Let's discuss Mormonism.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I talked to a pair of Mormon missionaries in the town my mother lives in a year or two back (Sister Sarah and Sister...Whitney, if I remember correctly?). They were very nice and quite respectful and accepting when I told them that I'm already quite committed to the Episcopal Church and sincerely doubt that will change, and I took some literature from them as a courtesy.

Sorry, I don't really have much more to add to this conversation.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Actually, Mormons tend to frown on birth control unless it's between a married couple.

That's more liberal than the Catholic Church.

It's also identical to the Episcopal Church's guidelines for its own clergy.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm assuming that as opposed to someone like Bushman, someone like for instance Fawn Brodie would be pretty much persona non grata as far as the attitude towards her work?

(I'm not fond of Fawn Brodie. Her work is biased and excessively Freudian. This is unfortunate because I'm going to be writing a psychobiography of sorts of a deceased Japanese writer for my BA thesis or equivalent. But I digress.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Where exactly do non-Mormons who there's nothing else actually wrong with ostensibly end up, and if it depends on other factors what might those be?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Eh, I'm pretty sure the most common Christian perception of hell is eternal separation from God, and really the only way for that to be possible on a spiritual level is to be erased from existence as God is omnipresent... I happen to agree with BRTD on this matter, believe it or not.

Count me in too, although my understanding of the exact nature of the Four Last Things might be a little different from yours and I'm sure ours are both different from BRTD's.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Has it ever been viewed as problematic for a top-ranked LDS official to be of, as most of them seem to be, extremely advanced age, for health reasons mental or otherwise for example?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why are LDS leadership so old anyway?

I seem to recall it's based primarily or exclusively on seniority in various orders of the priesthood. PioneerProgress, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or if there's more to it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Were there any prophets between the time of the New Testament and Joseph Smith?

If not, why not?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Are Mormons outside of Utah as strongly Republican as they are in Utah (and Idaho, for that matter)?

Well, the two Nevada Mormons who immediately come to mind for me at least are Harry Reid and Brandon Flowers, and then you have the mostly but not exclusively Democratic Udalls scattered across the West...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are as many Democratic as Republican Mormon Senators right now, aren't there?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Are Mormons outside of Utah as strongly Republican as they are in Utah (and Idaho, for that matter)?

Well, the two Nevada Mormons who immediately come to mind for me at least are Harry Reid and Brandon Flowers, and then you have the mostly but not exclusively Democratic Udalls scattered across the West...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are as many Democratic as Republican Mormon Senators right now, aren't there?

For Mormon Democrats, there's currently just Harry Reid and Tom Udall (Mark Udall has never been a practicing Mormon, as his father Mo did not raise him in the LDS Faith). On the Representative side, it's just as depressing: Jim Matheson of Utah (who I dislike vehemently and see as no different from a Republican), and non-voting Eni Faleomavaega from American Samoa. If you count Community of Christ as "Mormon", then Leonard Boswell of Iowa is a Mormon Democrat.

On the Republican side, there's Dean Heller, Mike Crapo, Orrin Hatch, and Mike Lee. Former Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon was a Mormon Republican as well, though a somewhat moderate one. LDS Congressional GOPers are plentiful: Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz of Utah, Howard McKeon and Wally Herger of California, Jeff Flake from Arizona (he'll probably become Senator as well), Raul Labrador and Mike Simpson of Idaho.

I wasn't aware that Dean Heller was a Mormon, and I wasn't aware that Mark Udall wasn't. So Nevada, like Utah, has two Mormon Senators. Interesting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wasn't EchoHawk in the Obama administration at some point?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

All of which are perfectly acceptable things to believe, for reasons that do have something to do with their potential truth-value but are not controlled by it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

All of which are perfectly acceptable things to believe, for reasons that do have something to do with their potential truth-value but are not controlled by it.

How so? They're either simply not true or so far-fetched it's ridiculous to assert as an absolute truth.

That doesn't necessarily mean one should do otherwise than believing them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

All of which are perfectly acceptable things to believe, for reasons that do have something to do with their potential truth-value but are not controlled by it.

How so? They're either simply not true or so far-fetched it's ridiculous to assert as an absolute truth.

That doesn't necessarily mean one should do otherwise than believing them.

Of course not, but it's hardly something that can actually be argued is truth. Anyone can believe what they want, but I find it silly not to acknowledge that it's extremely unlikely. Pretending as though it's an undeniable truth that makes perfect sense just doesn't work for me. Not that it has to, of course. Just sayin'...

Oh, I entirely agree with you and I'm religious. I believe these things as truth but it's distinctly an act of faith and I'm smart enough to understand the implications of that as a basis for believing. I wish more religious people were because I think that if this distinction were better articulated and argued more intelligent people would feel comfortable being or identifying as religious, which I would hope would make religion a more intelligent space.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

All of which are perfectly acceptable things to believe, for reasons that do have something to do with their potential truth-value but are not controlled by it.

How so? They're either simply not true or so far-fetched it's ridiculous to assert as an absolute truth.

That doesn't necessarily mean one should do otherwise than believing them.

Of course not, but it's hardly something that can actually be argued is truth. Anyone can believe what they want, but I find it silly not to acknowledge that it's extremely unlikely. Pretending as though it's an undeniable truth that makes perfect sense just doesn't work for me. Not that it has to, of course. Just sayin'...

Oh, I entirely agree with you and I'm religious. I believe these things as truth but it's distinctly an act of faith and I'm smart enough to understand the implications of that as a basis for believing. I wish more religious people were because I think that if this distinction were better articulated and argued more intelligent people would feel comfortable being or identifying as religious, which I would hope would make religion a more intelligent space.

Well, here's to hoping that never happens

Dude, it or something like it is going to retain its psychological and emotive power. Making it more intelligent is in everybody's best interests.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Dude, it or something like it is going to retain its psychological and emotive power. Making it more intelligent is in everybody's best interests.

Well, objectively, yeah...but I'm selfishly holding out for religion to just fade away completely

I'm selfishly holding out for a culture completely suffused with ritually traditionalist, politically radical liturgical Christianity, but it's not an eventuality I'm bothering to prepare for.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So they'll have to change the books then, because the books say all Christians are, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant.

Well that's just not so.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12/06/1295941/mormon-churchs-new-homosexuality-resource-tells-gays-to-be-chaste-and-hopeful/?mobile=nc

Bit of PR work by the church here but this part striking:

'We believe that with an eternal perspective, a person’s attraction to the same sex can be addressed and borne as a mortal test. It should not be viewed as a permanent condition. An eternal perspective beyond the immediacy of this life’s challenges offers hope. Though some people, including those resisting same-sex attraction, may not have the opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex in this life, a just God will provide them with ample opportunity to do so in the next. We can all live life in the full context of who we are, which is much broader than sexual attraction.'

Despite the fact that it is an extraordinarily offensive thing to say, I'm intrigued as to what theological gymnastics was applied to reach that conclusion?

The theological gymnastics of "we need good PR without invalidating any of our previous doctrine".

Is there any preexisting basis for the conclusion or is this new revelation?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12/06/1295941/mormon-churchs-new-homosexuality-resource-tells-gays-to-be-chaste-and-hopeful/?mobile=nc

Bit of PR work by the church here but this part striking:

'We believe that with an eternal perspective, a person’s attraction to the same sex can be addressed and borne as a mortal test. It should not be viewed as a permanent condition. An eternal perspective beyond the immediacy of this life’s challenges offers hope. Though some people, including those resisting same-sex attraction, may not have the opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex in this life, a just God will provide them with ample opportunity to do so in the next. We can all live life in the full context of who we are, which is much broader than sexual attraction.'

Despite the fact that it is an extraordinarily offensive thing to say, I'm intrigued as to what theological gymnastics was applied to reach that conclusion?

The theological gymnastics of "we need good PR without invalidating any of our previous doctrine".

Is there any preexisting basis for the conclusion or is this new revelation?

It's based off the basic premise of "you'll have a chance in the next life for most things" that pops up in LDS theology frequently. I can't name specific doctrines off the top of my head, but there's basis for that, though not previously applied to gay people.

I see. Thank you.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'd like to know more about Churchball...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think a basic glossary would be very helpful.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think a basic glossary would be very helpful.

Do you want it in this thread, or is this thread to cluttered for it (since most people wouldn't bother searching into the 7th or so page)?

Could you edit the first post in the thread to include it? Because that's what I would do were this thread 'Let's discuss mainline Protestantism'.