9/11/2010 Burn a Koran Day

[Beantown]

From this post it is obvious that you did not see the episode in question.

The plot at the time revolved around one character being excommunicated from the mainstream LDS church because of her practice of plural marriage. This particular character was raised in the LDS church and went along with her husband's desire to "live the principle" of plural marriage when she was deathly ill and did not believe she was going to survive long in the plural marriage community. As a result, a formal action to remove her from her upbringing in the church deeply affects her.

She uses her sister's temple recommend to particpate in the endowment ceremony and spend time in the celestial room with her mother. It's a final chapter of any tie between her and the mainstream LDS church and one of the few times we see her and her mother in a non-conflict based scenario.

To say that the show mixed the FLDS church with the LDS church is patently inaccurate, as the distinction was the central plot arc of the episode. The show also had significant thematic and artistic reasons for depicting a simulation of the ceremony and a conversation inside the Celestial room and there was no plausible alternative to get to the same ground.

In sum, you have no clue what you're talking about and are just parroting something someone told you about the show.

In any event, feel free to answer any of my questions regarding the differences between simulations and actual performances or why it is offensive. Merely stating that it is offensive is not an answer.

I never did see the episode because I dont pay for HBO. So I do stand corrected. "Simulations" of the temple ceremony are offensive to LDS members. Any participation in those would be grounds for being excommunicated. We believe what goes on in there should only be discussed in the walls of the temples. So to know they are on national television for everyone to see is offensive. But Big Love has every right to do what they did and they should have that right. Just like artists should have the right to draw Mohammed.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Europe 500 years ago? Imagine the reaction in the South right now. Imagine the local reaction if they burned Books of Mormon. Burning a Quran insults every Muslim, not just the radical Islamists for whom the act was intended to offend.

The point is that 500 years ago, most European nations were Christian led. Think "royal 'we'." When word of something like Bible burning would get to these nations, what reaction do you think they'd have? Oh wait, you don't need to know. It happened. Lots of death, that whole multiple crusade thing.

Now in the modern day, there are no major Christian nations. Those nations that are majority Christian are run on secular law and not religious law. This is not the case for Islam, as there are many Islamic led nations. Iran, of course, is one example.

 

[Gameface]

My understanding of LDS history is that Joseph Smith "revealed" the temple ceremony shortly after joining the Freemasons. He shared the ceremony with all members of his church in good standing. The ceremony was so similar to a secret Freemason ceremony that he was kicked out of the Freemasons and soon thereafter he was dead under questionable circumstances. Is my understanding wrong?

 

[sirkickyass]

"Simulations" of the temple ceremony are offensive to LDS members. Any participation in those would be grounds for being excommunicated. We believe what goes on in there should only be discussed in the walls of the temples.

What is the scriptural basis for this claim?

Is there any basis for why activities outside of the tokens and signs must remain secret? For example, is it offensive if someone did every part of the ceremony except for the exchanging of tokens and signs? What is the distinction between those sections and the rest?

 

[Bronco70]

From this post it is obvious that you did not see the episode in question.

I didn't see it either, but may I try to answer your question from another angle?

Mormons (I am one, just in case anyone wasn't aware) have a persecution complex, of sorts. From our perspective, our faith has been misunderstood basically from it's inception. Historically, members pay a social price for their faith. Some of it is based in ignorance, and some in the quirky (read: weird) things we do. There are a lot of things in the church that members are asked to show special reverence for, mainly by not discussing them outside of the appropriate venues. This, naturally, doesn't do much to progress understanding by those outside of the church. Be that as it may, mormons are very guarded about these things. When we see something of this nature depicted out in the open for everyone to see, I think it leaves us feeling vulnerable. We're strange anyway, no need to make it worse, y'know. I believe that's where the offense truly stems from.

I think, in a way, Archie's answer was correct, but it didn't address the core of the issue. It addressed the face.

 

[sirkickyass]

My understanding of LDS history is that Joseph Smith "revealed" the temple ceremony shortly after joining the Freemasons.

The extent of the connection between LDS theology and freemasonry is hotly disputed, with a strong tendency for advocates on both sides to have a pretty clear agenda.

Some similarities are present, as they are between freemasonry and many Christian religions. The barrier between masonic lodges and christian practice has long been porous.

The ceremony was so similar to a secret Freemason ceremony that he was kicked out of the Freemasons

I don't believe this part is accurate.

and soon thereafter he was dead under questionable circumstances.

Same here. I'm pretty sure it's not seriously alleged anywhere that the Mason's killed Smith.

 

[Sloanfeld]

Back on topic...why didn't I think of this? I could be FAMOUS right now!

 

[Nate505]

Burning books is a frightening idea.

Now burning copies of Friedberg/Setzer movies I can get behind!

 

[One Brow]

Likewise.

Right now Iran is the de facto leader of the Islamic world.

In additon to the countries already mentioned, both Tukey and Egypt would strongly dispute this, as well. Among Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Suadi Arabia, and Maylaysia, in terms of world influence, Iran is at best fourth.

Edit: I should probably include Indonesia in that list, as well.

 

[Nate505]

As opposed to all the American flags and presidents burned in effigy that I've seen over the years?

The hypocrisy of the Islamic world in this regard is mind boggling. Their response to even hearing that a koran might be burned is to trample a US flag on the ground, call for the death of America and then burn the flag. I'm at a loss to see how there is much difference.

Because we are better than most of those backwards ****s.

On a general note, I'm not for burning Korans, and frankly this "church leader" is missing a few chromosomes. But if that is going to be the cause for them to hate US citizens for the actions of an extreme minority, they are equally the nutjobs that the burners are.

 

[bordelais7]

Europe 500 years ago? Imagine the reaction in the South right now. Imagine the local reaction if they burned Books of Mormon. Burning a Quran insults every Muslim, not just the radical Islamists for whom the act was intended to offend.

This thread has veered from what *should* have been the main topic of discussion here. Is it "Books of Mormon", or "Book of Mormons", or other?


Mods, can you keep this thread on track? Thanks.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

In this case, it would be Books of Mormon.

Though Book of Mormons would in the end be acceptable and realistically not considered "improper." The preferred way, though, would be Books of Mormon. There is no exact rule.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

The guy is clearly a nut job because he believes the government's nonsense about 9/11, not because he is burning the Koran.

 

[TroutBum]

I didn't see the episode of Big Love. I heard about it, and thought it was stupid. Was I offended...? Maybe, but not to the extent that I ever said anything to anyone. For me, it was just one more reason to never have HBO in my home. I don't appreciate the fact that something I find sacred was so callously thrown around to make a buck.

 

[The Thriller]

Great idea I think.

this is certainly going to be a success on al jazeera.

This is going to have such an amazing effect on those who watch and hear this.

It's all about winning over the hearts and minds of the middle east....

 

[Nate505]

If all it takes is 20 nutjobs from a country of 300 or so million to turn someone rabidly against any country, while the vast majority of the country and the country's military leaders and country's political leaders are opposed to it, then they don't have minds to begin with.

If I saw 20 nutjobs from Syria burning Bibles I wouldn't condemn the whole country's populace for it.

 

[YB85]

This thread has veered from what *should* have been the main topic of discussion here. Is it "Books of Mormon", or "Book of Mormons", or other?


Mods, can you keep this thread on track? Thanks.

I struggled with it. Then I went with "Books of Mormon" and thought that some bigger smart *** than myself would question which was proper. I was right.

 

[NAOS]

@ MARCUS

hmmmm... you don't see the difference between burning what Muslims believe to be God's perfect word and sullying a symbol of a nation?

Either you have no respect for others beliefs
or
you think that the USA is divine
or
both

anyway you slice it, you've got your head up your ***

 

[NAOS]

Isn't every Christian insulted when a bible is burned regardless of why? Or every American when a the US flag is burned regardless of why?

The insult is there, but not everyone is offended.

Again, let's not conflate these "offenses". The 20th century should have taught you that you can't let nations be holy. That is trouble.

 

[NAOS]

From the perspective of a follower of Islam it could be very different. For example, one is the burning of a symbol of religion and God. The other is a symbol of a particular political territory. If you believe that God is above all political territories (as I suspect many religious people do) then burning a religious object is far more offensive.

That's neither here nor there, however. Even if everything you say is true, do you think it's a good idea to go around burning Korans?

You definitely have the right idea here, but I would challenge your use of the word "symbol" with regards to the Koran. Believers do not see it as such. It is the perfect word of God. Literal. Actual.