mormons believe is not even found in the key stone canon.<br /><br />It appears the root of our disconnect is your discomfort with the canonical concepts of Mormonism and desire to turn a blind eye and play dumb with them.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-44493887848611117212016-03-29T21:15:18.243-05:002016-03-29T21:15:18.243-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mormographyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876509006690501141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43066702563573980572016-03-29T11:23:34.794-05:002016-03-29T11:23:34.794-05:00The high rate of immigration into this country les...The high rate of immigration into this country lessens the likelihood of assimilation, increases the likelihood of balkanization, decreases the likelihood of maintaining already weakened constitutional adherence. The country has chosen to continually increase immigration rates over the past 50 years, for various reasons. It boils down to political power, of one stripe or another. If it continues at current rates, the country will become a different country, not the one people are currently attracted to. Lame corrupt lunacy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com