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!

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!

Please see UPDATE3.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

$

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).

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 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.

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!

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.

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.

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

“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.

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.

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.

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.

Hyperventilation on either side of the issue is not likely to do any good.