<p>No laughter was intended. coureur understood exactly what I meant. There were no witticisms or condemnations or criticisms. It just sometimes helps to turn the tables and understand that others may see you in the same light that you see them.</p>
<p>Actually, razorsharp, female genital mutilation generally occurs on girls who are about five years old. Not like that makes it any better…</p>
<p>Just because people have strong religious convictions does not mean that those ideals are above reproach.</p>
<p>Taking young girls as brides (many times against their will) at age 13 and impregnating them (because even if said young women are brainwashed enough to think they want a baby, they are still babies themselves), honor killings, stonings, genital mutilation, and any of the other horrific actions carried out in the name of G-d, deserve nothing but condemnation.</p>
<p>Human rights abuses should not be above reproach, even if people feel they are sanctioned by their religious practice.</p>
<p>So sorry to be “pious and indignant.” As someone pointed out, Mr. Jeffs is not part of the mainstream LDS church. Therefore we did not require the illumination on the part of our resident intelligentsia that we should not laugh at the LDS church’s founding because of how ridiculous the origins of Christianity are. Finally, comparing the activities of Mr. Jeffs to certain beliefs of Catholicism is outrageous.</p>
<p>There is no gentler and kinder soul on this forum than digmedia. Dig, not only do I totally understand the point you were making, but I agree with it thoroughly. The harsh criticism of your well-intended post was unnecessary. ~berurah</p>
<p>Again turning the tables, don’t many Jews and Christians practice what some would refer to as “infant male genital mutilation?”</p>
<p>And again, the point is that what we might consider normal, others may not. </p>
<p>
I agree.</p>
<p>
This was, I believe the offending line–already dismantled by Marite in post #35. </p>
<p>I’m sure, given a moment of calm reflection, D-M would have retracted this jejune remark seeing it as an intentional and misguided attempt to needlessly offend.</p>
<p>As to the horrors committed by people against people: it does no good to offer them a metaphysical defense against their crimes, when not even their own conscience would offer them any respite. It may be that a bad person will find minute justifications of their behavior by appealing to sacred texts that have, on the whole, enlightened their civilizations; but these are bad people who would have been bad no matter what set of principals they embraced while running rough-shod over the lives of others. </p>
<p>At this moment, Islam is being savaged by bad, amoral people; it is yet to be seen whether or not the center has held, or can be held. Much of the world’s spirit and energy is being waged over this grave question of civilization. </p>
<p>Still, we have little delinquents with pee-shooters letting spitballs fly indiscriminately this way and that, aimed at monsters like 9-11 bomber Mohammed El-Amir Awad el Sayid Atta and Holy women like the Virgin Mary; from genital mutilation to praying in the name of saints: they see no distinction worth making.</p>
<p>I say, this is a college forum, lets at least act as if we are educated.</p>
<p>hereshoping - I was only referring to myself as being overly pious and indignant. I apologize for making you think I was referring to you.</p>
<p>I know there is a difference between the mainstream LDS in SLC and the fringe polygamy sects found mostly in Southern Utah. But I do disagree with many of the founding beliefs of the Church of LDS including the teachings that the American Indians and African Americans were cursed with dark skin because they fell from favor with God. It just bugs me. But I’m sure there are things about Lutheranism and Christianity that bugs people too. If so, rather than castigate those people, as I have done it the past, I’d like to hear it and discuss it.</p>
<p>My mistake. The phrase “Disgusting to me” was referring to the concept of polygamists marrying children. I apologize for the association my wording did imply. But then as marite pointed out, the thinking on marrying age has changed over time.</p>
<p>Dig - I really don’t think that you can compare female genital mutilation (which is downplayed by reference to “female circumcision”) and circumcision. In one, the girls’ bodies are literally mutilated - they can barely pee, they have their periods for two weeks, they have infections, and the entire point is to make intercourse extraordinarily painful so that they don’t run about on their husbands. Any religious “justification” is a justification for destroying the bodies of girls in ways that would simply not be tolerated of men nor of beasts. </p>
<p>Male circumcision does not interfere with normal bodily functions; causes only short pain; and is a hygenic issue. It is not designed to make intercourse as horribly painful as possible.</p>
<p>Hum… hygiene v. repression. I am not religious. Frankly, I don’t care if people think that their religion demands that they sip wine every week along with eating a small piece of dried bread; if their religion demand that they fast, or, if their bodies cannot tolerate the fasting, find another way to sacrifice; or if their religion demands a circumcision. In all cases, the body is left in sound, functioning condition afterwards, as it is our duties as sentient creatures to do for each other. Religion does not excuse anyone from that mandate, IMO.</p>
<p>–
RE: marrying age. While I think that it’s reprehensible, any way you cut it, to be married at age 14, there’s at least some social justification for it that is entirely absent with pre-pubescent girls. In times when people never lived very long, getting married and having babies when physically able to do so wasn’t the worst of ideas that we’ve come up with. Six-year-old girls, though… most laws (for millenia) have not recognized the ability to form consent (in the legal sense or as the ability to sin) until age 7.</p>
<p>ariesathena -</p>
<p>I agree with your points totally. I do not think circumcision compares with FGM, but there are some people say that. Everyone: Please do not think that because I exchange the words inside the sentences we all use, that I either agree or condone the resulting sentences. I am just trying to show that another view can be easily demonstrated.</p>
<p>FS and others: One of the dangers in doing what I did (trying to cast our own beliefs in the same syntactic structure that we use with the beliefs of others) is I could be accused of thinking that there is no higher moral weight to one side or the other. That is very far from the truth. As a matter of fact, there is an easy way to tell what’s right from what’s wrong for most situations: Would anyone be hurt (physically or emotionally) by one choice vs another.</p>
<p>
hereshoping - I am especially sorry that you have interpreted my remarks in the way you have. I never like to offend anyone.</p>
<p>btw, I am NOT part of the “resident intelligencia” here. Some of these people can put together an “essay” of a post that puts my simple ideas to shame.</p>
<p>Oh my gosh, by typing your user name, I just realized the parsing mistake I was making: Now I see it’s “Here’s Hoping,” but my eyes never really took the time to see that. I thought you were “Here Shopping.” :)</p>
<p>Dig, for at least the first 20 of HH’s posts (that I read), I thought her name was “Here Shopping” as well. Maybe it is just the power shopper in me that was attracted to that name…</p>
<p>It wasn’t just in the origins of the LDS church that were troubling regarding blacks- why did it take till 1978 to have a “revelation” allowing black males to hold the priesthood?
*Finally, on June 9,1978 the Mormon Church’s Deseret News carried a startling announcement by the First Presidency which said that a new revelation had been given and that blacks would be allowed to hold the priesthood:</p>
<p>"…we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the upper room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.
“He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.” (Deseret News, June 9, 1978, page 1A)*</p>
<p>^
I guess this ‘convenient’ nature of the revelations is what bothers me. In the case of the 1978 revelation, the Mormon Church was feeling political heat for being a racist organization. And when the church officially abandoned polygamy, it was in order to gain statehood for Utah…but conveniently, they also had a revelation about it.</p>
<p>zoosermom–re the meaning of the word “sect”:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Heavens (if you believe in heaven) no! Since your definition was #2 in the hierarchy of the dictionary and mine was #4–and my understanding is that the placement of the definition is based on usage (with lower # equaling higher usage)–YOU WIN!!</p>
<p>I remember an apology Alex Trebek made on Jeopardy once. A viewer wrote in to complain about the name of a category–“Hindu Mythology.” His complaint was that it wasn’t “mythology” to him–it was religion.</p>
<p>All of which reminded me, in a re-phrasing of dig’s thoughts, one man’s religion is another man’s mythology…</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The problem with running a church that has continuing revelation as a foundation is that nothing big will get changed without there being a revelation supporting the change to be made. The members expect it.</p>
<p>And, judging from the EK quote, revelation to change something big starts with a groundswell of need and support on the lower levels, which then gets taken to “the higher level”, which then will lead to a revelation (hopefully).</p>
<p>Seen that way, the revelations will always seem “convenient.”</p>
<p>Even with the change, the African American Mormons are relatively rare (Gladys Knight withstanding). Most of the growth of Mormons of African descent is occurring in Brazil and in Africa.</p>
<p>Not sure why non-Jews in US and elsewhere circumsize males…obviously, it is a cultural thing without a religious basis. Glad I only had girls…because the cultural bias towards circumcision in the US is strong.</p>
<p>lmnop:
</p>
<p>At the risk of offending people (but not many Shakers), this is one of the most flawed religions ever conceived (pun intended). I’m sure women can come up with better ones (such as a couple of posters have proposed).</p>
<p>For those not familiar with Shakers, they’re the ones who essentially eliminated themselves by believing in strict celibacy.</p>
<p>On a serious note - most of these one-off sects/cults are very self-serving to either an individual (the founder) or a group (men, for example). The amazing and sad thing to me is that they seem to always be able to find followers because there are always some ‘lost’ individuals looking to believe in something regardless of how illogical it is. One of these not far from where I live were the were the Heaven’s Gate people who commited mass suicide believing they were going to a spaceship next to a comet. There are endless examples of these.</p>