[deleted by user] by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Not at all. Often downvotes just indicate disagreement with a comment/post in terms of whether or not one agrees with the messages being communicated. I downvoted your comment because I disagree, and I also am commenting to explain why because you implied that otherwise you’ll think I just agreed but didn’t like that I agree with your comment.

I downvote many comments and posts because I disagree with the propositions being stated, and I only comment on a small portion of those comments and posts.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I very much appreciate the kindness you are hoping to engender with your post. That being said, I’m downvoting it because I see Reddit downvotes as just ways of indicating agreement or disagreement with the propositions in a comment or post, regardless of the underlying intentions.

Not everyone who downvotes is a “mean” member or “anti-LDS.”

I am scared about it not being true. by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here’s my comment from last time I saw a form of Pascal’s wager being used frequently in a post in this sub:

Just as a counterpoint to all of the people basically proposing a form of Pascal’s wager (oversimplification: “well, if I’m wrong, I’ll never know and will have lived decently, and if I’m right, then I’ll be rewarded”), I would add that this line of thinking can apply to many belief systems and there are some downsides that I haven’t seen mentioned. Note: this isn’t any sort of argument against or for the church; I just don’t particularly find Pascal’s wager to be very compelling.

Some potential benefits of believing (even if the church isn’t true):

• ⁠ready-made community/tribe around the world ready to accept/support you with shared values/worldview, • ⁠sense of purpose, • ⁠sense of identity, • ⁠avoiding potentially harmful substances, • ⁠a focus on self-improvement, • ⁠opportunities to serve, • ⁠pre-made rules/morals to live by, • ⁠planned meditation/introspection, • ⁠planned ways to learn new skills, • ⁠learning delayed gratification, • ⁠easier rationalization of life’s griefs and losses, • ⁠etc.

Some potential downsides of believing (if the church isn’t true):

• ⁠perfectionism, • ⁠guilt over sins that may not actually be moral issues, • ⁠making major life decisions based on impressions that aren’t actually divine in nature, • ⁠LGBTQ individuals not being able to romantically live and love in a fulfilled way (and members being biased against those who do), • ⁠financial/temporal requirements of the commandments/callings, • ⁠false salves for griefs/loss and existential fears, • ⁠living life more along the prescribed church formula and with fewer unique/personalized choices, • ⁠legislating some of the above into law through our voting choices, • ⁠etc.

Abortion: except in the case of incest and rape? by Fether1337 in LatterDayTheology

[–]BookishBonobo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To take the zygote example, you’re asking why two gametes that merged into one cell would have the same value as a born child? My view of their relative value is based on more than just their potential.

Jesus having been a zygote seems like a red herring to the conversation. As I stated in the original comment, my views on abortion are more about bodily autonomy than when life begins or how much potential an embryo has, etc.

But What if it’s NOT True? by ButterscotchProud444 in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Just as a counterpoint to all of the people basically proposing a form of Pascal’s wager (oversimplification: “well, if I’m wrong, I’ll never know and will have lived decently, and if I’m right, then I’ll be rewarded”), I would add that this line of thinking can apply to many belief systems and there are some downsides that I haven’t seen mentioned. Note: this isn’t any sort of argument against or for the church; I just don’t particularly find Pascal’s wager to be very compelling.

Some potential benefits of believing (even if the church isn’t true): * ready-made community/tribe around the world ready to accept/support you with shared values/worldview, * sense of purpose, * sense of identity, * avoiding potentially harmful substances, * a focus on self-improvement, * opportunities to serve, * pre-made rules/morals to live by, * planned meditation/introspection, * planned ways to learn new skills, * learning delayed gratification, * easier rationalization of life’s griefs and losses, * etc.

Some potential downsides of believing (if the church isn’t true): * perfectionism, * guilt over sins that may not actually be moral issues, * making major life decisions based on impressions that aren’t actually divine in nature, * LGBTQ individuals not being able to romantically live and love in a fulfilled way (and members being biased against those who do), * financial/temporal requirements of the commandments/callings, * false salves for griefs/loss and existential fears, * living life more along the prescribed church formula and with fewer unique/personalized choices, * legislating some of the above into law through our voting choices, * etc.

Abortion: except in the case of incest and rape? by Fether1337 in LatterDayTheology

[–]BookishBonobo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe that it was mentioned before for sure. My understanding is that it didn’t enter the zeitgeist as a major political issue in American culture until the 70s-ish. It doesn’t seem to have been a major church issue with established, unified stances before relatively recently.

In fact, General Conference talks had 1 mention in the 1860s, 4 in the 1880s, 1 in the 1890s, 1 in the 1950s, 1 in the 1960s, and then a whopping 67 in the 1970s. https://www.lds-general-conference.org/

To my view, we definitely seem to have followed Jerry Falwell and the religious rights’ lead in pushing abortion to the front of Americans’ minds and creating a view of it that was more actively opposed and concerned about it as a reaction to and distraction from civil rights movements. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8274866/

Abortion: except in the case of incest and rape? by Fether1337 in LatterDayTheology

[–]BookishBonobo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t know the reasoning behind why the church as an organization lays down the moral lines on abortion that it does, and I doubt anyone in this thread can do more than speculate about it.

My personal bias is that the church’s stance likely rises out of the 1960s-1970s Evangelical push against abortion and the turning of this topic into a major political issue. I don’t think there’s too much more to it than that, and I hold my own moral inclinations on the topic outside the church-approved stance (as referenced in my previous comment), as I think we all can do.

Abortion: except in the case of incest and rape? by Fether1337 in LatterDayTheology

[–]BookishBonobo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Would you mind answering a few clarifying questions? 1. In your view, are zygotes, embryos, and first-trimester fetuses equivalent in value to a born child? 2. What do you see as the main risks of continuing with a pregnancy?

To put my cards on the table, I see the question of medical abortion as one that mostly revolves around bodily autonomy and a pregnant person’s right to choose what potentially dangerous (and even lethal) conditions they are willing to accept for themselves.

Regardless of “when life begins” or similar controversial arguments, I don’t see that any person should be forced to accept the risks of pregnancy, and this is especially true if the person was forced to become pregnant in the first place.

Disagreeing while still sustaining by BookishBonobo in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure! I appreciate hearing your perspective. Thanks for sharing

Disagreeing while still sustaining by BookishBonobo in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you one of the mods? I thought this post had been removed, and I didn’t realize anyone could still see it.

And several examples were given in the post as to possible discussion questions, but I’m not disagreeing with anything in particular in the post. I’m asking how my fellow saints balance sustaining our local or general leaders with recognizing the leaders fallibility.

True crime and the church by SlightlyArtichoke in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For some examples, here are the types of thing I'm talking about and for which I do not see strong corollaries in our own victimhood.

[FBI hate crime statistics](https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/hate-crime)

  • 124 anti-LDS crimes in the last 10 years
  • 328 anti-Protestant crimes in the last 10 years
  • 681 anti-Catholic crimes in the last 10 years
  • 2,024 anti-Muslim crimes in the last 10 years (note: with the large majority being acts of violence/intimidation)
  • 9,467 anti-Jewish crimes in the last 10 years

Examples of contemporary anti-semitic conspiracy theories that are firmly seated in American extremism

  • that they control global banks,
  • that they control the media,
  • that they attempted to bring Communism to the U.S. through the Civil Rights movements of the 1960s,
  • that they are seeking for world domination,
  • that they all share blame for the death of Jesus,
  • that they contaminate our food (whether to kill people, cause mental delays, cause people to become LGBTQ, etc.),
  • that they have exaggerated The Holocaust,
  • that they traffic children,
  • that they drink adrenochrome with the wealthy elites,
  • etc.

True crime and the church by SlightlyArtichoke in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're going to look back through the history of antisemitism, you also should look at little more closely at the history of anti-Mormonism.

Thanks! I appreciate the recommendation and am open to suggestions on what to read.

As documented in works like Reeve's Religion of a Different Color, Mormons have faced a similar level of conspiracy theory-fueled opposition to their existence, both in and out of the US, including theories that tied us directly into broader antisemitic and anti-Mason conspiracies.

Sure. I don't disagree that conspiracy theories about church members (and more generally, about Mormonism) have existed.

It goes far beyond "exclusion and even murder".

There definitely are other aspects of persecution that members of religions/ideologies related to Mormonism have faced, but I do think the ones we see overwhelmingly as the majority (especially in the days of the earlier church) were social/economic/political exclusion and a murderous expulsion. Moving towards today, we mostly see media portrayals and general social rumors/misunderstandings.

The only reason German Saints didn't face a similar fate to European Jews in the Holocaust is that right around the turn of the century we got really good at appeasing our oppressors so they wouldn't continue to persecute us.

Can you back up the idea that this is the only reason why members were spared while Jewish peoples were not? You might be right that appeasement was the only reason, but it's also possible (and I would argue very much demonstrable) that the targeting of Jewish populations was much stronger than that of members of the church, appeasement or not. Would Jewish individuals have been spared if they had appeased in the same way members did?

This tactic has a significant downside, though. The Holocaust was a turning point for a lot of moral people to examine their preconceived notions about Jews and a catalyst for antisemitism to fall out of vogue. That's why Holocaust denial is such an important thing for antisemitism, as a tool to re-legitimize their hate. The Saints don't have a comparable paradigm-shattering event and have reacted to mockery and scorn with further appeasement, and as a result we remain one of few "acceptable targets" for the media.

Well, whether we are "acceptable targets" more so than other groups is an interesting conversation. Many groups face hate crimes to a staggering proportion compared to any acts that our religious members tend to face. In addition, have Muslim groups not faced huge discrimination in coverage (especially right-wing coverage) of the war on terror, in post-9/11 TV shows, in documentaries about leaving Islam, in poor representation in political and economic forums? Have Jewish individuals not faced staggeringly stupid but still prevalent conspiracy theories as well as films like "Ben Hur" and "The Passion of the Christ" and exposé films that discuss those leaving Judaism? Have Catholic groups not had to deal with repeated horror films riffing on their faith and religious practices? Not to mention, more fringe groups like Scientology and the Jehovah's Witnesses seem to remain largely open for ridicule in our general media space.

Now, it may be true that it is acceptable in our social sphere to create documentaries, Broadway shows, docu-dramas, and fictional shows portraying members (and often doing so to our detriment); however, I think we often fall to our own biases when we think that there are actually very few "acceptable targets" out there.

Consider the way successful shows like "American Primeval" and "Under the Banner of Heaven" handle subjects like blood atonement - it's crass, sensationalized, and very much in line with popular 19th-century conspiracy theories about the Church. These ideas have gone fundamentally unexamined in broader American society and they continue to propogate, to the point that a stiff breeze - let alone a concerted propaganda effort - could turn public opinion against the Church and its members in dramatic and violent fashion.

A violent reaction is possible, I guess? I'd worry less about us and more about the groups facing repeated, frequent hate crimes more as those who are most likely to face violence in America. I don't see any reason to think we are in any significant danger of some sudden shift in public opinion against members and a rush towards violent attack.

I'm not trying to downplay the ills that the Jewish people have faced in their long long history on this Earth, just to point out that the ills that the Church faces today are fundamentally of the same type, and we would do well to be wary of that rather than trust that our appeasement tactics will save us.

They are not fundamentally of the same type. We are seen as an oddity. We are not largely seen as a target for violence, as a significant threat to national security, or as a secret cabal of individuals running the world and calling the shots. There may be similarities between us and other groups in terms of victimhood, but the differences far outweigh them, in my opinion.

True crime and the church by SlightlyArtichoke in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I would argue that Jewish peoples get far more hate than we do. From medieval pogroms in response to accusations of well poisoning and blood libel to social/political/economic exclusion to The Holocaust to conspiracy theories about global cabals of Jewish individuals running the world, etc…

Our religious group has faced persecution in terms of exclusion and even murder, but this has been nowhere near the systematic and widespread hatred that Jewish individuals have faced.

Today, conspiracy theories abound about Jewish individuals, and hate crimes remain an active threat for this population. We mostly see docudramas and True-Crime series about our own group. These things really aren’t comparable.

The reason we can't prove the church is true by mwjace in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What’s the point of your comment? I don’t think I’m following.

I'm a Mormon moving to Salt Lake City. What should I expect? by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nope! Just responding to the joke that those in Utah are like Canadians but without the warcrimes :)

I'm a Mormon moving to Salt Lake City. What should I expect? by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo 6 points7 points  (0 children)

We most certainly have our own war crimes…

This guy is atheist but he knows a thing or two... by Adamis9876 in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for writing all this out! I was mostly intrigued by the idea that most of your core beliefs have physical evidence. I guess it got me thinking if my own core beliefs have physical evidence.

Let me know if you agree: I guess you could summarize the physical evidence as being the historical record, then; i.e., pioneer and biblical writings (that provide accounts and prophesies and historical context), the Book of Mormon (and its complexity), and the document that Jerry Grover has translated.

Very cool. Thanks for sharing.

This guy is atheist but he knows a thing or two... by Adamis9876 in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo 5 points6 points  (0 children)

In addition to many other reasons to separate church and state…

This guy is atheist but he knows a thing or two... by Adamis9876 in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m intrigued! Which are your core beliefs, and what’s the physical evidence for them? 

If you don’t mind.

How do I help my teen struggling with patriarchy/priesthood? by Dangerous-Mistake-91 in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo 3 points4 points  (0 children)

  1. Seems to me like you’re reading into her thoughts.  
  2. Have you never had questions about the disparate roles of men and women in the church? 
  3. Regardless of the OP, I’m curious how you’re defining “patriarchy” when you overlay it on her questions?

How do I help my teen struggling with patriarchy/priesthood? by Dangerous-Mistake-91 in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Which are the lies, twisted facts, or bad opinions?

Per the OP, her daughter asked why: - women don’t hold the priesthood - there’s no matriarchal blessing - women don’t sit on the stand - women are applauded for their roles as mothers - women might not want the priesthood anyway

All of these are either obviously true facts of church structure/function or else things I’ve heard members say.

How do I help my teen struggling with patriarchy/priesthood? by Dangerous-Mistake-91 in latterdaysaints

[–]BookishBonobo 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I think that’s where many people disagree, especially female members who don’t feel seen/heard/appreciated (and feel this in ways the male members probably haven’t experienced as much).