👍 You're one of the few Mormons who honestly and objectively views his faith and doctrine. Most Mormons would rather stab a pencil through their eye than make a critical remark about the church. The church (and in a broader sense, the world) could use more people like you.
Any returned Mormon missionaries out there?
- Thread starter Petek
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 446
- Reaction score
- 0
Nice post. Nice story. There are two families from my mission that I love with all my heart. There was a branch president on my mission for whom I have the most respect of anyone I think I've ever known. You make some good friends and meet some phenomenal, impressive people on a mission.
I had a set of friends here, one mormon family, one non-mormon family. The non-mormon family stopped hanging out with the mormon family after beoming offended when the mormon family tried to get them to take the missionary discussions. They found it to be condescending. I asked them to look at it in another light. The mormon family liked them so much that they wanted to share something that so enriched their lives that they were willing to risk the friendship in order to share it with them. They were doing it because they wanted what they believed to be the best for thier friends. They were doing it with the best of intentions because they cared. Looking at it in this light, they were able to rekindle their freindship.
- Joined
- May 2, 2004
- Messages
- 249
- Reaction score
- 1
The joys of being a physician are that unless you are providing emergent care you are only responsible to yourself in deciding who you will and will not treat. You are NOT required by law to treat anyone (unless emergancy care or a previous doctor-patient relationship has been established, of which there are protocols to follow to terminate that relationship). That being the law, every physician will decide who they are willing to treat within their own moral and ethical considerations. The AMA does have suggestions and by-laws, however the AMA is just a professional organization. That being said, I personally will have little problem treating homosexuals or lesbians
"I think my use of the word "hateful" has gotten some people excited. I don't think that mormon church officials or members necessarily have "hate" as their goal. The unfortunate result of thier actions, though, cause much pain and suffering to gay families. They may think they are doing this out of kindly spiritual conviction, but from the outside it looks egocentric, unthoughtful, and lacking pragmatism."
Do you really think the church is placing a lot of stock in whether the outside world approves of their position on homosexual marriage? Do you think the leadership turns to the world for approval? They are simply standing for truth. I am assuming items here, so correct me if I am wrong, but as a former/current member of the church would you expect anything else?
To address the loss of benefits; auto and home, medical decisions, inheritance, property tax and many more of these "1000" benefits are still available with correct legal paperwork. I acknowledge the loss of many healthcare, social security, veterans benefits, but other people make decisions that require them to miss out these same benefits, i.e social security is lacking/missing for the majority of self-employeed individuals and their spouses, they have choosen to be self-employeed anyway. Domestic violence protection doesn't readily exist for any males in our society, homosexuals are not unique. Finally, none of the above mentioned items are human rights, instead they are priviliges, which are denied other people without regard to age, sex, religion etc. Equal representation under the law is a grey area that is in need of clarification. I don't believe that homosexuals are any less human, that they should be denied the right to live and participate in society except when it comes to the institution of marriage.
I'm not sure what the appropriate word is to describe a position that aims to remove health care benefits, social security benefits, auto and home insurance, hospital visitation and medical decisions, inheritance, property tax benefits, veterans discounts, bereavement and sick leave for spouse or child, domestic violence protection, judicial protections, and more among over 1000 benefits given to married couples and their children. Perhaps "hateful" was too strong a word. Pick your own word if you like: maybe "short-sighted", "selfish", "unchristian"."
"Unchristian" would be the term used today to describe Jesus's actions with regards to the money changers in His Fathers temple. Additionally Capt. *****i's actions would appear as unchrist-like in his zealousness to protect the "rights and liberty" of his people. Today it is not so physical a fight but it is just as real. (Alma 46)
7 And there were many in the church who believed in the flattering words of Amalickiah, therefore they dissented even from the church; and thus were the affairs of the people of Nephi exceedingly precarious and dangerous, notwithstanding their great victory which they had had over the Lamanites, and their great rejoicings which they had had because of their deliverance by the hand of the Lord.
8 Thus we see how quick the children of men do forget the Lord their God, yea, how quick to do iniquity, and to be led away by the evil one.
9 Yea, and we also see the great awickedness one very wicked man can cause to take place among the children of men.
10 Yea, we see that Amalickiah, because he was a man of cunning device and a man of many flattering words, that he led away the hearts of many people to do wickedly; yea, and to seek to destroy the church of God, and to destroy the foundation of liberty which God had granted unto them, or which blessing God had sent upon the face of the land for the righteous' sake.
"I think my use of the word "hateful" has gotten some people excited. I don't think that mormon church officials or members necessarily have "hate" as their goal. The unfortunate result of thier actions, though, cause much pain and suffering to gay families. They may think they are doing this out of kindly spiritual conviction, but from the outside it looks egocentric, unthoughtful, and lacking pragmatism."
Do you really think the church is placing a lot of stock in whether the outside world approves of their position on homosexual marriage? Do you think the leadership turns to the world for approval? They are simply standing for truth. I am assuming items here, so correct me if I am wrong, but as a former/current member of the church would you expect anything else?
To address the loss of benefits; auto and home, medical decisions, inheritance, property tax and many more of these "1000" benefits are still available with correct legal paperwork. I acknowledge the loss of many healthcare, social security, veterans benefits, but other people make decisions that require them to miss out these same benefits, i.e social security is lacking/missing for the majority of self-employeed individuals and their spouses, they have choosen to be self-employeed anyway. Domestic violence protection doesn't readily exist for any males in our society, homosexuals are not unique. Finally, none of the above mentioned items are human rights, instead they are priviliges, which are denied other people without regard to age, sex, religion etc. Equal representation under the law is a grey area that is in need of clarification. I don't believe that homosexuals are any less human, that they should be denied the right to live and participate in society except when it comes to the institution of marriage.
I'm not sure what the appropriate word is to describe a position that aims to remove health care benefits, social security benefits, auto and home insurance, hospital visitation and medical decisions, inheritance, property tax benefits, veterans discounts, bereavement and sick leave for spouse or child, domestic violence protection, judicial protections, and more among over 1000 benefits given to married couples and their children. Perhaps "hateful" was too strong a word. Pick your own word if you like: maybe "short-sighted", "selfish", "unchristian"."
"Unchristian" would be the term used today to describe Jesus's actions with regards to the money changers in His Fathers temple. Additionally Capt. *****i's actions would appear as unchrist-like in his zealousness to protect the "rights and liberty" of his people. Today it is not so physical a fight but it is just as real. (Alma 46)
7 And there were many in the church who believed in the flattering words of Amalickiah, therefore they dissented even from the church; and thus were the affairs of the people of Nephi exceedingly precarious and dangerous, notwithstanding their great victory which they had had over the Lamanites, and their great rejoicings which they had had because of their deliverance by the hand of the Lord.
8 Thus we see how quick the children of men do forget the Lord their God, yea, how quick to do iniquity, and to be led away by the evil one.
9 Yea, and we also see the great awickedness one very wicked man can cause to take place among the children of men.
10 Yea, we see that Amalickiah, because he was a man of cunning device and a man of many flattering words, that he led away the hearts of many people to do wickedly; yea, and to seek to destroy the church of God, and to destroy the foundation of liberty which God had granted unto them, or which blessing God had sent upon the face of the land for the righteous' sake.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 446
- Reaction score
- 0
tegs15: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well, at least we let 'em live. Read the MA court decision -- they thought it was a right. Read the WA and NY decisions -- they thought is was right, but that gays hadn't proven finer points of thier case, so referred it back to the legislature. Prison inmates are allowed to get married because a court decided it was a "right". Seriosly, though, we'll go on forever here if we try to argue fine points of law and the meaning of right vs. privilege.
I prefer now to make an appeal to your common human decency. What is there to gain by denying health care, etc. to children of gay parents? It helps absolutely no one, but hurts many real people on a daily basis. Mormons won't cease to exist. Your marriage won't be dissolved. At worst, your moral sensibilities might have thier spidey sense go off. For so many other people, thier daily lives, thier children's future, thier day to day happiness is impacted severely. In short, it is just plain mean. If you don't see this, or worse, if you do see this but don't care about it, then I don't think there is any point in continuing the discussion.
(Actually, I'd prefer to get on to other topics with RM's about more medically related issues anyway, so this, I hope will be the last of this part of the thread.)
I prefer now to make an appeal to your common human decency. What is there to gain by denying health care, etc. to children of gay parents? It helps absolutely no one, but hurts many real people on a daily basis. Mormons won't cease to exist. Your marriage won't be dissolved. At worst, your moral sensibilities might have thier spidey sense go off. For so many other people, thier daily lives, thier children's future, thier day to day happiness is impacted severely. In short, it is just plain mean. If you don't see this, or worse, if you do see this but don't care about it, then I don't think there is any point in continuing the discussion.
(Actually, I'd prefer to get on to other topics with RM's about more medically related issues anyway, so this, I hope will be the last of this part of the thread.)
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 446
- Reaction score
- 0
These types of questions are important ones for everyone. In medicine we may be asked to do things that don't sit perfectly with our own beliefs. For example, no matter what your religous upbringing, I think many people would shy away from actually performing an abortion. My political/policy view on this is not the same as my personal view. I think it should be legal (for complex, nuanced reasons), but wouldn't encourage a family member or friend to have one, and would be beyond distressed if I actually had to perform one.
I'm curious how others feel about some areas of medicine that may be difficult to reconcile with moral/religious beliefs.
1) How would you handle others' religious beliefs that don't allow blood transfusions or use of medication (by the way, mormons don't believe this)?
2) Would you be comfortable and engaged in providing quality health care to gay folk and their families?
3) Would you be comfortable working in a field or community with high numbers of drug abusers and patients with std's?
4) Would you be comfortable performing an elective abortion? An abortion to save the mother? Referring someone to another doctor for an abortion? Subscribing the morning after pill?
5) Would you be comfortable administering a lethal injection to a death row inmate? (I believe a physician does this, right?)
Is it possible to avoid these situations if your moral convictions make you truly incapable of doing them?
What do you guys think?
- Joined
- May 2, 2004
- Messages
- 249
- Reaction score
- 1
I will be happy to move along, however these are issues that RMs and all other med students will be faced with relatively early in their education. Knowing that we have choosen to discuss the more religious aspect, actually I have mentioned it with little response. Any way I will return to studing as I have a micro/cell bio/biochem test tomorrow. Have a great evening.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 446
- Reaction score
- 0
Here are my responses (to my own questions 🙂 ) :
1)
-Don't know how I'd handle a parent refusing treatment for a child. I'm uncertain of the laws. It's a question of thier morals against yours. They believe it's morally wrong to take blood. I beleive it's morally wrong to allow a child to suffer or die when simple, modern medical intervention with nearly 0% risk can save the day. Would it be infringing on parental rights to force treatment? This is an area where I think religious zeal leads to unfortunate consequences in the real world.
2)
-Obviously, I won't have any problem working with gay folk and their families.
3)
-I would be happy to work with drug abusers and std patients. These people are often victims of circumstance, lack of education, etc. They need our help and compassion as much as anyone.
4)
- I don't think I could perfom an elective abortion myself, but could do one to save the mother. I just feel I couldn't handle it emotionally. I could refer to another doctor. I could prescribe the pill.
5)
- I would never do lethal injection. I would go back to my old job first.
1)
-Don't know how I'd handle a parent refusing treatment for a child. I'm uncertain of the laws. It's a question of thier morals against yours. They believe it's morally wrong to take blood. I beleive it's morally wrong to allow a child to suffer or die when simple, modern medical intervention with nearly 0% risk can save the day. Would it be infringing on parental rights to force treatment? This is an area where I think religious zeal leads to unfortunate consequences in the real world.
2)
-Obviously, I won't have any problem working with gay folk and their families.
3)
-I would be happy to work with drug abusers and std patients. These people are often victims of circumstance, lack of education, etc. They need our help and compassion as much as anyone.
4)
- I don't think I could perfom an elective abortion myself, but could do one to save the mother. I just feel I couldn't handle it emotionally. I could refer to another doctor. I could prescribe the pill.
5)
- I would never do lethal injection. I would go back to my old job first.
- Joined
- May 2, 2004
- Messages
- 249
- Reaction score
- 1
1) How would you handle others' religious beliefs that don't allow blood transfusions or use of medication (by the way, mormons don't believe this)?
Luckily there is alot of legal precedence already for this one. It is the patients right to refuse anything for themselves, when depedents/minors are involved for relatively standard procedures (LP, blood transfusion etc., non-experimental) the courts are quick to approve a physicians request if the parents are unwilling. Quick, as in hours if an emergancy situation.
2) Would you be comfortable and engaged in providing quality health care to gay folk and their families? I would be more comfortable with singles or couples. Honestly I would have difficulty treating children of a gay/lesbian relationship. Why, I can't really say...it would just be very uncomfortable for me.
3) Would you be comfortable working in a field or community with high numbers of drug abusers and patients with std's?
I would prefer not to. That being said the ER is a common place of treatment for these individuals and teched in one for three years without any real concern.
4) Would you be comfortable performing an elective abortion? An abortion to save the mother? Referring someone to another doctor for an abortion? Subscribing the morning after pill?
None of the above. I would inform the patients that I am not comfortable with these medical decision and they would need to find another provider for those services.
5) Would you be comfortable administering a lethal injection to a death row inmate? (I believe a physician does this, right?)
The fact the physicians in California were recently asked to give the injections instead of observe has stopped all executions because the physicians have refused to participate.
Luckily there is alot of legal precedence already for this one. It is the patients right to refuse anything for themselves, when depedents/minors are involved for relatively standard procedures (LP, blood transfusion etc., non-experimental) the courts are quick to approve a physicians request if the parents are unwilling. Quick, as in hours if an emergancy situation.
2) Would you be comfortable and engaged in providing quality health care to gay folk and their families? I would be more comfortable with singles or couples. Honestly I would have difficulty treating children of a gay/lesbian relationship. Why, I can't really say...it would just be very uncomfortable for me.
3) Would you be comfortable working in a field or community with high numbers of drug abusers and patients with std's?
I would prefer not to. That being said the ER is a common place of treatment for these individuals and teched in one for three years without any real concern.
4) Would you be comfortable performing an elective abortion? An abortion to save the mother? Referring someone to another doctor for an abortion? Subscribing the morning after pill?
None of the above. I would inform the patients that I am not comfortable with these medical decision and they would need to find another provider for those services.
5) Would you be comfortable administering a lethal injection to a death row inmate? (I believe a physician does this, right?)
The fact the physicians in California were recently asked to give the injections instead of observe has stopped all executions because the physicians have refused to participate.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 446
- Reaction score
- 0
I just thought of another question about birth control. I'm all for birth control and condoms. Cut down on the need for for elective abortions and reduce the risk of various STDs.
Here's the full list if anyone else want to play. 😀
1) How would you handle others' religious beliefs that don't allow blood transfusions or use of medication (by the way, mormons don't believe this)?
2) Would you be comfortable and engaged in providing quality health care to gay folk and their families?
3) Would you be comfortable working in a field or community with high numbers of drug abusers and patients with std's?
4) Would you be comfortable performing an elective abortion? An abortion to save the mother? Referring someone to another doctor for an abortion? Subscribing the morning after pill?
5) Would you be comfortable administering a lethal injection to a death row inmate? (I believe a physician does this, right?)
6) Would you be comfortable prescribing birth control? Offering condoms, etc.? Performing a vasectomy?
Here's the full list if anyone else want to play. 😀
1) How would you handle others' religious beliefs that don't allow blood transfusions or use of medication (by the way, mormons don't believe this)?
2) Would you be comfortable and engaged in providing quality health care to gay folk and their families?
3) Would you be comfortable working in a field or community with high numbers of drug abusers and patients with std's?
4) Would you be comfortable performing an elective abortion? An abortion to save the mother? Referring someone to another doctor for an abortion? Subscribing the morning after pill?
5) Would you be comfortable administering a lethal injection to a death row inmate? (I believe a physician does this, right?)
6) Would you be comfortable prescribing birth control? Offering condoms, etc.? Performing a vasectomy?
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,812
- Reaction score
- 8
I don't vote for things that would impede someone else's religious practice, as america was founded upon the ideal of religious freedom. my religion believes that it is a sin to eat animals, because they have eternal souls just like us . . . however I recognize that it would be preposterous to try and impose my moral on everyone else because it would restrict the practice of their spiritual beliefs. If a lawmaker suggested that we outlaw the consumption of animal products in the united states I would vote against that law, despite my personal moral convictions, as I do not believe I have the right to dictate my morals to the rest of the country. The government is designed to protect our personal freedoms from impedement, not to restrict them. Two men having a marriage performed (outside of your church) doesn't impede upon anyone elses freedoms, and therefore cannot be restricted by the government based on the ideals of our constitution just because their action violates your personal religious beliefs.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2006
- Messages
- 414
- Reaction score
- 2
1) How would you handle others' religious beliefs that don't allow blood transfusions or use of medication (by the way, mormons don't believe this)?
Patients have a right to refuse treatment.
2) Would you be comfortable and engaged in providing quality health care to gay folk and their families?
I'd be perfectly fine with it.
3) Would you be comfortable working in a field or community with high numbers of drug abusers and patients with std's?
No problem. That's what standard precautions are for.
4) Would you be comfortable performing an elective abortion? An abortion to save the mother? Referring someone to another doctor for an abortion? Subscribing the morning after pill?
Not to save my life. I would explain all the family's options, the pro's and con's of each decision, and give my medical and personal opinions. If they still wanted the abortion, they will be referred to someone else.
5) Would you be comfortable administering a lethal injection to a death row inmate? (I believe a physician does this, right?)
Hasn't the AMA come out and said they will kick out any physician that participates in this. I think the physicians who participate are usually kept anonymous for that reason.
6) Would you be comfortable prescribing birth control? Offering condoms, etc.? Performing a vasectomy?
No problem. I do beleive that couples should have as many children as they can handle and afford. Planned parenthood, to me, is an important part of this. Besides that, there are so many women who use birth control to help them be more regular. I'm not so sure about offering condoms. They aren't very expensive and can be picked up at any grocery sotre/WalMart/etc. Go buy your own!! Performing a vasectomy... I doubt I will go into that field, so I'd probably have to refer them after explaining all their alternatives.
Patients have a right to refuse treatment.
2) Would you be comfortable and engaged in providing quality health care to gay folk and their families?
I'd be perfectly fine with it.
3) Would you be comfortable working in a field or community with high numbers of drug abusers and patients with std's?
No problem. That's what standard precautions are for.
4) Would you be comfortable performing an elective abortion? An abortion to save the mother? Referring someone to another doctor for an abortion? Subscribing the morning after pill?
Not to save my life. I would explain all the family's options, the pro's and con's of each decision, and give my medical and personal opinions. If they still wanted the abortion, they will be referred to someone else.
5) Would you be comfortable administering a lethal injection to a death row inmate? (I believe a physician does this, right?)
Hasn't the AMA come out and said they will kick out any physician that participates in this. I think the physicians who participate are usually kept anonymous for that reason.
6) Would you be comfortable prescribing birth control? Offering condoms, etc.? Performing a vasectomy?
No problem. I do beleive that couples should have as many children as they can handle and afford. Planned parenthood, to me, is an important part of this. Besides that, there are so many women who use birth control to help them be more regular. I'm not so sure about offering condoms. They aren't very expensive and can be picked up at any grocery sotre/WalMart/etc. Go buy your own!! Performing a vasectomy... I doubt I will go into that field, so I'd probably have to refer them after explaining all their alternatives.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2006
- Messages
- 414
- Reaction score
- 2
If you truly believe that no religion should be restricted, you probably have no problem with fanatics like Bin Laden that use religion as a cover. Their religious beliefs are that killing Americans will bring them rewards. I doubt your religious beliefs include killing Amercians, but does that person have the right to practice what he/she believes? No. Democracies are run by the people. Mormons make a very small dent in the polls in America. Anything that we believe will not be passed into law without a majority of people thinking the same way we do. If the majority of Americans vote against homosexual marriage, then, we as a society have decided not to allow it. We have also decided not to tolerate religious beliefs that include death of americans. Let democracy endure. Let people vote for what they think is right or wrong.
Alma 10: 19
19 Yea, well did Mosiah say, who was our last king, when he was about to deliver up the kingdom, having no one to confer it upon, causing that this people should be governed by their own voicesyea, well did he say that if the time should come that the voice of this people should choose iniquity, that is, if the time should come that this people should fall into transgression, they would be ripe for destruction.
Sao Paulo Brazil 1997 - 1999
Back to the OPs original question. I can say that the mission helped me to understand myself better. I learned how to better communicate with people I don't know, with people whose dearest beliefs were different than mine. I learned that there are certain things that are keys to any responsibility. In the mission those keys were to teach first faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, second Repentance, third Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, forth laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
One thing that I can say we have all learned is to be passionate about things that are close to our hearts, hopes and minds. These are qualities that relate to medicine. We served missions as young adults because it required faith. We didn't know everything and that was the beauty of it. we had our lives in front of us become experts in the gospel.
As medical students we have to go on what is put in front of us also. We don't have all the answers. We've not been put in every possible situation that we will face as physicians, but we can take to heart what we learn in our educational youth. We can use these principles, ie. biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, pathology to bring a chance to save a life the same way we carried the message of faith and repentance to save souls.
One thing I am sure of is that the day will come when we will all know with certainty, whether we are right or whether we've been deceived. May God bless us all in the meantime to be able to learn what we must to help preserve life and serve others. 🙂
Back to the OPs original question. I can say that the mission helped me to understand myself better. I learned how to better communicate with people I don't know, with people whose dearest beliefs were different than mine. I learned that there are certain things that are keys to any responsibility. In the mission those keys were to teach first faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, second Repentance, third Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, forth laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
One thing that I can say we have all learned is to be passionate about things that are close to our hearts, hopes and minds. These are qualities that relate to medicine. We served missions as young adults because it required faith. We didn't know everything and that was the beauty of it. we had our lives in front of us become experts in the gospel.
As medical students we have to go on what is put in front of us also. We don't have all the answers. We've not been put in every possible situation that we will face as physicians, but we can take to heart what we learn in our educational youth. We can use these principles, ie. biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, pathology to bring a chance to save a life the same way we carried the message of faith and repentance to save souls.
One thing I am sure of is that the day will come when we will all know with certainty, whether we are right or whether we've been deceived. May God bless us all in the meantime to be able to learn what we must to help preserve life and serve others. 🙂
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 0
GoodDoctor,
I don't know who the heck you are or what church you go to but I never experienced anything like you have mentioned in your posts and I have lived in 14 states and 3 countries and have been an active member all my life (and yes I did serve a mission). Its clear from your posts you have some personal issues with the Church and need to really take a look why your a member (if you still are). Your ideas and supposed facts are misleading and untrue. Good luck bro. The church I attend has never hated on gays or any minority and has instead expressed love towards them (and I have never attended a sacrament meeting where any of the sentiments you listed have been expressed). Yes we may disagree with their lifestyle but that does not equate to hating them. Also politically the church officially remains neutral and never tells its members how to vote (just to set the record straight).
I don't know who the heck you are or what church you go to but I never experienced anything like you have mentioned in your posts and I have lived in 14 states and 3 countries and have been an active member all my life (and yes I did serve a mission). Its clear from your posts you have some personal issues with the Church and need to really take a look why your a member (if you still are). Your ideas and supposed facts are misleading and untrue. Good luck bro. The church I attend has never hated on gays or any minority and has instead expressed love towards them (and I have never attended a sacrament meeting where any of the sentiments you listed have been expressed). Yes we may disagree with their lifestyle but that does not equate to hating them. Also politically the church officially remains neutral and never tells its members how to vote (just to set the record straight).
- Joined
- May 1, 2006
- Messages
- 918
- Reaction score
- 22
My sentiments exactly. I have never heard a general conference talk where any kind of hateful sentiment towards gays was expressed. I think the Proclamation to the World on the Family puts it best "we believe marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God".
Regarding the OP, my mission didn't exactly mold my desire to be a physician, but it helped me to grow up and learn to like working with other people.
Regarding the OP, my mission didn't exactly mold my desire to be a physician, but it helped me to grow up and learn to like working with other people.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2006
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 0
While the church emphasizes its political neutrality during elections, it is active in encouraging grass roots efforts to promote or discourage voting on ammendments regarding issues such as marriage.
France Paris 2001-2002
My mission prepared me to be open to the idea of medicine as a career, it didn't directly lead me to medicine, but confirmed my desire to be in a field that helps all types of people in a very direct way (such as medicine). I think ADCOMS are impressed by missionary service if it is presented modestly as just one of several ECs related to leadership/service.
France Paris 2001-2002
My mission prepared me to be open to the idea of medicine as a career, it didn't directly lead me to medicine, but confirmed my desire to be in a field that helps all types of people in a very direct way (such as medicine). I think ADCOMS are impressed by missionary service if it is presented modestly as just one of several ECs related to leadership/service.
Just to clarify, the mission didn't make me want to be a physician either.....that would be the birth of my 2nd child. 😀 But looking back, I am able to see strong correlations between them. Certainly the sincere desire to dedicate myself to the service of others is at the root of both.
To those who might think that things written by active members of the LDS church are pointed and direct, it is because we believe in right and wrong. There is no gray area to determine if something is correct or not. I sincerely hope that my friends of other faiths feel the same for me; that they would want to share their light with me to save my soul and that would could communicate in harmony. As was mentioned previously, central the belief of members of the church is revelation from God to his prophet on earth. One of the things that often comes from our living prophet Gordon B. Hinckley is that good will continue to be called evil and evil will continue to be called good.
If this sounds crazy to you, ponder it.
To those who might think that things written by active members of the LDS church are pointed and direct, it is because we believe in right and wrong. There is no gray area to determine if something is correct or not. I sincerely hope that my friends of other faiths feel the same for me; that they would want to share their light with me to save my soul and that would could communicate in harmony. As was mentioned previously, central the belief of members of the church is revelation from God to his prophet on earth. One of the things that often comes from our living prophet Gordon B. Hinckley is that good will continue to be called evil and evil will continue to be called good.
If this sounds crazy to you, ponder it.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 0
Hey guys I know I don't have much control over these threads once I post them, but the intent of this thread was to discuss the roll that the missionary experience plays in getting into medical school.
I think that whether you believe the mormons are right or not, it's hard to find falt with someone with as much dedication as a mormon missionary. Just try spending a day with one if you want to find out. When I lived on St. John, one of the US virgin islands) I made friends with the local beer/wine... distributer. He had no intention of converting but he respected us for our dedication and we still keep in touch.
Thoes of you that have had interviews, do you think that the interviewer really understands what the mission is? Do they typically have any experience with it? When I had my interview for Georgetown undergrad (got waitlisted to death) the interviewer started out with "so you are mormon" and we went from there. She wanted to know the hardest part of being a missionary and what was my favorite experience.
I think that whether you believe the mormons are right or not, it's hard to find falt with someone with as much dedication as a mormon missionary. Just try spending a day with one if you want to find out. When I lived on St. John, one of the US virgin islands) I made friends with the local beer/wine... distributer. He had no intention of converting but he respected us for our dedication and we still keep in touch.
Thoes of you that have had interviews, do you think that the interviewer really understands what the mission is? Do they typically have any experience with it? When I had my interview for Georgetown undergrad (got waitlisted to death) the interviewer started out with "so you are mormon" and we went from there. She wanted to know the hardest part of being a missionary and what was my favorite experience.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 446
- Reaction score
- 0
Again, sorry for the long post back on this subject again. But I can't let a post go unanswered that claims I have "supposed facts" or that discounts not only my experience but the experience of numerous friends and family members.
I took back the word "hateful" a few posts back, because I realize that this points to thier "intent" or "frame of mind" rather than what I meant it to mean: consequences that have harmful effects on other peoples' lives and thier children. I do think that it is short-sighted, unchristian, and unamerican to deny civil liberties to other Americans. I know that the first presidency's position on the attitude to show toward individuals "dealing with same-sex attraction" is one of love, caring, and understanding. In practice, though, most talks, lessons, and every day conversations show more contempt and disdain than anything, rather than talking about love and fellowship.
I think you may not notice some things if they are not near and dear to your heart, or if you are so entrenched in a culture that you can't see outside of it. For example, 30 yrs ago, most white church members likely didn't notice how offensive the church's position may have been to black folk, even though they were certain it was God's plan. Another example, most mormons don't realize how odd it sounds to ask "are you a member of the Church?" (leaving out "LDS" or "Mormon" as if it is the only church). Ask this question outside of Utah, and a Catholic will happily respond something like, "Of course, I'm Irish." Now look at the mormon phrasing that you don't "agree" with a "lifestyle choice". This is offensive to many people outside of your culture. It shows lack of understanding and inaccurate word selection. What you mean, I presume, is that you don't "approve" of certain "sexual acts". Agreeing implies that some thought went into; approving can have the moral connotation arising from your gut feeling. Check PubMed or simply use common sense if you think it is a "choice". You know, I "disagree" with your "lifestyle choice" to lead an unexamined life, but that does not mean that I hate you. 😉 (c'mon, I'm having a bit of fun to show you how it sounds.)
You must not have been in church on fast sunday about 3 months ago right before the Senate vote on the amendment to destroy gay families. The meeting began with the bishop reading an official message from the First Presidency calling members to political action. You must not be aware of the Evergreen group to which church officials refer members to attempt to change their orientation, despite scientific, peer-reviewed studies that show that such programs are ineffective and psychologically damaging. You maybe weren't at BYU 10 years ago when the roommates and friends of non-practicing homosexuals were threatened with punitive action if they did not "turn in" thier friends.
Blind submission to authority and mindless adherence to dogma proclaiming the absolute truth has not bode well for humanity in any part of history (The Inquizition, Nazis, Terrorism, etc.). Jesus went against the status quo of his day. Joseph Smith dared to question the religious authority of his day. Oh, and then there's Thomas Jefferson, George Washington... you get the idea.
The church was wrong about blacks 30 years ago; perhaps they're wrong about gays today. You can have a political/policy stance that differs from your church's moral teachings. Most mormons I know support the death penalty, for example, even though this clearly goes against gospel teachings. A political position in line with the gospel would ban divorce, yet you do not fight for this obvious, striking way to "protect marriage" (again showing the titles of these "protection of marriage" laws to be misnomers -- thay are in fact anti gay laws). You can have a political stance that marriage is an idea (i.e. not an actual person) that has no inalienable rights to be protectd, but that your fellow Americans (and children of God) ARE individuals with liberties to be defended.
Born and raised mormon, myself. California and Utah. Served a mission out of the country. I'm not sure what in my posts you say you have "never experienced." My posts have mainly been about 1) misguided political action against gays that has the (likely unintended, but still real) effect of harming other people's children and 2) over emphasizing proselytizing compared to "humanitarian" work. You may disagree with my characterization that 1 is misguided or that 2 is over emphasized, but if you haven't experienced calls to political action and don't see greater emphasis on proselytizing, you may have been attending an Episcopal church all these years by mistake.
I took back the word "hateful" a few posts back, because I realize that this points to thier "intent" or "frame of mind" rather than what I meant it to mean: consequences that have harmful effects on other peoples' lives and thier children. I do think that it is short-sighted, unchristian, and unamerican to deny civil liberties to other Americans. I know that the first presidency's position on the attitude to show toward individuals "dealing with same-sex attraction" is one of love, caring, and understanding. In practice, though, most talks, lessons, and every day conversations show more contempt and disdain than anything, rather than talking about love and fellowship.
Please see my previous posts on official church support (money, "grass roots", anouncements from the pulpit). I didn't make any of it up. Check the deseretnews.com or sltrib.com (Salt Lake City's newspapers) if you don't believe me. Or, just try Google.
I think you may not notice some things if they are not near and dear to your heart, or if you are so entrenched in a culture that you can't see outside of it. For example, 30 yrs ago, most white church members likely didn't notice how offensive the church's position may have been to black folk, even though they were certain it was God's plan. Another example, most mormons don't realize how odd it sounds to ask "are you a member of the Church?" (leaving out "LDS" or "Mormon" as if it is the only church). Ask this question outside of Utah, and a Catholic will happily respond something like, "Of course, I'm Irish." Now look at the mormon phrasing that you don't "agree" with a "lifestyle choice". This is offensive to many people outside of your culture. It shows lack of understanding and inaccurate word selection. What you mean, I presume, is that you don't "approve" of certain "sexual acts". Agreeing implies that some thought went into; approving can have the moral connotation arising from your gut feeling. Check PubMed or simply use common sense if you think it is a "choice". You know, I "disagree" with your "lifestyle choice" to lead an unexamined life, but that does not mean that I hate you. 😉 (c'mon, I'm having a bit of fun to show you how it sounds.)
You must not have been in church on fast sunday about 3 months ago right before the Senate vote on the amendment to destroy gay families. The meeting began with the bishop reading an official message from the First Presidency calling members to political action. You must not be aware of the Evergreen group to which church officials refer members to attempt to change their orientation, despite scientific, peer-reviewed studies that show that such programs are ineffective and psychologically damaging. You maybe weren't at BYU 10 years ago when the roommates and friends of non-practicing homosexuals were threatened with punitive action if they did not "turn in" thier friends.
You are free to use Google, PubMed, or the library to contradict any of my "supposed facts." You can perhaps get away with saying they are "misleading" if you think my particular bent misses the point in some way, but then it might be nicer to say that you disagree with my interpretation of the facts. The facts though are the facts: nothing I've stated is "untrue".
Blind submission to authority and mindless adherence to dogma proclaiming the absolute truth has not bode well for humanity in any part of history (The Inquizition, Nazis, Terrorism, etc.). Jesus went against the status quo of his day. Joseph Smith dared to question the religious authority of his day. Oh, and then there's Thomas Jefferson, George Washington... you get the idea.
The church was wrong about blacks 30 years ago; perhaps they're wrong about gays today. You can have a political/policy stance that differs from your church's moral teachings. Most mormons I know support the death penalty, for example, even though this clearly goes against gospel teachings. A political position in line with the gospel would ban divorce, yet you do not fight for this obvious, striking way to "protect marriage" (again showing the titles of these "protection of marriage" laws to be misnomers -- thay are in fact anti gay laws). You can have a political stance that marriage is an idea (i.e. not an actual person) that has no inalienable rights to be protectd, but that your fellow Americans (and children of God) ARE individuals with liberties to be defended.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,812
- Reaction score
- 8
Your argument is faulty. I argued that america was founded upon the ideal of religious freedom, and that it could only act to restrict those freedoms when the actions allowed under one religion would impede upon other individual's freedom. Bin Laden's religion states that he should kill americans, but killing americans violates those people's freedoms, therefore that action is not protected by freedom of religion. The idea in america is that you are allowed to do what you want as long as your actions don't get in the way of other's ability to do what they want. When two homosexuals marry it doesn't impede a mormon's right to practice their own religion, in fact it has nothing to do with them whatsoever. They are not forced to have homosexual marriages themselves, attend homosexual marriages, be friends with married homosexuals or have their church perform the rituals of a homosexual marriage. However, having homosexual marriages be illegal does restric the freedom of two consenting adults to join together in a legal and spiritual contract that is not deemed sinful by their spiritual practice. So in fact the restricition of homosexual marriages is unconstitutional, because it restricts one groups freedom to act whent that act doesn't restrict any other individual's freedom, which is the only time our constitution allows the governemnt to step in and restrict individual freedoms. Beyond completely ignoring the basis of my argument . . . which was about the conditions under which religious freedom may and may not be restricted under our constitution, you try to argue that its ok to restrict religious freedom . . . but only when the majority votes for it. Our country was founded by a religious minority who was exhiled for their beliefs, on the idea that the minority should never face the danger of being told they can't have religious freedom simply because they are the minority. Our democracy was designed precisely to protect the minority and their freedom, not to let the majority's religious beliefs rule the country.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 0
Of course the church encourages political action as it should. We are encouraged to be active participating members of our communities etc. What the church doesn't do is tell you who to vote for etc. You are obviously confused about who speaks for the Church. Individual members encouraging others to take certain actions does not mean the Church encourages something. Only general authorities can speak for the Church.
Dude, please don't talk to me about the African Americans and there feelings towards the Church. I served in downtwon Detroit and did nothing but answer this question. You are apporaching this as if you know how they all feel. Many are far more understanding then you. Also by using the term "they were certain" it appears you are excluding yourself from the last line of the above quote. This tells me all I need to know about your feelings. I have known many people just like you who attend church etc. but think they as people can run the church better and take the social-political approach saying the Church should do this or that. You need to figure it out my friend.
Again, the church can call for political action especially against something that directly effects is primary purpose or threatens the well-being of family etc. This is true of any organization etc..but the church will never officially tell you how to vote or who to vote for. There is a difference.
Wow, you are so confused. In some cases divorce is a blessing where individuals are being abused etc..leaving such a situation would never be the wrong choice and anyone with any sense (including myself) knows this. Your logic is faulty on almost every level. The Church feels that using divorce simply as a means to evade responsibilty is wrong it would never support a ban on divorce nor would any half-way intelligent individual. Finally your support for the gay lifestyle having biological proof is simply put a hypothesis at best and at worst a gross misrepresentation. I have worked closely doing research with a physiologist/geneticist at my University who has spent the greater part of his career trying to scientifically understand this. You couldn't be farther from correct in making it seem as if the scientific and medical community all believe it biological and not a choice. In fact their is very, very little scientific evidence that actually supports your view.
Well now that this thread has been completely de-railed, To the OP the mission did in fact help me be more compassionate which has certainly helped in reaching the decisions I have about medicine but it wasn't the primary factor.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 446
- Reaction score
- 0
You missed the most salient points of my posts and resorted to personal attacks, and tried to prove you know more black people than I do. Your general point seems to be that the Church can to do as it pleases. I'm not arguing that at all. My point is that they should not be doing what they are doing in the political realm. Read my post again, and my 2 previous posts. The Church's position is intellectually dishonest, unscientific, unamerican, and just plain mean. If you can't counter any of these points, I fear we may be both typing away in futility.
I was not advocating banning divorce, but pointing out the logical conclusion of your goal to "protect marriage" (not to mention following your own religious beliefs). There is no logic in denying gay people the right to marry as a justification to "protect marriage."
The Church's purported goal of "protecing marriage" or "protecting family" does not match up with its actions. Intellectually dishonest. Why not require courses on interpersonal communication and parenting skills before being granted a marriage licence? Why not require couples therapy before granting a divorce? Why not require proof of having dated for at least, say, 6 months before being allowed to marry? Why not restrict divorce to cases of abuse and make people live with the consequences of their lifestyle choice and learn to resolve thier differences? No, instead, they'll save marriage by not allowing it to people who love each other and are already raising families together. How did this become the first, best, most pressing solution to fix marriage?
Yet the church does support a ban on gay marriage, even though no half-way intelligent individual would. 😛
Divorce is mentioned in the bible so much more often then homosexuality that I have difficulty understanding why the Church would not want to enforce this important religious viewpoint on everyone else in America (barring abuse, of course) with strict laws and a constitutional amendment.
In the Bible Jesus said:
"Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." Luke 16:18
And the Apostle Paul said:
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Why does the Church pick on one "sinful" lifestyle but not a more dangerous one? Why homosexuality and not adultery? They say it's because homosexuality is damaging our families and hurting our children. But which is really worse? Over 50% of American parents get divorced. Most of those remarry. Over 50% of our children have their families torn apart and then merged with the families of strangers (causing a lot of abuse on children by step-parents). But less than 10% of the population is homosexual. Even if they had twice as many relationships as heterosexuals do, they could not possibly cause the kind of damage that heterosexual divorce and remarriage does. (Note: Massachussets, where gay marriage is legal, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. Utah, over 70% Mormon, has twice the divorce rate.)
Yet the Church allows divorce and takes no political stance to stop it. First intellectually dishonest, now morally dishonest. Why does the church not ask a divorced man to leave his current wife in order to "turn from his adulterous lifestyle"? Why not put laws in place that support your religious convictions in support of marriage and the family? Why not enact strict laws against adultery or pre-marital sex? It is a double standard that allows you to live in sin while oppressing others living in sin. It is a double standard that allows you to have your civil liberties, but denies the civil liberties of others.
It is also a double standard that allows you to justify not facing your own short comings.
I would argue that it is the same everyday bigotry of the common man that the church allowed to seep in before finally allowing blacks to hold the priesthood. Heterosexuals have long been uncomfortable with homosexuals. Society in general has not been kind to its homosexual members. Add in a dash of Fundamentalist Religious fervor, and the ability to rationalize your own sins away, and you can feel comfortable that you are not echoing the bigotry of the common man. If you were as animated on the subject of divorce or other measures to "protect marriage" as you are against gay marriage, I might believe the church and its members had more pure motives.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 0
GoodDoctor, I wasn't attacking you, just your lack of logic or your flawed reasoning. Obviously I cannot reason with you. I will not convince you of anything just as you cannot convince me. You call me brainwashed when I had to discover the truth for myself and did so after travelling the world and interacting with many individuals. After everything I have seen I am more convinced rather than less that the leadership of the Church is indeed inspired. I do not simply follow anything anyone tells me but discover the truth for myself. The difference between us is I understand who leads the Church and you do not. Oh and please I mean this in all sincerity, come out of the closet and face your life. You will find yourself unhappy in life if you continue to try to mix oil and water. You try to justify a lifestyle which cannot in anyway fit into the eternal plan for eternal life. We should never hate on any person or group. You think the Church made a mistake with African Americans and the preisthood while I believe the Lord had a plan with a time table. You also beleive the Church is making a mistake with gays as if it will be a man made decision to one day allow them to marry etc. in the Church. Please don't hold onto this false hope. Obviously you know what the eternal plan is as you taught it once. Can you truly see two men or women in the eternities carrying on God's plan? Your obvious disdain for the church and its leadership makes you look foolish. You call others bigots while in the same breath you thrash on the Church. You call others dishonest while you are dishonest with yourself trying to live two lives that will never mix. I will not discuss this anymore with you as we are deadlocked. You can have the last word....it won't matter and you and I both know why. My best regards to you and your future in medicine. I only hope you maintain the level of compassion you feel now for your future patients.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 446
- Reaction score
- 0
FizbanZymogen, I wasn't really calling you brainwashed. I was using it in place of the word "confused" in your own sentence toward me to try to make the point that what you perceived as confused in me could just as easily be seen as brainwashing in you. I was trying to be clever, but realized it didn't have the right tone, so took it out (apparently not before you saw it).
------------------------------
From your post, I just realized that most of you must have assumed I was an active member, likely because of my use of terminology and positive attitude toward my mission. I haven't been active for over 9 years (but go when I visit my dad out of respect for him, or to attend a baby blessing in the family). I left mormonism and christianity because 1) I didn't feel it any more, and 2) I found too many beliefs that did not hold up to scrutiny. I've never had any ill feelings toward the church or its members. I have recently developed contempt for their meddling in the lives of others, especially in light of their own history of suffering persecution.
Your appeals to my understanding of "God's Plan" don't work becase I don't beleive in it. I was never arguing about what Mormons believe, but about how mormons should act toward thier fellow americans in a pluralistic society based on individual liberty. If you all had known I was not a member, the discussion would have probably included fewer calls to repentence and more substantive responses to my arguments about inconsistencies in policy and unkind treatment of fellow Americans.
In the real world where you'll have to defend your position against non-mormons (or knowledgable ex-mormons) you'll have to rely on more than "God said so." Non believers and more progressive Chrsitians will only allow you one leap of faith: to beleive in God in the first place. After that, all else should be based on solid, well-reasoned logic.
It's fine to believe your church leaders are inspired, but surely you don't believe the Church leadership is infallible (I think the Pope already claimed that job 😉 )? I know many of you may. So, on a more practical level, are they infallible on POLITICAL/SOCIAL/ECONOMIC issues? There is no reason to believe so; they would tell you that themselves.
------------------------------
I've been openly gay (where it's safe) for 8 years. I've been completely open on SDN (except in this thread apparently 😳 ) and just sort of assumed you all knew. I do appreciate the good number of mormons who openly accept me here in Utah. My best friend is full mormon and my son is great friends with his kids. I've also had positive interactions with mormons on SDN.
While we may disagree on proper christian conduct or on correct political policy, most people are kind and sincere on a face-to-face human level. Your post, FizbanZymogen, wherein you ask me to "come out" since you think I will be unhappy in the church, shows you are concerned for my happiness, even though we've never met and had some brisk online debate. Thank you, sincerely. I hope that your compassion will eventually extend toward the rest of my family as well.
I do apologize to those of you who think I may have hijacked the thread. I love discussing religion on any subject, but get especially passionate when it involves the issue that affects my life so profoundly.
(I'll stop debating now and let the thread back to ACTIVE RM's.)
(I do like hearing mission stories and discussing moral aspects of medicine, so I'll still pop in if that's ok.)
------------------------------
From your post, I just realized that most of you must have assumed I was an active member, likely because of my use of terminology and positive attitude toward my mission. I haven't been active for over 9 years (but go when I visit my dad out of respect for him, or to attend a baby blessing in the family). I left mormonism and christianity because 1) I didn't feel it any more, and 2) I found too many beliefs that did not hold up to scrutiny. I've never had any ill feelings toward the church or its members. I have recently developed contempt for their meddling in the lives of others, especially in light of their own history of suffering persecution.
Your appeals to my understanding of "God's Plan" don't work becase I don't beleive in it. I was never arguing about what Mormons believe, but about how mormons should act toward thier fellow americans in a pluralistic society based on individual liberty. If you all had known I was not a member, the discussion would have probably included fewer calls to repentence and more substantive responses to my arguments about inconsistencies in policy and unkind treatment of fellow Americans.
In the real world where you'll have to defend your position against non-mormons (or knowledgable ex-mormons) you'll have to rely on more than "God said so." Non believers and more progressive Chrsitians will only allow you one leap of faith: to beleive in God in the first place. After that, all else should be based on solid, well-reasoned logic.
It's fine to believe your church leaders are inspired, but surely you don't believe the Church leadership is infallible (I think the Pope already claimed that job 😉 )? I know many of you may. So, on a more practical level, are they infallible on POLITICAL/SOCIAL/ECONOMIC issues? There is no reason to believe so; they would tell you that themselves.
------------------------------
I've been openly gay (where it's safe) for 8 years. I've been completely open on SDN (except in this thread apparently 😳 ) and just sort of assumed you all knew. I do appreciate the good number of mormons who openly accept me here in Utah. My best friend is full mormon and my son is great friends with his kids. I've also had positive interactions with mormons on SDN.
While we may disagree on proper christian conduct or on correct political policy, most people are kind and sincere on a face-to-face human level. Your post, FizbanZymogen, wherein you ask me to "come out" since you think I will be unhappy in the church, shows you are concerned for my happiness, even though we've never met and had some brisk online debate. Thank you, sincerely. I hope that your compassion will eventually extend toward the rest of my family as well.
I do apologize to those of you who think I may have hijacked the thread. I love discussing religion on any subject, but get especially passionate when it involves the issue that affects my life so profoundly.
(I'll stop debating now and let the thread back to ACTIVE RM's.)
(I do like hearing mission stories and discussing moral aspects of medicine, so I'll still pop in if that's ok.)
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 446
- Reaction score
- 0
I'll leave you with my last plea for understanding with a bit of my personal story.
I have been in a 5 year committed, monogomous relationship. We have adopted a child who has made me a new person. If you have kids, you know what I'm talking about. I live for him. He is the smartest, funniest, most delightful child you could ever meet. I am living the white picket fence american dream (well, except we both have short hair). Before anyone gets upset about gay adoption, please realize that our son was one of over 1,200 children still awaiting adoption in Utah alone. If you think a group home or cycling through foster homes would have been better, you need to volunteer at your local foster care foundation to see how untrue this is. Better yet, you need to adopt one of these children in need. I shudder to think what or where my child would be had he not come in to our lives. I'm going to be a doctor and my spouse is a successful business owner. Our child will have opportunities that few do. I attended my sister's wedding to her wife (former BYU roomies 🙂 ) in Boston shortly after gay marriage was legalized there. They have adopted 2 beautiful girls from China who's lives held next to no hope. Now they live with two highly educated, affluent parents who give them a life they never could have had. We all love our children and want the best for them in every aspect of life.
These anti gay marriage laws really do harm our children. Imagine, say, that the greater christian majority in america decided that Mormons weren't "christian" and so should not be given the right to marry. Your children's health care coverage may be compromised. They would not have social security benefits. One of you may not be allowed to visit your child in the hospital. You would not be able to make medical decisions on behalf of your spouse. Inheritance rights. Tax benefits. The list goes on. Things you now take for granted would be torn from you, compromising the security of your family, limiting your child's future. You might say, "GoodDoctor, you don't get any of these anyway because you're not legally married." Imagine if you couldn't get married either, while others could. Would you not feel that your familly was being harmed? Now think of my sister, who is legally married to her wife. If the MA or federal amendment passes, the scenario I just painted will crash down on her family, having over 1000 benefits of marriage revoked. How could you want this to happen to another family? How could you want thier children to suffer? Why are your children any more important than ours?
I have been in a 5 year committed, monogomous relationship. We have adopted a child who has made me a new person. If you have kids, you know what I'm talking about. I live for him. He is the smartest, funniest, most delightful child you could ever meet. I am living the white picket fence american dream (well, except we both have short hair). Before anyone gets upset about gay adoption, please realize that our son was one of over 1,200 children still awaiting adoption in Utah alone. If you think a group home or cycling through foster homes would have been better, you need to volunteer at your local foster care foundation to see how untrue this is. Better yet, you need to adopt one of these children in need. I shudder to think what or where my child would be had he not come in to our lives. I'm going to be a doctor and my spouse is a successful business owner. Our child will have opportunities that few do. I attended my sister's wedding to her wife (former BYU roomies 🙂 ) in Boston shortly after gay marriage was legalized there. They have adopted 2 beautiful girls from China who's lives held next to no hope. Now they live with two highly educated, affluent parents who give them a life they never could have had. We all love our children and want the best for them in every aspect of life.
These anti gay marriage laws really do harm our children. Imagine, say, that the greater christian majority in america decided that Mormons weren't "christian" and so should not be given the right to marry. Your children's health care coverage may be compromised. They would not have social security benefits. One of you may not be allowed to visit your child in the hospital. You would not be able to make medical decisions on behalf of your spouse. Inheritance rights. Tax benefits. The list goes on. Things you now take for granted would be torn from you, compromising the security of your family, limiting your child's future. You might say, "GoodDoctor, you don't get any of these anyway because you're not legally married." Imagine if you couldn't get married either, while others could. Would you not feel that your familly was being harmed? Now think of my sister, who is legally married to her wife. If the MA or federal amendment passes, the scenario I just painted will crash down on her family, having over 1000 benefits of marriage revoked. How could you want this to happen to another family? How could you want thier children to suffer? Why are your children any more important than ours?
GoodDoctor, I have thorougly enjoyed reading your posts. As a heterosexual I have not had the same impetus for introspection and critical evaluation of sexual orientation in a LDS context and the social/political/religious ramifications. Luckily, I'm literate and can read your posts. Your arguments were sound and your conviction genuine, given your background. I know being homosexual is most likely a harder lot to have than hetero due to its minority position. I applaud your examined life and your defense of it.
I used my mission in my personal statement (about 1/4 of it) and about half of my interviewers (I interviewed at around 10 schools, so around 20-25 interviewers) asked about it (Only one interviewer was antagonistic). Coincidentally, in my first interview I spoke in length about the mission and practically gave a first discussion (rm's you know what I'm talking about). That was my only interview at that school, and I was accepted with their first batch of acceptances (I was oos and they only accept around 7% oos).
Side note: As a returned missionary most of us definitely have an advantage when it comes to the interviews because of the fact that for two straight years we tried to relate to people and present who we are and our message in the best light possible (sorry really long run-on). My interviews felt eerily similar to missionary discussions!
I served in Donetsk Ukraine.
Side note: As a returned missionary most of us definitely have an advantage when it comes to the interviews because of the fact that for two straight years we tried to relate to people and present who we are and our message in the best light possible (sorry really long run-on). My interviews felt eerily similar to missionary discussions!
I served in Donetsk Ukraine.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,619
- Reaction score
- 14
Weird, this guy I know tried to tell the cop that when he got busted for selling a kilo of marijuana, and it didn't work very well for him.
An incomplete list of places where your theory breaks down:
Drug possession/cultivation/sale
Legal prohibitions of incest, bestiality, and polygamy
Assisted suicide
Income Tax (If I don't want to give up my hard-earned salary for the NEA or the war in Iraq, what gives the government the right to take it from me? Keeping it for myself doesn't restrict anyone else's freedom.)
The fact is, laws can be enacted for the greater societal good. For example, the theory behind drug prohibition is that the negative effects on society of legalization outweigh your right to pursue happiness by smoking marijuana. Similarly, restricting the institution of marriage to heterosexual couples as opposed to homosexual couples or non-binary arrangements could be justified if the promotion of binary heterosexual marriage was seen as having societal benefits.
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 427
- Reaction score
- 1
I find mormons to be the most likeable of all people who live by a book and believe in magic (and yes, this includes Harry Potter fans) for no other reason than they don't get manic upset when you tell them you don't want to convert.
fwiw, ryandote and gooddoctor win the thread.
fwiw, ryandote and gooddoctor win the thread.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 273
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah, that's why Joseph Smith thought polygamy (especially with minors) was one of the greatest tenets on your religion, and why many of your fundamentalist sects still practice it today.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2007
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 1
...
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2006
- Messages
- 419
- Reaction score
- 1
This is why I can never believe in God. I have always believed that the simplest answer is the most likely. To me it is much more likely that the church's shift in ideology stemmed from political pressure (ie. the civil rights movement, the general abhorrence of polygamy etc.) than from God seemingly arbitrarily decreeing that these practices are no longer what is best. If it is that hard to comprehend why, like you say, then maybe its not the answer.
I apologize in advance if I have offended anyone, but please understand that Agnosticism is just as much a religion as Catholicism, Mormonism or Buddhism.
Agnosticism a religion. Hmmm...... never thought of it that way. I don't know to what degree you are agnostic, but isn't agnosticism just stating the obvious? I think the bottom line is, God doesn't care if he is proven to exist or not. He most likely doesn't want to be proven to exist. Religion is all about faith my friend. If everyone knew the answer, then I don't think there would be any reason for us to be on this earth.
You say, there needs not be a reason for us to be here. Yes, that may be true. I guess we will just have to wait and see.......
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2007
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 0
Hateful? Who do you think you are to make a judgement call about that? We are moral, yes. And by the way, tithing funds are not used for that kind of stuff. You have your facts all wrong. I don't understand you people making up stuff about Mormons. Get a life.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2006
- Messages
- 419
- Reaction score
- 1
More like it can never be proven that God exists or doesn't exist. Just like many people have faith that God does exist, I profess faith that He does not exist. Since neither can be proven they require the same amount of faith. I have faith.
I am not claiming to know the answer. I am claiming that we may never know the answer, but I believe that science, and specifically physics, has a much greater chance of bringing us closer to understanding reality than any bible.
And no, I don't claim that there needs to be reason for us to be here. In fact, I believe quite the opposite. I don't believe that life has meaning. I do however believe (as Craig Venter put it) "lives can have meaning".
Well, it's good that you have your own belief system.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2007
- Messages
- 11,612
- Reaction score
- 836
If you believe God does not exist, then you are not an agnostic, but rather an atheist.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2006
- Messages
- 419
- Reaction score
- 1
I am somewhere between the two, because I do believe that our understanding of our reality is limited to our senses...but this does not mean there isn't more out there (not God, but other dimensions of space and time). This is a central tenet of agnosticism, and this is why I claim agnostic and not atheist.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2007
- Messages
- 11,612
- Reaction score
- 836
I am agnostic, but i don't believe in god as depicted in any of the mainstream religions. I see god more as a higher power that is there to promote harmony in the universe.
That is kinda what my understanding of agnosticism, but i guess i was wrong.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2006
- Messages
- 419
- Reaction score
- 1
no i dont think you are wrong. that is what is great about agnosticism, it asks "what is god?" and allows you to answer any way you want.
The concept of God is a way for people to explain things they can not otherwise explain. For many religions, God takes on almost human characteristics. He is referred to like a person, He is talked about like a person, but it is understood that He is an entity, not a person.
I could say that I too believe in God, in the sense that I look to an entity to explain what I can not. This entity is science, and although it does not have answers to everything (yet), and although I can not always understand and interpret what it says, I have faith that it holds the ultimate truths, just as Christians have faith that their God holds the ultimate truths (though they may not always understand them).
I am not saying that science is God, I am just trying to illustrate the point that all Gods serve the same purpose whether people want to admit it or not.
The way I understand agnosticism is that there is more to reality than we perceive. Whether that is heaven, nirvana, Jesus, or alternate dimensions (ala superstring theory) does not matter. The one thing that unifies us all is the search for truth, and the constant quest to understand our universe.
For you, it seems that you believe in an entity which governs the universe, not unlike natural law. This is not so distant from the physical law that science is founded upon. We are not so different.
The concept of God is a way for people to explain things they can not otherwise explain. For many religions, God takes on almost human characteristics. He is referred to like a person, He is talked about like a person, but it is understood that He is an entity, not a person.
I could say that I too believe in God, in the sense that I look to an entity to explain what I can not. This entity is science, and although it does not have answers to everything (yet), and although I can not always understand and interpret what it says, I have faith that it holds the ultimate truths, just as Christians have faith that their God holds the ultimate truths (though they may not always understand them).
I am not saying that science is God, I am just trying to illustrate the point that all Gods serve the same purpose whether people want to admit it or not.
The way I understand agnosticism is that there is more to reality than we perceive. Whether that is heaven, nirvana, Jesus, or alternate dimensions (ala superstring theory) does not matter. The one thing that unifies us all is the search for truth, and the constant quest to understand our universe.
For you, it seems that you believe in an entity which governs the universe, not unlike natural law. This is not so distant from the physical law that science is founded upon. We are not so different.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2006
- Messages
- 419
- Reaction score
- 1
So here is my understanding of your argument:
God is omniscient. He has a plan for each of our lives, a plan for the entire world. BUT this is not necessarily how things will play out, because we still have free will. If we do give ourselves to Him, we must give up our desire to understand why He chooses certain actions and steps, and recognize it is all part of His grand scheme. This is the right thing to do because in God there is truth, and in God all is right. Day to day sufferings and pleasures are simply steps along the truthful path.
So, allowing polygamy then disallowing polygamy are just steps on this path. When God told Joseph Smith that it is right to have many wives, this was part of God's plan. However, in light of the mounting social pressures put on the church by those who exercised their free will and said "NO POLYGAMY IS WRONG" God was forced to detour. He said "Ok fine, polygamy is wrong" and quickly drew up a new, slightly less efficient version, of His original framework in order to incorporate this new rule.
I believe my view to be much simpler because there is one less force to deal with, God.
In my view, a church was founded to explain things that otherwise were not explainable. It was founded to deal with people's fear that they would join the "wrong church" just as Joseph Smith feared he would. If you join the wrong church, I have been told by pastors and priests, you go to hell. And nobody wants to go to hell right? So this new church, Mormonism, which is the right church, was founded.
Now, if it is a new church, it has to be different than the old churches, or it is the same church. So, Joseph Smith had to set his church apart enough to make it different, but not so much apart that people would have to adopt an entirely new view, and understanding of reality to join. He was smart. He did not want to alienate potential followers. So, he said (among many other things) you Christians are close, but here is where you are wrong. He added polygamy, and a whole bunch of other things, but left the central tenets of Christianity in tact. He gained followers.
The Church grew and grew and I think now is the fastest growing religion in America. It survived, it drew people in, but soon some of those things that set it apart from mainstream Christianity came in to question. Women didn't like having to deal with polygamy, black men wanted equality. So, the church adapted. If it did not adapt, it would die. People would not join a religion that promotes racism and sexism so overtly (I know other religions do this too, and are also guilty of adapting to save themselves). Mormonism changed, not because God said all of a sudden "I decree that there shall be no more polygamy, and yes I suppose black men are equal to white men", but because if it did not change it would die off and be no more.
Darwin's concept of fitness (a very very simple concept) applies to everything, not just finches.
So, this explanation is simpler than the God explanation, because it does not rely on God. It relies solely on the principles Darwin set out hundreds of years ago. It relies only on human nature, and not human nature plus God.
You adapt or you die.
Again, I am always very cautious when I discuss religion because it is very dear to all. Please do not take offense to any of this. This is just what I believe. I respect what you believe, and often have wondered what my life would be like if I was able to trust so much in things I can't perceive. I admire your faith.
God is omniscient. He has a plan for each of our lives, a plan for the entire world. BUT this is not necessarily how things will play out, because we still have free will. If we do give ourselves to Him, we must give up our desire to understand why He chooses certain actions and steps, and recognize it is all part of His grand scheme. This is the right thing to do because in God there is truth, and in God all is right. Day to day sufferings and pleasures are simply steps along the truthful path.
So, allowing polygamy then disallowing polygamy are just steps on this path. When God told Joseph Smith that it is right to have many wives, this was part of God's plan. However, in light of the mounting social pressures put on the church by those who exercised their free will and said "NO POLYGAMY IS WRONG" God was forced to detour. He said "Ok fine, polygamy is wrong" and quickly drew up a new, slightly less efficient version, of His original framework in order to incorporate this new rule.
I believe my view to be much simpler because there is one less force to deal with, God.
In my view, a church was founded to explain things that otherwise were not explainable. It was founded to deal with people's fear that they would join the "wrong church" just as Joseph Smith feared he would. If you join the wrong church, I have been told by pastors and priests, you go to hell. And nobody wants to go to hell right? So this new church, Mormonism, which is the right church, was founded.
Now, if it is a new church, it has to be different than the old churches, or it is the same church. So, Joseph Smith had to set his church apart enough to make it different, but not so much apart that people would have to adopt an entirely new view, and understanding of reality to join. He was smart. He did not want to alienate potential followers. So, he said (among many other things) you Christians are close, but here is where you are wrong. He added polygamy, and a whole bunch of other things, but left the central tenets of Christianity in tact. He gained followers.
The Church grew and grew and I think now is the fastest growing religion in America. It survived, it drew people in, but soon some of those things that set it apart from mainstream Christianity came in to question. Women didn't like having to deal with polygamy, black men wanted equality. So, the church adapted. If it did not adapt, it would die. People would not join a religion that promotes racism and sexism so overtly (I know other religions do this too, and are also guilty of adapting to save themselves). Mormonism changed, not because God said all of a sudden "I decree that there shall be no more polygamy, and yes I suppose black men are equal to white men", but because if it did not change it would die off and be no more.
Darwin's concept of fitness (a very very simple concept) applies to everything, not just finches.
So, this explanation is simpler than the God explanation, because it does not rely on God. It relies solely on the principles Darwin set out hundreds of years ago. It relies only on human nature, and not human nature plus God.
You adapt or you die.
Again, I am always very cautious when I discuss religion because it is very dear to all. Please do not take offense to any of this. This is just what I believe. I respect what you believe, and often have wondered what my life would be like if I was able to trust so much in things I can't perceive. I admire your faith.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
I had some honest, sincere questions for people that bash the LDS faith.
1. The LDS church does not practice polygamy right now. If you practice polygamy you are excommunicated. Many people bash the LDS church because they did it in the past. Here is the question: Abraham (in the Old Testament) was a polygamist. He had more than one wife. Open up your bible to Genesis and read it. Kind of surprising but true. So was Israel. Does that mean these Prophets of God were evil? I would love to hear an opinion on that.
2. If you bash the LDS Church because of their past, do you also bash current Catholics because of the Inquisition, where the catholic church slaughtered tons of innocent people who wouldn't convert to their faith? Do you condemn them because of the sale of indulgences (where you could pay money to get rid of your sins?) I mean no offense by this, I just want to know what others think about this.
Anyways, I think it is interesting that people bash on LDS people because of certain practices they did in the past, but people forget that in the Bible (I use the King James Version, but most versions are similar enough) many of these things happened. Even certain things that could be considered "racist", or "discriminatory" happened. I won't get into that though.
Anyways, these are just observations. I don't want to turn this into a religious bashing thread, but I would love to hear opinions, whether they be from LDS people or not.
1. The LDS church does not practice polygamy right now. If you practice polygamy you are excommunicated. Many people bash the LDS church because they did it in the past. Here is the question: Abraham (in the Old Testament) was a polygamist. He had more than one wife. Open up your bible to Genesis and read it. Kind of surprising but true. So was Israel. Does that mean these Prophets of God were evil? I would love to hear an opinion on that.
2. If you bash the LDS Church because of their past, do you also bash current Catholics because of the Inquisition, where the catholic church slaughtered tons of innocent people who wouldn't convert to their faith? Do you condemn them because of the sale of indulgences (where you could pay money to get rid of your sins?) I mean no offense by this, I just want to know what others think about this.
Anyways, I think it is interesting that people bash on LDS people because of certain practices they did in the past, but people forget that in the Bible (I use the King James Version, but most versions are similar enough) many of these things happened. Even certain things that could be considered "racist", or "discriminatory" happened. I won't get into that though.
Anyways, these are just observations. I don't want to turn this into a religious bashing thread, but I would love to hear opinions, whether they be from LDS people or not.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2006
- Messages
- 419
- Reaction score
- 1
First I am not bashing LDS, I was asking questions and using examples to support my argument. Second, yes other religions did/do bad stuff. This is partly why I belong to no organized sect. And third, the reason mormons get bashed so much for these practices is because of how recent all of this stuff happened.
Spanish inquisition: everyone knows it was terrible. everyone also knows it happened during the 15th and 16th centuries. This doesn't make it right. It was a horrible thing. The catholic church messed up big time and did terrible things. But the time removes it enough that people don't think about it much. The holocaust is more "real" to people than the inquisition because it happened recently.
Comparing polygamy in the time of Abraham to polygamy in the 20th century? Thats hard to do. It is an absurd comparison.
The reason that Mormons get a lot of flack is because everything that happened between 18__ when mormonism was founded and now is historically verifiable with multiple sources. Things that happened more than 5 centuries ago will always retain a sort of fairytale-like surrealism.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
Way to dodge my question there.
Just answer the next question yes or no please.
Was Abraham evil because he was a polygamist?
Just answer the next question yes or no please.
Was Abraham evil because he was a polygamist?
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
and why is that absurd? What would be different in Abraham's time?
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2006
- Messages
- 419
- Reaction score
- 1
jeez guy settle down. i dont know why you are trying to get me to say anyone is evil. i never said any mormon is evil. i never even said polygamy is evil. so i am not going to call abraham evil either.
i think it is pretty hard to compare 2000 BC with the 1900's. there are tons of things that have happened throughout history that werent considered wrong at the time but would be considered wrong now. polygamy in the 20th century is not one of them, but polygamy 2000 years BC is one of them. so i guess the answer to your question is that they are different not because the act itself is different, but they are different because the social contexts are so different. it would be like having a slave now, and having a slave in the 1600's. the slave master in the 1600's was not considered evil then, nor is he considered evil now, he is just an adherent to the social constructs of the day. in contrast, a man who has a slave now would be considered evil. am i wrong here? same act, different social contexts. that is why it is absurd to compare the two.
and please stop getting so defensive. i never called anyone evil. my discourse has been nothing but civil.
i think it is pretty hard to compare 2000 BC with the 1900's. there are tons of things that have happened throughout history that werent considered wrong at the time but would be considered wrong now. polygamy in the 20th century is not one of them, but polygamy 2000 years BC is one of them. so i guess the answer to your question is that they are different not because the act itself is different, but they are different because the social contexts are so different. it would be like having a slave now, and having a slave in the 1600's. the slave master in the 1600's was not considered evil then, nor is he considered evil now, he is just an adherent to the social constructs of the day. in contrast, a man who has a slave now would be considered evil. am i wrong here? same act, different social contexts. that is why it is absurd to compare the two.
and please stop getting so defensive. i never called anyone evil. my discourse has been nothing but civil.
