FINAL UPDATE!!–Great news! The Catholics at the Sangre de Christo Catholic Church have asked law enforcement to drop charges against the erstwhile LDS missionaries. This, I think, concludes this blog. I will soon post a new blog entry detailing where I wanted to go with this in the first place. Many thanks to all those who posted comments–even the pans! 😉
I must confess that I write this post with outrage, disgust, and profound sadness. I am reminded of this cliche’ from Pogo: “We have met the enemy and he is us!” Earlier, I had posted about how an LDS Ward and Bishop were victimised by a non-LDS Christian preacher. The acts of that non-LDS preacher made me quite sympathetic to those who worship at a Roman Catholic shrine, the Sangre de Cristo Catholic Church, in San Luis, Colorado. Frankly, I am just as upset and horrified by news that LDS missionaries defiled it.
Quite candidly, this defilement is inexcusable. What would these hooligans have thought if Catholic Priests defiled, say, the Denver Temple? I have the urge to tell them: “Congratulations, punks! You’ve just given extreme anti-Mormons an excuse to defile our most sacred spots–and more! As if they needed more excuses!”
These vandals have ruined missionary efforts in Castillo, County, Colorado–for years, if not permanently. Moreover, since Roman Catholicism is more of a worldwide Church than we are, no doubt, this will damage both our missionary efforts among Catholics in general, it seriously undermines our humanitarian partnership with the Roman Catholic Church.
Some have accused the Sangre de Christo Catholic Church of being uncharitable in their response to this outrage. I disagree. Parishoners have every right to be irate and “unreasonable” at the violation of their Church and what they hold sacred. As the guilty party (after all, these goons were representing us!), we have no room to complain about “unreasonableness.” An apology that points out where the other guy was wrong (even when the other guy is partly–or even mostly–at fault!) is not a true apology.
Some time ago, while relaying a message (through a third party) from my Bishop, I had accidently offended somebody. The fact that the third party gave me the wrong message didn’t matter–at all. What did matter was that I offended that person, so I had to make it right–not the third party.
The Diocese of Colorado Springs has every right to demand the closure of the Colorado Denver South Mission–if not the Church as a whole within its boundaries (I am not saying that unreasonable demands should be met). But they aren’t; all they’re asking is to be made whole, and that justice would be served on the thugs who desecrated what is holy to them. This is a very reasonable request, and for that, we should be grateful, rather than angry.
To the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ credit, it has offered to recompense the Sangre de Christo Catholic Church for damages. Perhaps compensation for maintenance over the last two years would also be appropriate. Just because the full extent of the damages weren’t noticed for two years does not mean that workcrews weren’t subjected to extra work that they shouldn’t have had to do. The fact that the maintenance crew was subject to slightly more than the usual wear and tear is enough reason that they should be compensated for it! Maybe our Church can take it out of the hides of these vandals….
I am glad that the Church is cooperating in the prosecution–to the fullest extent of the law–of those thugs who messed with Catholic Church property. They deserve all the law has to throw at them.
I think that the third goon that was still on its mission should NEVER have been sent home, however; it sends a bad signal. Rather, that inDUHvidual should have been deposited at the police station for booking, then remanded to the county jail as an interstate flight risk until trial. As things stand now, the State of Colorado and Costilla County must spend money to extradite these low-lifes.
I do have a question, though: Where is the fourth reprobate? Missionaries have companions, and it is very rare for three of them to be companions with each other. Who took those pictures?!? That fourth guy should be prosecuted, as well.
I’m glad, though, that I’m part of a group that is outraged when one of ours is destructive rather than gleefully rewarding their destruction. I cannot imagine that God would be pleased with such cheap-shot destruction, and I am pleased that such low-lifes are a very small minority–and the Church moves to get rid of such.
UPDATE: While I don’t know the missionaries in question, and none of them are from my part of the country, it is my experience that Latter-day Saints aren’t all that different in their conduct from place to place. Thus, I cannot help wondering what part that *I* had in building a culture where it is OK to defile what is holy to others. These missionaries represent not only the Lord, but also us as members of the Church. What have we been teaching our people? When I taught Primary (My first calling was Nursury Leader!), when I was in Elders Quorum Presidencies, as a Home Teacher, in Bishoprics and Branch Presidencies, did I instill an ethos that it was better to suffer injustice than to inflict it–or did I contribute to a Hitlerjugend culture where others were “subhuman”–and thus, deserved maltreatment?
When I was a child, my dad caught me mistreating people for being “other”–once. Let me just say that he took effective action to ensure that I never behaved that way ever again.
There is a danger to the Evangelical view that we all are pathetic sinners. Those who hold that view too often tend to look at others that way–with no redeeming feature at all–and forget that it is just as true for themselves.
There is also a danger in the view that we all have the seeds of God within us. People in that paradigm tend to remember it about themselves–and forget it about others.
Actually, both views are true, but that leads–all too often–to the view that *I* have elements of God, while you are a pathetic sinner. In my case, it is better to reverse it: *I* am a sinner with no redeeming feature, while YOU have elements of God. It is MUCH nearer to the truth, and God is offended less often.
UPDATE2:
You’ve made some good points, NoS, so I’d like to address them:
1. You say that I was too emotive and not reasoned enough. Guilty as charged. Perhaps that was because several of my friends have been victimised (Forget about anything *I* might have suffered; I’m sure you’d agree that I got my just desserts!). While I am all for mercy for the sinner (since I am one myself–one who competes with Paul for being “chief of sinners” [See I Timothy 1:15]–see below), what about mercy for those who’ve been sinned against? You rightly assail the “liberalminded-double standard,” but how dare you deny the Catholics the right to complain about the way they’ve been treated–especially since they’ve done those missionaries no wrong?
2. You said, “I’ve not heard any catholics calling for such retribution, because Christians know that when they are offended they are to turn the other cheek (not necessarily ignore the legal consequences) but not try to get even.” I agree fully–but they could have. Don’t the Catholics get any credit for following the Lord’s injunction here? Moreover, just because I assert that they have a right to be “unreasonable,” I have NOT claimed that unreasonable demands should be met!
3. You said, “If Danderson thinks that missionaries who sin shouldn’t be sent home, he’s expressing his opinions on the wrong forum.” That is not what I think. What I do think is that people who commit felonies and who might be charged shouldn’t leave the jurisdiction; it inflicts undue expenses on the taxpayers of that jurisdiction. Or do you assert that taxpayers don’t deserve mercy?
4. You are right that Jesus “trie[d] to persuade ANY person acting unreasonably to repent and try humility and love,” but He did more than that: He roughed up the money changers who defiled the sacred [See Matthew 21:12-13]. Jesus followed D&C 121:43, “Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom [He hath] reproved, lest he esteem [Him] to be his enemy.” I do a lousy job of this, but I hope to get it right someday–through practice.
5. You said, “I am troubled by your assumption that one bad deed deserves another. “You’ve just given extreme anti-Mormons an excuse to defile our most sacred spots.” I made no such assumption. What I am assuming is that whenever people behave badly, others will take it as permission to do bad things to them. As the Saviour put it, “For … with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” [Matthew 7:2]. I’m not sure He’s saying we deserve it, but I am pretty sure He’s making an observation about what is.
6. You’re most definitely right that I “should become more aquainted with his New Testament.” I’ll go even further: I should become more acquainted with all the Scriptures! Even if I were to become as holy as Mother Teresa–or even as holy as you–that need will still exist. Moreover, I have a copy of Brother Millet’s book.
7. You rightly say that I “shouldn’t compare the stupid and disrespectful actions of these missionaries with what Hitler did. It denigrates everyone who’s family suffered through the holocaust.” Point taken–and I’ve already acknowledged where I was wrong in allowing my description of the event to spill over into describing the people. I remind you, though, that the Hitlerjugend didn’t operate the ovens. They WERE however, trained to hate other religions as subhuman; in their case, it was the Jews.
8. Your rant “‘My experience that LDS aren’t all that different in their conduct from place to place.’ Hm, very unsupportable statement. Just how much experience does Steven have judging how similar LDS are around the board. How much does Steven know about Statistics? While Danderson is claiming to have some sort of special knowledge about LDS distributions, I seriously doubt his ability to say anything of it,” is just as much namecalling as you accuse me of, but let me answer the question in it: I know enough statistics to teach it at the college level. However, I’m not making a statistical conclusion here; just an observation. I am also aware of your Y professor’s statistic about LDS tolerance, but thank you for citing it. It underlines why I was so upset at the horrid breaking with that norm.
9. You make an assumption that I am some left-wing nut. Actually, I am a libertarian-leaning CONSERVATIVE nut!
10. You say, “Steven: You’re lack of understanding the fall and repentance is bothersome, especially in one who claims to be an apologist. Your statment, “I am a sinner with no redeeming feature, while you have elements of God.” Is no nearer to the truth, it is exactly as far from the truth as any of the preceding statments. “We are all sinners, with good and bad. We will all ONLY be saved by Christ’s atonement, and all have access to the elements of God both from divine parentage and from the Savior’s grace.” That is Gospel truth. Don’t seek to defend the truth until you have it.” Obviously, from your tone, you mean everybody will be saved, except for me. You may be right. You ask where I live so you can avoid it. I have a better idea: If you wish, I’ll give you my exact location, so you may dispatch me to hell. I’m sure I’ll enjoy the trip!
UPDATE3:
NoS and others who may be concerned:
My very wise Bishop told me that, whenever people were angry with him, he would ask them to go over–in detail–EVERY aspect of why they’re angry with him. When they finish, Bishop asks them, “Do you feel better, having vented?” Invariably, they think for a moment, then answer, “Yes.” At that point, says my Bishop, he can work with them to solve the real source of their trouble.
I’ve already revealed the problem at the source of my rant: The pain that those at the Sangre de Christo Catholic Church felt when people betrayed a trust, and treated them and what they hold sacred with less than all due respect. You rant, “How about you bring one of your victimized friends and let them make a noise.” I ask, why should THEY face their enemies, since the New Testament makes it clear that WE should do it for them [See Acts 20:35, for example.]?
You ask, “Should we give the Catholics a sticker? Would that make you feel better?” How about giving the Catholics some courtesy? They don’t need a sticker; just some consideration as humans. What prevents you from giving it to them? I wonder if it is because you are feeling pain? Your labelling me a stupid, evil, non-Christian, seems to indicate that–in spite of your protests of the need for logic….
I wonder if you or somebody close to you did somebody wrong–and felt unforgiven (You DON’T need to answer that!!)? I had thought that forgiveness upon repentance is an entirely separate matter from assessing the damage done–and the pain inflicted by the sin itself. I can understand now, upon reflection, why you or others might think differently–and I should have made that distinction clear. I do so now:
1. Even though I used harsh words to describe them, based on their reported acts, I do NOT assert that they will remain so after repentance. President Spencer Kimball made it clear that an sinner who repents is no longer a sinner [Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 107].
2. I trust local and general authorities to provide the proper ecclesiatic remedy. I have enough experience with leaders at both levels to be secure that they know what they’re doing.
3. Consequently, once those remedies are in place, I can wholeheartedly sustain their return to full fellowship, quite confidently sustaining them in whatever calling the Lord sees fit to entrust them.
My view is the same as for anybody else. The Lord has done some WONDERFUL things with some very flaky characters–including ME!
If what I wrote gave any of you pain, I apologise. Have a good life!
Since missionaries are the official envoys of the Church, I think this should be handled like any other run-of-the-mill diplomatic incident. Summon the mission president to the Diocese HQ, lodge an official complaint, transfer any remaining involved missionaries to another mission, pay for incidental damages, and get back to business as usual.
Hyperventilation on either side of the issue is not likely to do any good.
I agree that whatever the truth is we should accept it and restore what is needed, but there should be an investigation that the missionaries broke the monument not only made the photos with a broken head. Because I can imagine those “not very wise” missionaries picking the already broken head and making “funny” pictures in the Sangre de Christo Catholic Church but there should be evidences to prove that they had broken the monument.
There are some many possible threads one could follow with this story. For example – if this was almost 2 years ago, and there’s some elder who was still on his mission, then he must have been close to “green” when all this took place. How did this level of sacrilegious foolishness affect his attitude toward his mission? Who else has he had for companions since then, and to what effect?
The original article said that the church was offering compensation to the Sangre de Christo congregation for the damage. What might be mutually beneficial is for the mission to propose to the local congregation that the Denver South Mission will assign missionaries to tend and maintain the shrine for the next two years. If they accepted, I believe it would be a great opportunity for both sides to put this incident in the past.
While I agree with most of what you wrote, I must confess that I feel that you might be a tad too harsh on these missionaries (at the risk of being cast as a Catholic-hater)
Certainly the pictures they took are innappropriate and deserve an apology or more. And Catholics (and all religious people) have a right to be angered by them.
But as far as “vandalism” goes, the only thing in question is the statue. If they did in fact, break off the head, then that’s a serious offense. But I agree with the second comment that it’s entirely possible they just picked it up and took the picture (again, not appropriate, but not vandalism either). I’ve never tried, but I imagine it’s difficult to break off the head of a statue with your bear hands. Still, I don’t know one way or the other.
And I too have thought of the “green missionary” theory. While anyone should have known better, it’s true that missionaries teach their “green” missionaries to follow in the footsteps of their trainers. So does our missionary program in general have some responsibility in this?
While these guys are responsible for their actions, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the church sends out 19 year old boys to represent it, for better or worse. Certainly this isn’t the only incident where a missionary have acted foolishly–just the most publicized and recent one.
Now could all tell me how insensitive I am. Again, let me re-iterate that an apology and investigation on the vandalism and reimbursement for the damage (whether it was the missionaries fault or not) is warranted.
I meant “bare hands”, not “bear hands”. If they had bear hands, it’s be more understandable.
But I suppose they could have used a rock or some other instrument, so again, I don’t know. (If they brought something along with them, that would suggest pre-meditation which would be ever more serious)
And in addition to thinking about restitution, we should also be thinking about how we fix the root problem that caused this. While I certainly hope these sorts of incidents aren’t common, I also believe, as much as we’d like to think otherwise, that animosity on the part of the missionaries toward other religions is somewhat common. I think some steps could be taken to correct this. Perhaps guest speakers at mission conferences, who would be leaders of other churches who would come and explain their beliefs and cultures, not for the purpose of argument but of mutual respect.
“enemy” “hooligans” “punks “goons” “thugs” “vandals” “reprobate” “low-lifes”
“I’m glad, though, that I’m part of a group that is outraged when one of ours is destructive rather than gleefully rewarding their destruction. I cannot imagine that God would be pleased with such cheap-shot destruction, and I am pleased that such low-lifes are a very small minority–and the Church moves to get rid of such.”
It goes without saying those Elders committed wrongs and we need to move quickly and sincerely to make recompense but your post has left a very bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps you could consider a dash of mercy as you throw your stones.
You are right, Sanford; we SHOULD show mercy–to others. We should NOT, however, demand that mercy be shown to us, nor should we expect it. And you are right to call me down for being TOO angry. There is no excuse for failing to properly convey outrage–without going overboard.
If you will, though, I have a question: Where was the mercy shown by these individuals to the Catholics in general, and, more specifically, to the parishoners at Sangre de Christo Catholic Church–especially when the vandalism occured?
Let us not make not make the mistake of soft-pedalling what happened. The act of defiling and desecrating the Sangre de Christo Catholic Church is vandalism. It is thuggery. It is reprehensable behaviour. It is NOT the act of friends.
Now that I bring it up, I shouldn’t have let my description of the event spill over into describing the people.
Signed,
the slimeball judgmental one
😉
Hi Mike L.!
You may be right that what was done may be less than what was thought. I’ll leave that to the disciplinary councils to sort that out.
In my observation, soft-pedaling the pain is viewed by the victim as adding insult to injury. It seems to them that others think that THEY don’t matter. Certainly, God would disagree with anybody who
While it is true whenever *I* have been “victimised” (No doubt I got EXACTLY what I deserve, so I shouldn’t call it victimisation!), in my experience, I make a BIG mistake whenever I assume the same about OTHERS.
I have concluded from this that the best thing to do whenever I am involved in inflicting injustice on others is to acknowledge others’ pain and to apologise for my part in it (no matter how small)–fully, completely, and without qualification. And, if it means that I must suffer greater injustices, well, that is the price I must pay for being unjust in the first place!
The Church, for its part, have done this. Perhaps that is why the Catholics’ response thus far has been measured and reasonable.
Hi Peter!
I agree in part–and disagree in part. The Brethren are quite right to take responsibility for those acting in its name and under their stewardship, and to take whatever action is necessary to repair the damages to people, assets, and the Church’s reputation. The Brethren do a VERY good job, on the whole, of fulfilling this part of their calling.
I have a problem, though, with “get[ting] back to business as usual.” The Catholics, at this point, have plenty of evidence that defiling and desecrating what others hold sacred IS “business as usual” among the Latter-day Saints. What the Catholics DON’T want is a return to that type of “business as usual.” What they DO want is an assurance that such “business as usual” is not tolerated, and ruthlessly crushed.
However, if you mean that “business as usual” is doing good (which, among Latter-day Saints, it is!), then I would agree.
Keep in mind that we must take action to demonstrate that doing good is the norm and what happened at San Luis, Colorado is anomalous. That takes a LOT of time. There are people who are convinced that Mountain Meadows is “business as usual,” while the hundreds of millions of dollars the Church spends on humanitarian projects–annually–never happened.
Hi Olson!
Indeed, it would! I’m not sure, though, that the Catholics would consent to missionaries doing maintenance–especially after what the last bunch who was there did!
On the other hand, the MEMBERS in San Luis, Colorado may be allowed to, though!
“We should NOT, however, demand that mercy be shown to us, nor should we expect it.”
I don’t remember asking for any mercy. And just because these missionaries represent our Church doesn’t mean they represent you and me. What they did was foolish, should reflect only upon themselves, and they should consequently bear the burden of a proper, yet fair punishment.
I’m all for punishing the guilty and promoting good relations between our church and other Christians. But at the same time, I saw the alleged pictures on the Deseret News website (they appear to have been removed since then.) One was of a guy standing at a pulpit with a Book of Mormon. Um… what exactly does that destroy, if not the tact of a missionary? There was another of a young man holding the head of a statue. I understand that he very well could have broken the head off of the statue, but it still seems highly circumstantial, not to mention improbable; it seems more likely to me that he picked the head up off the ground. I’ve never broken a head off of a statue, but I’m willing to think it’s more difficult (and loud) than a couple of missionaries could do without being heard. Are they really to be punished for property damage even though there’s no concrete proof they were the ones who damaged the property? And as for the picture of the missionaries pretending to sacrifice each other on the altar, the question arises as to whether or not they actually broke anything since they’re being accused of property damages.
My point is, accuse the guilty for what they’re actually guilty of. Our system of government has always said innocent until proven guilty. These pictures are not sufficient evidence they’re guilty of anything other than being young and stupid. And I don’t know about the laws in Colorado, but where I live neither one of those things is a crime yet.
As someone who isn’t too much younger than the missionaries were when they decided to embarrass themselves and their families, I think a sufficient punishment would be to have all four of them speak at General Conference about their actions. Let them stand before 13 million members (and anyone else who cares to watch) and apologize for what they did. Let them speak to other young missionaries who would be watching about how reckless and foolish being careless on a mission can be.
All I know is, you wont see me throwing stones about the stupid things they’ve done. It’s certainly not our place to fill our hearts with ire against them. No one is impressed by overzealous self-righteousness.
Strictly speaking Paradox, you’re right. Neither of us sent those people to Colorado, and we certainly didn’t order them to desecrate that Catholic shrine.
I trust their local leaders to do the right thing about their Church standing–and I hope you would note that I haven’t said anything about their disposition. It isn’t my place.
It IS my place to validate the pain that Catholics in general and parishoners of the Sangre de Christo felt when they were injured in that fashion. Both the injury and the pain are serious and severe. Frankly, while I don’t want to overpunish (or to punish at all), I’d rather relieve the pain of those who suffer unjustly.
On the other hand, the missionaries DID act in the name of the Church, and the Church is its members–US. Moreover, they were called by a man we sustain as a Prophet of God. I also presume that MANY Wards have people like them.
What concerns me is what we can do to build a culture where it is NOT OK to desecrate what others hold sacred. I have come to the conclusion that *I* can do a whole lot more.
I have similar thoughts as Mike L and Paradox. Really, what did they do? They took a few pictures. There’s not even proof that the broke the statue. Did the hold up a sign that said “F the Catholics?” Not that I know of. I don’t think they targeted that religion, it probably just seemed like a good photo op. Do I think it was right that they did it? No. But do I think it was wrong? Not necessarily. I’ve written a little bit more on my blog.
All this talk about “punishment” seems to miss the point, I think. The author emphasizes that “these vandals have ruined missionary efforts” – and for how many people (thousands?) who have now read about this incident in the newspapers and on the internet?
It’s been my experience that many of our missionaries (the Elders, at least) don’t think enough about the pictures they take. That was the case years ago when I served both in Idaho and in Argentina, and this story make me doubt that things have gotten any better. The suits and black name tags that we wear as missionaries are distinctive enough that pictures of us are identifiable at a glance.
Having also worked in a retail photo lab, I can tell you that photos that stand out – whether out of beauty or offensiveness – don’t go unnoticed by those developing them, and law requires that photo technicians pay attention to what gets developed for legal reasons. That being the case, those who develop photos of missionaries acting offensively, or even just stupidly, are almost certainly less likely to see the truthfulness of our message through the fog of such behavior.
Thank God for His mercy. Considering how such acts as these young men’s – whether or not vandalism was involved – may cause some of His children to reject the gospel message (there are few things more serious than that) they should be grateful that their punishment won’t fit their crime (as is absolutely the case with every sin we commit, as missionaries or not).
When I click on your underlined words, the links don’t work. How do I get to the pages for those linked words?
Steven Danderson:
Not quite the type of material I would have expected from a level-headed, helpful, true apologist. I sense too much emotion and too little reason. I expect all apologists to expect reasonable behavior, and not apologize for unreasonable behavior. “Parishoners have every right to be irate and “unreasonable”.” A very literal reading of the constitution does defend a right to be unreasonable. However, no scripture in the New Testament does. No reasonable person protects the individuals right to be unreasonable, but instead tries to persuade ANY person acting unreasonably to repent and try humility and love, for that is what Jesus did. I didn’t sing in primary “I’m trying to be like Jesus, I’m trying to defend the unreasonable. I’m trying to get offended, like He did…” Simply silly. And then to say that no LDS person has a right to complain! So Catholics have the right to be unreasonable, but LDS have no rights to complain, talk about a liberalminded-double standard. If the Diocese of Colorado Springs demands the closure of the Colorado Mission, that is unreasonable, and I hope every catholic, let alone, every Mormon would find that repugnant. Maybe a right, but just as repugnant as holding the head of a broken statue. And my New Testament doesn’t teach me that the way of Christ is retribution. Maybe Steven Danderson should become more aquainted with his New Testament, and maybe other portions than where Paul describes holding the coats of those stoning the Christian, Stephen.
Words that belie emotive rather than logical argument:
“hooligans, punks, thugs, low-lifes, Hitlerjugend.” You really shouldn’t compare the stupid and disrespectful actions of these missionaries with what Hitler did. It denigrates everyone who’s family suffered through the holocaust.
I am troubled by your assumption that one bad deed deserves another. “You’ve just given extreme anti-Mormons an excuse to defile our most sacred spots.” Christianity does not support such vengeance. I’ve not heard any catholics calling for such retribution, because Christians know that when they are offended they are to turn the other cheek (not necessarily ignore the legal consequences) but not try to get even.
Danderson should also read Bob Millets, Grace Works. In it, Millet relates a story where Bob says, “All I want to get is what I deserve.” To which, a wise friend says, “Bob, you better pray to God that you never get what you deserve.” I worry that we have people like Steven Danderson masquerading as apologists that don’t understand the gospel of Jesus Christ very well, as evidenced by this statment: “They deserve all the law has to throw at them.” While that statement is true, it is not the Christian statment. What he should say, is “Man I hope those boys repent, so they don’t have to receive everything that is due to them.” And that is the essence of Mormon Christianity, repentance to better the relationships between people and between us and God. Not condemnation.
If Danderson thinks that missionaries who sin shouldn’t be sent home, he’s expressing his opinions on the wrong forum. GA’s don’t care or read about varies peoples’ rants on a blog. Vandalism is not a felony, and part of the repentance process will be for the missionaries to return and face whatever consequences the logical law (and not the emotive writers on blogs) find to be true. If we are willing to waste our money extraditing and caring for illegal immigrants who rape and kill innocent Americans, I see no problem in letting the law take care of a studid missionary who committed a misdemeano, instead of a felony. (Liberal double standards abound).
“I cannot imagine that God would be pleased with such cheap-shot destruction…” I don’t any who have claimed that God was glorified by these actions. However, before you get too puffed up maybe you should re-read the story of Gideon in Judges 6. I don’t know what says cheap-shot destruction like maliciously cutting down an image of Ba’al during the night and then not confessing to it in the morning. Good thing that photobucket didn’t exist back then… Or was it just that liberals didn’t exists back then? Who knows.
“My experience that LDS aren’t all that different in their conduct from place to place.” Hm, very unsupportable statement. Just how much experience does Steven have judging how similar LDS are around the board. How much does Steven know about Statistics? While Danderson is claiming to have some sort of special knowledge about LDS distributions, I seriously doubt his ability to say anything of it. It would be nice if some sociologist would see in general, through the use of surveys just how broad the standard variation of LDS’s is when it comes to treating others with tolerance. I remember one time in a policy class at the Y with a very liberal PolySci teacher, (who didn’t whitewash Mormons or Utah culture) he quoted a study that did show that LDS are much more tolerant as a whole than other “groups” who are religious. Just a thought.
“What part I had in building a culture where it is OK to defile what is holy to others.” I’ve never met a single person who has ever wanted to have a part in defiling what is holy to others. Just what part of the country do you live in Steven, so I can avoid it fully? To be fair, Steven, you don’t know if these stupid and misguided missionaries viewed catholics as “subhuman” or that they deserved maltreatment. The pictures aside, I doubt there were catholics all around in the cemetary, they thought they were alone, it is still horrendous, but to ascribe malice when you could attribute it to ignorance, is a judgement I’m not willing to allow.
Steven: You’re lack of understanding the fall and repentance is bothersome, especially in one who claims to be an apologist. Your statment, “I am a sinner with no redeeming feature, while you have elements of God.” Is no nearer to the truth, it is exactly as far from the truth as any of the preceding statments. “We are all sinners, with good and bad. We will all ONLY be saved by Christ’s atonement, and all have access to the elements of God both from divine parentage and from the Savior’s grace.” That is Gospel truth. Don’t seek to defend the truth until you have it.
Let me add to Sanford, and point out to Danderson, “You also live in a glass house, Steven.” May God be more merciful to you than they were to the Catholics and you were to them. Once we have evidence that the missionaries purpotrated the vandalism you’ll have a little room to stand on, right now you just sound like and angry Hausfrau.
Steven, if you’ve ever build a fire before you know what stoking the fire is. While you think that you are simply “acknoledgeing other’s pain and apologizing for it” you are actually overstating quite a bit of things that you do not know, cannot know, and condemning others as you do it. You’ve condemned a lot of people on this blog who simply don’t share your viewpoint, and I find an awful lot of irony in that. You believe that way to solve problems is for someone to suffer injustice. If you had read the BoM or the Bible carefully (Or watched God’s Army II), you would know that someone HAS already suffered the greatest injustice for this. This should enable all Christians to move forward from vengeance to love. Remember President Faust’s GC talk about the Amish and their example of forgiveness. Compare that talk to the anger you feel towards the missionaries and ask yourselve if that anger draws you closer to, or further from God. I’d be interested in your response.
While Danderson has quickly lost respect for me for claiming that all Mormons are the same, he quickly goes on to say that “defiling and desecrating what others hold sacrid is (Mormon) “business as usual.” among the Latter-day Saints.” How he is allowed to say biased and unproven things is amazing to me. Maybe someone should look into this fact and question whether or not he should be allowed to remain on this prized academic institution that is fair. I mean, how does it look to allow an anti-Mormon into an apologetic institution? It is simply not true, Steven. Shame on you.
$
You’ve made some good points, NoS, so I’d like to address them. They are in UPDATE2.
Steven D.:
I haven’t tried to take away anyone’s right. It simply looks like childish behavior, and I expect better of adults and Christians.
“but how dare you deny the Catholics the right to complain about the way they’ve been treated–especially since they’ve done those missionaries no wrong? “ Let them complain, but this blog was written by Steven Danderson, and it makes mostly noise. How about you bring one of your victimized friends and let them make a noise. Most people at this blog want to read reasoned thought that isn’t emotive.
You said, “I’ve not heard any Catholics calling for such retribution, because Christians know that when they are offended they are to turn the other cheek (not necessarily ignore the legal consequences) but not try to get even.” I agree fully–but they could have. Don’t the Catholics get any credit for following the Lord’s injunction here? Should we give the Catholics a sticker? Would that make you feel better? I had already been glad that most of them behaved like adults. Your rant was the opposite direction, and focused away from repentance, forgiveness, and penance, and focused ONTO animosity and hatred.
“Moreover, just because I assert that they have a right to be “unreasonable,” I have NOT claimed that unreasonable demands should be met!” In my mind, what you have not claimed doesn’t matter. You have asserted it is good for anyone to act unreasonably. That is bothersome. We need fewer emotionally nutso women (or men acting like women) and more intellectually and spiritually mature people trying to be reasoned and loving.
Vandalism is usually a misdemeanor under most laws. Taking inappropriate pictures is not. If the missionaries broke the statue, they can be charged, but can we at least ask them if they broke it first before rushing to a false condemnation of guilty of a felony, when they would probably be found guilty of a misdemeanor? Libertarians should believe in the rule of law rather than the mob mentality that had JS martyred. I don’t think an email from one sheriff to another is going to break any jurisdiction’s bank. Unless the missionaries or the church were told to keep all missionaries there, they broke no laws, and so you should stop your sniveling.
Well if you think you’ve been moved upon by the Holy Ghost to write the words you have, you might want to reconsider the fruits of the spirit (Gal 5). The modifier “when” in DC 121 means the Spirit has to be there in order for any correction to be valid. It isn’t, “My liberal sensibilities have been offended.” The spirit must be the provocation, not pride, or judgment. (Note, although you claim libertarian, extreme conservative politics, you disregard the rule of law, e.i., the constitution says innocent until proven guilty, yet you set that aside to assuage your outrage, and that, is very liberal.)
SD: “You’ve just given extreme anti-Mormons an excuse to defile our most sacred spots–and more! As if they needed more excuses!”
NoS: “I am troubled by your assumption that one bad deed deserves another. “You’ve just given extreme anti-Mormons an excuse to defile our most sacred spots.”
Steven, you’re backtracking. You’re now claiming that “Other’s will take it as permission to do bad things to them.” While you originally said, “As if they needed more excuses.” Only children believe this. I do not believe that most Catholics behave like children, and I don’t think you do either, so now your argument has really dried up. And Steven, most Christians (and Mormons) read Matthew 7:2 as an injunction to NOT CONDEMN others so harshly lest God judge us harshly rather than as an excuse for vindictive people to cause harm to others. More of a predictive power rather than an excuse for fallen humans. More of a warning to let us be merciful so we can obtain mercy. (Matthew 5:7).
“Even if I were to become as holy as Mother Teresa–or even as holy as you–that need will still exist. Moreover, I have a copy of Brother Millet’s book.” I have not claimed any special holiness for myself, other than that which comes from the Savior’s atonement. Let’s not be deceptive and put words in my mouth, please. Additionally, I don’t just want you to have Millet’s book, I want you to read it, because you obviously forgot that part.
I still fail to see how your mention of die Hitlerjugend strengthens your case. Although the JH were taught to hate other RACES (which the JH taught rather than religion), this is an apple/oranges case. I’ve never been taught to hate another religion. If you have, blame your parents, but the church does not teach hatred for anything but sin. And to equate the church with the JH does little more than emotionally equate the church with Hitler. It is an emotive argument, it poisons the church, and has no merit on its own.
Steven, expressing a doubt that you have evidence to back up what you assert is not namecalling. Even if it were, all you would have to do is express some evidence and then my argument would have to change. Actually I didn’t even finish what I was going to say. Let’s make some simple assumptions to get some numbers, and you can tell me what parts you think invalid. If there are 55,000 missionaries, that is 27500 companionships. 10 hours of proselytizing at 10 contacts per hour would lead to 31300 contacts/companionship/year (accounting for p-days). This leads to an estimated 860 million 750 thousand contacts per year. 1 incident that is news worthy, and remember that the liberal media LOVE to point out problems with any good thing (like any church). That leads to a ratio of almost a billion to one. Even the shot noise associated with a single missionary in any given year would yield 235 incidents. So 1 (horrendous) episode per year is not only statistically insignificant, it’s miraculously small. To quote on anonymous teacher, “One proof in the divinity of the church is that it grows in spite of the missionaries.” You have been unable to quote any statistics about the church raising missionaries like the hitleryouth to hate other religions, and have provided no statistics that the LDS are NOT doing an incredible job. We can always do better. But to focus on a statistical aberration, would make me seriously doubt your ability to teach ANY course at a college level.
“It underlines why I was so upset at the horrid breaking with that norm.” You need to revisit your statistic books then, life is controlled by the breaking of the norm. Read a book on statistical mechanics for a start.
“Obviously, from your tone, you mean everybody will be saved, except for me.” That’s not what I wrote, Steven, nor can it honestly be extracted from what I said. I haven’t threatened your life, and my question about region you were in was more of a tongue in cheek gesture that whatever people are like where you are I don’t want to be around it. My point is, your viewpoint is not one supported by scriptures, mine is. And I suggest you learn to be more grounded in the scriptures before you try “apologizing” for the church. You may also need to strengthen your testimony so that you don’t get so offended and read things into what wasn’t said. I repeat what I actually said. “We are all sinners, with good and bad. We will all ONLY be saved by Christ’s atonement, and all have access to the elements of God both from divine parentage and from the Savior’s grace.”
“I’d rather relieve the pain of those who suffer unjustly.” And exactly whose pain are you relieving with your writing? How many people? Is there a single one?
“I also presume that MANY Wards have people like them.” The road to hell was made with many presumptions and good intentions. I hope you haven’t forgotten when an assumption really is. AS-S-U-ME. Include real data rather than emotive arguments and you may change minds rather than rile people up.
NoS:
Quoting your 3/19 6:10 pm post:
“We need fewer emotionally nutso women (or men acting like women) and more intellectually and spiritually mature people trying to be reasoned and loving.”
Did I read that correctly? And as members we wonder why our Mormon culture is criticized as being one that subjugates women? Your comment is of the type that invites yet another label for our Mormon culture: misogynistic.
How can your statement do this? The ease with which that type of language embedded itself into your argument suggests you are (or were) not even aware of its presence, or of its ugliness. Readers may be impressed that the social tone set by such chauvinistic rhetoric is representative of this online community (which, correct me if I’m wrong, is largely if not wholly a Mormon community), and thus representative of Mormonism on the whole. Language like that and the social ignorance behind it is cancerous.
Please understand that I am not calling you as a person ignorant. But your choice of language was.
Thank you all for the lively discussion. This is my first visit to the site.
Revised:
“We need fewer emotionally nutso women (or men acting like emotionally nutso women) and more intellectually and spiritually mature people trying to be reasoned and loving.”
The second phrase pointed to the first, but perhaps I didn’t make that clear. You should notice I didn’t say we need less women and more men in our discussions, but that we need less emotionally, illogical rhetoric, because then we can focus on issues, and NOT emotion. Although stereotypes are NEVER completely true, they are seldom completely false. I have met many women with whom I enjoy conversing. However, these are not the stereotypical, “womanly” attitude supported and portrayed by modern media. What I was trying to say, is anyone (male or female) who relies on emotive arguments, rather than fact, reason, and logic, impedes true discussion that can lead to an actual conclusion.
I hope that explains my reasoning a little. I’m sorry if you felt I was thinking that all women are without logic, I don’t believe that. But I do believe that abandoning logic and getting emotional during an argument is a sign of mental weakness.
Jared:
Continued.
In this case, Jared, I was discussing with Steven Danderson (a man who was acting emotionally erratic) and who was encouraging all people to be unreasonable. Jared, you were taking my specific case (stated in the general to be less critical of Steven) as a general case, when in reality it was meant to define ONE specific case. I truly understand how it could be misinterpreted, I will be more cautious of that in the future, and thank you for the opportunity to refine my statment. I’d say in my (personal) interactions with women, only 10% rely on emotive arguments, while maybe 5% of men rely on emotive arguments. Not very significant statistically.
Jared:
One other thing you should recognize about the online communities. Not only Mormons read or contribute to these blogs. Not only active happy Mormons contribute, either. Like all organizations there are distributions. Here we have happy Mormons, unhappy Mormons, strong Mormons, faltering Mormons, true-apologists, anti-Mormons, gentle observers, serious observers, and what have you. Any thing one person says should not be taken as a critique of Mormonism in general is it could be written by one weak in the faith, or one intent on tearing it down, even through false pretenses.
Hi Jared!
Thanks for the input. That’s the reason I writing: To generate discussion. I hope you and other readers find edification and intellectual and spiritual stimulation.
NoS:
Please see UPDATE3.
Steven,
While venting certainly has a point in the need of human beings, I’m not sure a blog for Mormon apologists is the most effective place to just vent emotional matters. My question that you have never answered is “Has this venting drawn you closer to God, or further. Has “feeling the pain of these Catholics helped them draw closer to God, or not?” While you may “feel” that it has helped, could you actually say that you KNOW you have helped them?
Your proof text of Acts 20:35 doesn’t seem to match very well with what you’re saying. “I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to agive than to receive.” True apologists don’t use proof-texts out of context. I do not consider catholics weak, nor my enemy. Most Catholics don’t consider Mormons to be their enemy. The reason I challenged you to bring a Catholic is because I believe you are much more concerned about this than they even are. I think they recognize that this was nothing more than stupid people doing stupid things, and not a church who is out to destroy them, by teaching their youth to be hitlerjugend, as you suggested in your original post. The adult behavior of most catholics by NOT getting offended earned them more courtesy than any of your ranting about them not being respected. They don’t need a sticker because they already know how to respond to persecution, the way most Mormons do at GC, ignoring it and acting more mature than those who are persecuting. “just some consideration as humans.” I’ve never said they shouldn’t be given consideration, but running around like a chicken with its head cut off really doesn’t help the Catholics. My asking you to calm down and present rational arguments is not withholding consideration from Catholics. You have NO KNOWLEDGE of my consideration for Catholics, and just because YOU ASSUME that I don’t doesn’t give you the right to condemn or psychoanalyze me. Stick to what you’re good at. I have never called you evil, non-Christian, or actually even stupid. I have stated that some of your behavior is non-Christian and that some of your assumptions are incorrect, especially about statistics. “I wonder if you or somebody close to you did somebody wrong–and felt unforgiven.” You don’t need to wonder about things for which you have no evidence. The gospel of Jesus Christ is about repentance and forgiveness, I would expect a Mormon apologist to know that.
More than a couple have expressed that your comments are meant to instill distrust and ill-will rather than goodwill and love. Can you honestly say that you have felt God’s spirit as you’ve been writing as you earlier claimed? You can pour gasoline or C02 foam onto a fire, which do you think is better if Christ asks us to not have the fire of contention within our souls?
NoS:
You state:
“More than a couple have expressed that your comments are meant to instill distrust and ill-will rather than goodwill and love.”
Why are you telling me what I mean? Can you read minds?
No, I won’t tell you what you mean by your cracks; I don’t know enough. As you insist, I’m too stupid.
😛
You resent any attempt to “condemn or psychoanalyze me.” That’s nice, but I do neither, as I am utterly incompetent to do them. I’m merely trying to understand.
I DO have a question: Why are you condemning ME, since you don’t like others condemning you? Are you my Judge?
You assert: “I have never called you evil, non-Christian, or actually even stupid. I have stated that some of your behavior is non-Christian….”
I suggest that you reread your comments, Sir. You have gone beyond speaking of behaviour to commenting on my state of being. You earlier stated that Jesus “trie[d] to persuade.” Perhaps you ought to adjust your tactics to better conform with your stated ideal–and I will certainly do likewise, at any event.
🙂
You ask: “Can you honestly say that you have felt God’s spirit as you’ve been writing as you earlier claimed?”
Yes, I can. However, just because the sentiment might be right, it does not follow that there aren’t flaws in my execution.
You rightly say that “The gospel of Jesus Christ is about repentance and forgiveness.” Perhaps we ALL need to learn about that–or should I bow down and worship your divine presence? Your question above appears to imply that I am a liar. As a demonstration of my knowledge of what the Gospel is about, I forgive you of any slight in that implication, Sir–whether intended or not.
🙂
You claim, “My asking you to calm down and present rational arguments is not withholding consideration from Catholics.” True enough, but I didn’t make that assertion. However, your earlier question, “Do we give them a sticker?” DOES appear to be “withholding consideration from Catholics.”
You protest, “You have NO KNOWLEDGE of my consideration for Catholics.” That is VERY true. I have no knowledge of any consideration, because up to now, I have utterly failed to detect any in the comments you’ve made.
You deride me because “some of your assumptions are incorrect, especially about statistics.” How could I make incorrect statistical assumptions, when I’ve made NO statistical assumptions AT ALL? True, I’ve made inferences based on my experience and observation, but they come with all the caveats implied with such observations. I’ve neither asserted nor implied that the plural of anecdote is “data,” and I suggest that if you think so, perhaps you ought to reread what I wrote more carefully.
Until you do, I see little that warrants complaining about any misreading I may be guilty of….
🙂
You command me to “Stick to what you’re good at.” Since you’ve made if crystal clear that I am good for nothing, perhaps YOU’D like to dispatch me to hell, as I am MUCH too lazy, stupid, and evil to go there myself!
😉
Have a nice life!
FINAL UPDATE!!–Great news! The Catholics at the Sangre de Christo Catholic Church have asked law enforcement to drop charges against the erstwhile LDS missionaries. This, I think, concludes this blog. I will soon post a new blog entry detailing where I wanted to go with this in the first place. Many thanks to all those who posted comments–even the pans! 😉
When Jesus knocked over the moneymakers tables in the Temple did the cry for Him to clean up the mess? Young men make errors, no matter what station in life. That is why repentence and forgiveness are here. What? No swastikas or f bombs or tearing up or stealing computers? Lets put this in context and forgive and get on with it. Too much litigation and too little love.
Hi Ted!
As I recall, Jesus had the right to tear the moneychangers’ effects apart. What right do non-Catholics to enter their holy places and defile their effects? None.
You make some excellent point here:
1. Youngsters do STUPID things! I recall one dumb thing I did along those lines as a kid. My dad did to me what would, in the early 21st century, though not then, border on child abuse. I can say that I never repeated that disrespect, nor did anything like unto it–and my kid brother shied away from such, as well. Maybe we need more such negative consequences to deter negative actions?
2. You’re right; it COULD have been MUCH worse! I think that, plus the fact that the Church took fairly quick corrective action, gave the Catholics incentive to forgive.
In a word, the fact that this incident did not damage LDS-Catholic relations was due to the Church’s corrective action of errant missionaries and the Catholics’ forgiveness. Thank God for that!