Just more complaining

[megawatts]

I went to a barbeque tonight at my neighbors. They are not LDS, but had a cookout and invited 5 or 6 families from our neighborhood. We were the only ones not mormon. Anyway, we were getting ready to eat when the mos started gathering everyone together to get ready for the prayer. They made a big production of quieting everyone and then one of the MEN stood up and blessed the food. I was kindof surprised (I know stupid of me) that they would press the prayer issue at someone elses house. I sit through prayers at other peoples homes and never say a word. It is their party and house and if they want to pray, I can sit still and listen. I just found it really rude to do it at someone elses house too. If the couple hosting the party had wanted to pray then they would have stood up and hushed everyone and said the prayer, right? Am I getting too sensitive or am I living with a bunch of dillwops?

The other thing that was a little sad to me was that one of the couples there happens to be the parents of a fellow post mormon. I mentioned knowing their child and the mom immediately apologized to me for them. She didn't want me to judge their family by whatever they might have said or done and that they didn't raise them to be the way they turned out. WTF, why did she say that to me? They don't know about their child and this group (although I believe they know of the inactivity and lack of interest in returning to the fold) and they only know that I am a poor, inactive woman married to a non-member. I have been feeling bad that she would say that about her child to a near stranger.

It is late and maybe I am just being sensitive, it does get the better of me sometimes. It just seemed odd to me. I won't even go into the party conversation revolving around peoples callings and other ward crap. Can we not have a conversation about anything else? One woman shared with me how cute her grandson, age 4, is about his name. His name is Joseph and whenever anyone asks him his full name he tells them it is Joseph Smith ...... "isn't that the cutest thing?" :Puking You all missed a great party :D

[puff]

I went to a barbeque tonight at my neighbors. They are not LDS, but had a cookout and invited 5 or 6 families from our neighborhood. We were the only ones not mormon. Anyway, we were getting ready to eat when the mos started gathering everyone together to get ready for the prayer. They made a big production of quieting everyone and then one of the MEN stood up and blessed the food. I was kindof surprised (I know stupid of me) that they would press the prayer issue at someone elses house. I sit through prayers at other peoples homes and never say a word. It is their party and house and if they want to pray, I can sit still and listen. I just found it really rude to do it at someone elses house too. If the couple hosting the party had wanted to pray then they would have stood up and hushed everyone and said the prayer, right? Am I getting too sensitive or am I living with a bunch of dillwops?

The other thing that was a little sad to me was that one of the couples there happens to be the parents of a fellow post mormon. I mentioned knowing their child and the mom immediately apologized to me for them. She didn't want me to judge their family by whatever they might have said or done and that they didn't raise them to be the way they turned out. WTF, why did she say that to me? They don't know about their child and this group (although I believe they know of the inactivity and lack of interest in returning to the fold) and they only know that I am a poor, inactive woman married to a non-member. I have been feeling bad that she would say that about her child to a near stranger.

It is late and maybe I am just being sensitive, it does get the better of me sometimes. It just seemed odd to me. I won't even go into the party conversation revolving around peoples callings and other ward crap. Can we not have a conversation about anything else? One woman shared with me how cute her grandson, age 4, is about his name. His name is Joseph and whenever anyone asks him his full name he tells them it is Joseph Smith ...... "isn't that the cutest thing?" :Puking You all missed a great party :Dmaybe you should have taken puff along to your party , then you would have somebody who,s sane to talk to

[miss taken]

I think what the LDS did was very rude, unless they had asked the host family prior permission. When they are in someone elses home they should respect them, and vice versa.

I remember being in an LDS home and being (afterwards..to other active members) lambasted for talking about my doubts in their home. The justification was that it was their home, and I should have respected them on their own turf, which is probably a fair point from their point of view.

This then should apply in reverse. I think most people are pretty reasonable about this anyway. Sounds like those guys are kind of arrogant? It's that mormon culture thing I think???

Mary

[frauline]

wow, even when I was TBM I would have thought all of that stuff was rude!

[Jeff_Ricks]

Am I getting too sensitive or am I living with a bunch of dillwops? I vote "dilwops." It's sad how inconsiderate 'religious' people can be, not in spite of their religion but often because of it. I was once having a conversation with a Christian who was cussing and swearing at me because I wasn't buying into his religious views, calling me a stupid ass, etc. I called him on it and pointed out how rude he was being. He said he can be rude all he wants because he's saved so it does't matter. I however have to watch myself and be careful how I treat others because I have to pay for my own sins. :duh

The same kind of thinking, to a degree, seems to be behind the behavior of some of the people of the party. Because they're LDS and are doing it for the Lord they don't have to be considerate of others. I find that it happens too often among the religious. They put their religion ahead of people when it should be the other way around.

Jeff

[noodle]

I vote "dilwops." It's sad how inconsiderate 'religious' people can be, not in spite of their religion but often because of it.
Jeff

Yep, been there... A similar thing happened to me at a neighborhood barbeque a couple of months ago. I swear that the ONLY discussions - even amongst the teens(!) - were church-related. I was astounded - mostly wondering if they had a life outside of church. I just sat back and thought of it as an interesting sociological study. It was pretty mind-boggling.

I had another neighbor tell me about a year ago that she was "bad" because she hadn't been going to church lately. Why was she saying this to me? ME? The one who quit over 10 years ago? Weird. It's as tho some major brain link is missing. I've noticed that there is such a level of discomfort experienced by actives around postmos, that I think that their brain misfires or something. Sort of like diarrhea of the brain. ;) Sorry.

Anyway, another one that I loved came from a visiting teacher who blasted a certain doctor in town. We had both worked with him. Her comment was along the lines of, "Well, you know he's quit going to church." Hello?

Still shaking my head on that one. :Crazy:

mamajama

[peter_mary]

I vote "dilwops."

Jeff
I vote "dillwops" too, if for no other reason than I love that word...Dillwops! I could say that over and over until someone sprayed me with a fire extinguisher.
:p

I can appreciate that the Mormons at this function felt they were just being respectful of God, who is the "ultimate" host at this function (your neighbor's house just being the particular location where God chose to allow a barbecue to occur). However, when you look at it from the outside in, how is the presumption to offer a prayer at someone else's house, particularly a "religion-specific" prayer, any different than just lighting up a cigarette in someone else's living room, or bringing your dog to their barbecue, or bringing the booze? Good manners simply suggests that as a guest, you be sensitive to the modus operandi of your hosts...you take your cues from them, not vice-versa. If you want to have a prayer before dinner, host your own damn barbecue...

So says me!

[trish08830]

Megawatts,

It occurred to me that these two go together:

The other thing that was a little sad to me was that one of the couples there happens to be the parents of a fellow post mormon. I mentioned knowing their child and the mom immediately apologized to me for them. She didn't want me to judge their family by whatever they might have said or done and that they didn't raise them to be the way they turned out. WTF, why did she say that to me? They don't know about their child and this group (although I believe they know of the inactivity and lack of interest in returning to the fold) and they only know that I am a poor, inactive woman married to a non-member. I have been feeling bad that she would say that about her child to a near stranger.

__________________
"Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." --Elie Wiesel

Trish

[frauline]

However, when you look at it from the outside in, how is the presumption to offer a prayer at someone else's house, particularly a "religion-specific" prayer, any different than just lighting up a cigarette in someone else's living room, or bringing your dog to their barbecue, or bringing the booze?


Where I come from, bringing the booze is always good manners! :neener:

[helemon]

Because they're LDS and are doing it for the Lord they don't have to be considerate of others.

They probably saw it as a missionary opportunity. The man who offered the prayer probably thought it would cause the host to "feel the spirit" and want to be dunked on the spot!

[Jeff_Ricks]

They probably saw it as a missionary opportunity. The man who offered the prayer probably thought it would cause the host to "feel the spirit" and want to be dunked on the spot!Your comment reminded me of a portion of a talk given by Boyd Packer that illustrates the extreme to which Mormonism tends to put the religion before people. In his address he said:

Bishops should not yield the arrangement of meetings to members. They should not yield the arrangement for funerals or missionary farewells to families. It is not the proper order of things for members or families to expect to decide who will speak and for how long. Suggestions are in order, of course, but the bishop should not turn the meeting over to them. We are worried about the drift that is occurring in our meetings.

Funerals could and should be the most spiritually impressive. They are becoming informal family reunions in front of ward members. Often the Spirit is repulsed by humorous experiences or jokes when the time could be devoted to teaching the things of the Spirit, even the sacred things.

When the family insists that several family members speak in a funeral, we hear about the deceased instead of about the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the comforting promises revealed in the scriptures. Now it's all right to have a family member speak at a funeral, but if they do, their remarks should be in keeping with the spirit of the meeting.

I have told my Brethren in that day when my funeral is held, if any of them who speak talk about me, I will raise up and correct them. The gospel is to be preached. I know of no meeting where the congregation is in a better state of readiness to receive revelation and inspiration from a speaker than they are at a funeral. This privilege is being taken away from us because we don't understand the order of things--the unwritten order of things--that relates to the administration of the Church and the reception of the Spirit.

Read through the entire address. If you ever thought like I have that Boyd's one of the Twelve who really has a stick up his royal hiney, this address will confirm it.

http://lds-mormon.com/unwrittn.shtml

Jeff

[wescape]

I went to a barbeque tonight at my neighbors. They are not LDS, but had a cookout and invited 5 or 6 families from our neighborhood. We were the only ones not mormon. Anyway, we were getting ready to eat when the mos started gathering everyone together to get ready for the prayer. They made a big production of quieting everyone and then one of the MEN stood up and blessed the food. I was kindof surprised (I know stupid of me) that they would press the prayer issue at someone elses house. I sit through prayers at other peoples homes and never say a word. It is their party and house and if they want to pray, I can sit still and listen. I just found it really rude to do it at someone elses house too. If the couple hosting the party had wanted to pray then they would have stood up and hushed everyone and said the prayer, right? Am I getting too sensitive or am I living with a bunch of dillwops?

The other thing that was a little sad to me was that one of the couples there happens to be the parents of a fellow post mormon. I mentioned knowing their child and the mom immediately apologized to me for them. She didn't want me to judge their family by whatever they might have said or done and that they didn't raise them to be the way they turned out. WTF, why did she say that to me? They don't know about their child and this group (although I believe they know of the inactivity and lack of interest in returning to the fold) and they only know that I am a poor, inactive woman married to a non-member. I have been feeling bad that she would say that about her child to a near stranger.

It is late and maybe I am just being sensitive, it does get the better of me sometimes. It just seemed odd to me. I won't even go into the party conversation revolving around peoples callings and other ward crap. Can we not have a conversation about anything else? One woman shared with me how cute her grandson, age 4, is about his name. His name is Joseph and whenever anyone asks him his full name he tells them it is Joseph Smith ...... "isn't that the cutest thing?" :Puking You all missed a great party :D

This is exactly the kind of self-righteousness that Jesus condemned and precisely why I make a distinction bewteen who he was and "the religious" who claim to be his followers.

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

This is exactly the kind of self-righteousness that Jesus condemned and precisely why I make a distinction bewteen who he was and "the religious" who claim to be his followers.

WesWes, don't you think it's safe to say that the followers of every denomination and version of Christianity think that THEY know who Jesus really was, while anyone with different views from theirs don't really know the true Jesus?

Jeff

[Born Free]

This is exactly the kind of self-righteousness that Jesus condemned and precisely why I make a distinction between who he was and "the religious" who claim to be his followers.

Wes
I am reading one of Karen Armstrong's book at the moment, and it struck me how arrogant the central belief held by these people appears to be.

Basically it is 'People should only show reverence for life and creation (God in their mindset), in my way, because it is THE ONLY WAY. All other expressions are not only inept, they are actually evil. Hence, they either do it my way, or they are my enemy.'

Just observe the arrogance in that. My way or no way. There is no appreciation of, or respect for, diversity. No consideration that they may have a very narrow perspective.

Back to the blessed BBQ, I am left wondering how to challenge such behaviour, and not let it pass unchecked.

They would get very pissed, if, as they hushed everyone, one of the non-members said, "Charlie, I appreciate that blessing the meal is a priority to you and LDS members.

In my household, respecting guests is also a value we cherish. So, as guests in this house, I will invite someone to bless the meal for those that value same. And, as my guest, I would be appreciative, and value our friendship more highly, if you did not presume the right to orchestrate a pre-meal blessing at a function in our home. As faithful members of your religion, respectful for the sovereignty of the home, I am sure you can respect that feedback in the spirit in which it is offered'.

Then turn and ask someone other than the person requested by the self-appointed, to bless the meal, preferably a woman or a child.

A few might be pissed. The smarter ones would get over it, and accept that the point was well made. Let the others stew. It is a problem of their making, and to wrap them in cotton wool risks being very codependent in the games they so mindlessly play.

I think sometimes I get caught short for a suitable response to such arrogant behaviour, because I wouldn't think of doing same for a moment. I find it valuable to mentally rehearse some responses, so that if caught in a similar way in the future, a suitable response might be quick-coming.

Daryl

[wescape]

Wes, don't you think it's safe to say that the followers of every denomination and version of Christianity think that THEY know who Jesus really was, while anyone with different views from theirs don't really know the true Jesus?

Jeff

Jeff,

The New Testament makes it more than clear that Jesus was against self-righteous displays of religion. In fact, his outspoken views about this are exactly what got him killed. Thus, any version of Christianity that acts in ways contrary to this are not reading what they claim to believe. I'd be happy to quote the portions that I am speaking about if you doubt me.

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff,

The New Testament makes it more than clear that Jesus was against self-righteous displays of religion. In fact, his outspoken views about this are exactly what got him killed. Thus, any version of Christianity that acts in ways contrary to this are not reading what they claim to believe. I'd be happy to quote the portions that I am speaking about if you doubt me.

WesWes, I think you're one of the best examples of a Christian that I know but don't you think that claiming to know who the real Jesus was is itself a bit self-righteous? Also, if who he really was and what he really taught could be resolved by reading the Bible then why are there well over 2,000 different denominations of Christianity that are all based on the Bible?

Jeff

[wescape]

Wes, I think you're one of the best examples of a Christian that I know but don't you think that claiming to know who the real Jesus was is itself a bit self-righteous? Also, if who he really was and what he really taught could be resolved by reading the Bible then why are there well over 2,000 different denominations of Christianity that are all based on the Bible?

Jeff

Jeff,

All I am doing is reiterating what the New Testament clearly indicates. That is not the definition of self-righteousness. As for different denominations agreeing about the Bible, that is exactly my point - I question whether or not they are actually reading it.

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

Jeff,

All I am doing is reiterating what the New Testament clearly indicates. That is not the definition of self-righteousness. As for different denominations agreeing about the Bible, that is exactly my point - I question whether or not they are actually reading it.

WesWith all do respect, I think you continue to make my point Wes.

Jeff

[wescape]

With all do respect, I think you continue to make my point Wes.

Jeff

With all due respect Jeff, perhaps the words of Jesus will make my point:

Matthew 23: 1-28

"1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[c]

15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

16"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' 19You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.

23"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

25"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."

Wes

[helemon]

Also, if who he really was and what he really taught could be resolved by reading the Bible then why are there well over 2,000 different denominations of Christianity that are all based on the Bible?

Don't you think this is true of reading in general? Reading is not a one way transaction. Written text, and any communication, requires that the reader/listener meet the communicator halfway. What a reader gets out of a book is influenced in no small part by what they bring to the book. We have even seen this phenomena on this site on several occasions where what someone has written something that was interpreted completely differently than it was originally intended.

I read a quote by Anderson Cooper (Gloria Steinem's son) where he said the best books are the ones that are different every time you read them. I think this is why the Bible is so powerful to so many people. It is archaic, mysterious, and general enough that, like a Rorschach Blot test, it allows the reader to project onto it a wide variety of interpretations and meanings.

[Jeff_Ricks]

With all due respect Jeff, perhaps the words of Jesus will make my point:

Matthew 23: 1-28

"1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[c]

15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

16"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' 19You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.

23"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

25"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."

WesNevertheless Wes, there are over 2,000 denominations of Christianity that base their version of who the real Jesus was on the same Bible.

For the record, Jesus also supposedly taught that people should do like the TBM’s at the barbecue did and put religion ahead of others, even family:

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10)


In other words, "He who thinks that human relationships should be put ahead of my agenda has another think coming!"

In my opinion, the pervasive finger pointing that seems to be a trademark of Christianity stems from basing a moral system on what someone supposedly once said instead of on plain ol' common sense and mutal consideration.

Jeff

[wescape]

Nevertheless Wes, there are over 2,000 denominations of Christianity that base their version of who the real Jesus was on the same Bible.

For the record, Jesus also supposedly taught that people should do like the TBM’s at the barbecue did and put religion ahead of others, even family:



In other words, "He who thinks that human relationships should be put ahead of my agenda has another think coming!"

In my opinion, the pervasive finger pointing that seems to be a trademark of Christianity stems from basing a moral system on what someone supposedly once said instead of on plain ol' common sense and mutal consideration.

Jeff

The jist of this thread had to do with self-righteousness which the Bible shows Jesus clearly opposed. As for Jesus teaching that people should put religion above others, that is not at all what he said in the verse you quoted. For one thing, he never once uses the word religion. He did talk about how those who followed him would be opposed by many, including family. Your paraphrase of that verse is one interpretation, however, it does not flow with the rest of what Jesus taught:

Matthew 22:36-40

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Love God and love others. The top two commandments and summation of the entire Old Testament are all about relationship. According to Jesus, relationship with God and relationship with others are the two inseparable sides of the same coin.

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

Your paraphrase of that verse is one interpretation, however, it does not flow with the rest of what Jesus taught:And thus goes the vicious self-righteous circle. "Your interpretation is wrong, mine is right because mine is inline with the rest of how I interpret the Bible and yours is not." And thus we have over 2,000 disagreeing denominations of Christianity that use the same Bible and are each just as convinced as you are Wes, that their interpretation is right and yours is wrong because theirs agrees with the rest of how they interpret the Bible and yours does not.

The jist of this thread had to do with self-righteousness which the Bible shows Jesus clearly opposed.Yes, and it is because the thread is about self-righteousness that I make an issue of your claim of being right and the “others” are wrong. Maybe it would help to change the spelling just a little. Call it "self-rightness." Do you see what I mean? It's because of the same kind of self-rightness that you are indulging in that those 2,000+ disagreeing denominations exist. Don't you think that it's a bit self-righteous (or egocentric, as Daryl put it) to think that your interpretation of the Bible as a whole is right while the other 1,999 views are wrong?

Jeff

[dogzilla]

:duh

Jeff... Wes... The bruise still hurts. Is it really necessary to keep poking it, over and over and over and over?

You guys are like a broken record.

[Jeff_Ricks]

I am reading one of Karen Armstrong's book at the moment, and it struck me how arrogant the central belief held by these people appears to be.

Basically it is 'People should only show reverence for life and creation (God in their mindset), in my way, because it is THE ONLY WAY. All other expressions are not only inept, they are actually evil. Hence, they either do it my way, or they are my enemy.'

Just observe the arrogance in that. My way or no way. There is no appreciation of, or respect for, diversity. No consideration that they may have a very narrow perspective.
From the homepage statement (which is a collaboration of three former Mormons):

"We do not advocate another form of Mormonism or any other religion and believe that loving one's neighbor begins with giving up the claim to have special access to truth. We feel that arrogance attends the illusion of “knowing the truth” and that such arrogance leads to a narrow-minded tribalism that impedes personal growth and fosters a divided community."

Jeff

[wescape]

:duh

Jeff... Wes... The bruise still hurts. Is it really necessary to keep poking it, over and over and over and over?

You guys are like a broken record.

Once again Dogzilla, I totally agree. My original post was not directed at Jeff and I had no intention of getting into this again. I'm not sure why he feels the need to keep going there.

Wes

[wescape]

And thus goes the vicious self-righteous circle. "Your interpretation is wrong, mine is right because mine is inline with the rest of how I interpret the Bible and yours is not." And thus we have over 2,000 disagreeing denominations of Christianity that use the same Bible and are each just as convinced as you are Wes, that their interpretation is right and yours is wrong because theirs agrees with the rest of how they interpret the Bible and yours does not.

Yes, and it is because the thread is about self-righteousness that I make an issue of your claim of being right and the “others” are wrong. Maybe it would help to change the spelling just a little. Call it "self-rightness." Do you see what I mean? It's because of the same kind of self-rightness that you are indulging in that those 2,000+ disagreeing denominations exist. Don't you think that it's a bit self-righteous (or egocentric, as Daryl put it) to think that your interpretation of the Bible as a whole is right while the other 1,999 views are wrong?

Jeff

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree once again, Jeff.

Wes

[helemon]

In other words, "He who thinks that human relationships should be put ahead of my agenda has another think coming!"

Or could it be that Jesus was saying that if you choose to follow him you will have to give up the ancient tribal alligances that are so prevelant in the Middle East even up to this day, and view all human beings as Gods children? Such a belief would definitely put a person at odds with family members if they were asked to join in on an honor killing or attack a rival klan.

[dogzilla]

Once again Dogzilla, I totally agree. My original post was not directed at Jeff and I had no intention of getting into this again. I'm not sure why he feels the need to keep going there.

Wes

I do understand it, but your lack of understanding is between you and him. I'd prefer to avoid being in the middle of your little skirmishes, please. :duck: (I freakin' LOVE that smiley -- I've used it like nine times this morning.)

Is anyone else going to be disappointed if we ever get to finally meet Wes and it turns out he doesn't look exactly like Keanu Reeves? (Of course, I don't look like two tuxedo-wearing dogzillas either... but you all already prolly figured that out, right?)

[megawatts]

Back to the blessed BBQ, I am left wondering how to challenge such behaviour, and not let it pass unchecked.

They would get very pissed, if, as they hushed everyone, one of the non-members said, "Charlie, I appreciate that blessing the meal is a priority to you and LDS members.

In my household, respecting guests is also a value we cherish. So, as guests in this house, I will invite someone to bless the meal for those that value same. And, as my guest, I would be appreciative, and value our friendship more highly, if you did not presume the right to orchestrate a pre-meal blessing at a function in our home. As faithful members of your religion, respectful for the sovereignty of the home, I am sure you can respect that feedback in the spirit in which it is offered'.

Then turn and ask someone other than the person requested by the self-appointed, to bless the meal, preferably a woman or a child.

A few might be pissed. The smarter ones would get over it, and accept that the point was well made. Let the others stew. It is a problem of their making, and to wrap them in cotton wool risks being very codependent in the games they so mindlessly play.

I think sometimes I get caught short for a suitable response to such arrogant behaviour, because I wouldn't think of doing same for a moment. I find it valuable to mentally rehearse some responses, so that if caught in a similar way in the future, a suitable response might be quick-coming.

Daryl

Thanks for all the input I appreciate your thoughts about it all. I would love to come up with some ways of dealing with this type of behavior and have practiced what to say after the fact, but danged if they ever do things when I am ready. I prepare myself and nothing happens then when my guard is down they let it fly. I always am too shocked to give a good response (if I was ever in a place to give a good one anyway).

I love coming here and reading from all of you. I do find that I am perhaps a few stages behind all of you and a few college degrees short to really be able to banter with you. I guess I am still just coming to terms with leaving and losing friends. Also, just seeing all the ways mormons stomp all over everyone else around them.

I am friends with one of the ladies who was there and I am going to try and ask her about it all when given a good opportunity. I would like to hear her perception of it. (I can probably guess, but want to hear her explain it and maybe make her think about it too (one can dream)).

[megawatts]

Megawatts,

It occurred to me that these two go together:

The other thing that was a little sad to me was that one of the couples there happens to be the parents of a fellow post mormon. I mentioned knowing their child and the mom immediately apologized to me for them. She didn't want me to judge their family by whatever they might have said or done and that they didn't raise them to be the way they turned out. WTF, why did she say that to me? They don't know about their child and this group (although I believe they know of the inactivity and lack of interest in returning to the fold) and they only know that I am a poor, inactive woman married to a non-member. I have been feeling bad that she would say that about her child to a near stranger.

__________________
"Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." --Elie Wiesel

Trish

I am working on the taking sides. I don't want to be neutral anymore. My multicultural teacher said that if you are silent about what others are saying, doing etc. then you are condoning what they say or do. I am just a big chicken when it comes to confrontation. I have begun to be better and will continue until one day I will not just sit there anymore. I did tell the mom that I thought her child was a wonderful person, but that is where I left it. Thanks for the reminder and giving a place where I can actually talk about it.

[wescape]

I do understand it, but your lack of understanding is between you and him. I'd prefer to avoid being in the middle of your little skirmishes, please. :duck: (I freakin' LOVE that smiley -- I've used it like nine times this morning.)

Is anyone else going to be disappointed if we ever get to finally meet Wes and it turns out he doesn't look exactly like Keanu Reeves? (Of course, I don't look like two tuxedo-wearing dogzillas either... but you all already prolly figured that out, right?)

Again, it was never my intent to get into any of this with Jeff. I guess in the future I'll just ignore his attempts to do so and thus spare you from the broken record.

And I'm glad to hear your avatar does not represent your actual likeness! :)

Wes

[Born Free]

Don't you think this is true of reading in general? Reading is not a one way transaction. Written text, and any communication, requires that the reader/listener meet the communicator halfway. What a reader gets out of a book is influenced in no small part by what they bring to the book. We have even seen this phenomena on this site on several occasions where what someone has written something that was interpreted completely differently than it was originally intended.

I read a quote by Anderson Cooper (Gloria Steinem's son) where he said the best books are the ones that are different every time you read them. I think this is why the Bible is so powerful to so many people. It is archaic, mysterious, and general enough that, like a Rorschach Blot test, it allows the reader to project onto it a wide variety of interpretations and meanings.
Helemon,

I'm with you on the element of projection.

Good book, good verse, good movies (IMHO) are such because I find myself still pondering them days after viewing them. And I can revisit them time and time again, and glean more insight from them.

The problematic element with religion is that the core subject is 'God', so when people read the Bible and get something from their reading, they frequently claim they have an understanding of God or more problematically THE understanding of God.

Now where that gets really problematic is when they approach the scriptures with an underlying personal script of being 'evil' or 'fallen'. That toxic self-concept renders the individual a ripe candidate for grandiosity once they get some notion on board that God can magically 'fix' them - the temptation to invert their self-hatred and turn it into 'righteous superiority', and arrogance.

Further the more damaged a person is, the more appealing a 'magic fix', the notion that all their deep seated toxicity can be dissolved with a quick dunking or sprinkling. Of course, nothing of substance has changed, except that what they formerly detested in self, they now confidently project out onto all the 'sinners', gentiles and infadels around them. Of course they will project their beliefs onto the scriptures, confident that have read and interpreted them accurately.

As I wrote my posting about egocentricity, I saw the potential that even in a post-religious state, I could still be doing the same thing or on a more subtle level.

To the extent to which I do that, I know that it tends to be founded in my toxic-self scripts and the desire to alleviate my pain by projecting it. To do that is to still think with a mind at the level of religion, that I can heal me, by projection onto sinners, or the projection of my sin onto Christ, whose shoulders are broad enough to carry them and his parentage magical enough for him to 'wash' them.

Whilst I probably have a different take on the scriptures to Wes, I believe I can respect where he is coming from. He appears to be content to interpret the scriptures for himself, and exercise confidence and judgement in his ability to learn from them and accept a broader/deeper learning tomorrow.

To me, the danger lies in people who want to gather with others with shared interpretations and then proceed to tell everyone else they are wrong. To me, that is just the process I described above, except they believe that if 1,000 or 12,000,000 people agree with them, then their internal demons will cease their rumblings.

OK, I am off to do a bit of a meditation on whether my image of myself as a very evolved, and clever post-Mo (God, I tried to map the territory, didn't I) is still just hiding anotehr layer of toxic self-esteem, and waiting for the first opportunity to project my lack of healing out onto some (dumb or dumber) TBMs.

Daryl

PS: I was recalling as I showered this morning, that strange process of being a good TBM in a public eating place, and feeling I/we had to bless the meal furtively or even openly. What mindset does one have to be in to engage in that crazy process? BTW is that a slessing - a slinky blessing?

That led to thinking through a typical blessing:

God we thank you for this meal, and the abundance with which we have been blessed, (whilst at the same time we conveniently overlook that if YOU have 'blessed' us, then you have clearly ignored or unblessed all those poor people starving to death around the planet). As I see it, we can't have without the other.

But then, we can't know all things. Getting answers like that will have to await until the afterlife.:duh

[helemon]

The problematic element with religion is that the core subject is 'God', so when people read the Bible and get something from their reading, they frequently claim they have an understanding of God or more problematically THE understanding of God.


Or worse that God has spoken to them directly. I agree with you about the danger with religious books. I was thinking the other day that one of the main problems with the Middle East was that Ancient Hebrew writers and philosophers came up with this notion that they are Gods chosen people and that he has given them a particular plot of land irregardless of who wins what battle. This idea was so popular that it was adopted by the Muslims and the Christians who also adopted the Hebrew scriptures. Each group thinks that Gods promise applies to them and only them. There was a funny bit about this on Jon Stewart a few days back.

Because of the inability of the parties to negotiate on this matter, it is and will be, impossible to come to any type of "lasting peace" that the Bush administration is holding out for. I fear that the only thing that would stop the fighting in that region would be nuclear war that would make the region unihabitable by anyone regardless of what God they worship. Although, even if it was a nuclear wasteland I bet you would still have religios nutters fighting for the right to live there! Then we'd have mutant zealots! :eek:

[Born Free]

<snip>

Then we'd have mutant zealots! :eek:

A truely awesome prospect. Given that many zealots behave like they rate highly on the mutant scale to start with, this is a really threatening prospect! :Crazy: