The Conversion Of Thais Away From Buddhhism

[phetaroi]

Okay...I suppose that got the attention of a few. Just a couple of things in the past few days bothered me a bit.

Instead of a Thai Buddhist going to pray to the Hindu gods at Central World Plaza, why not just walk down the street and meditate at the lovely wat?

Being from my hometown of Palmyra, New York, I was not particularly surprised to spot two Mormon boys boarding the Skytrain this morning. And, like vampires they latched on to two young Thai men to begin the conversion attempt. How successful are they here in Thailand?

[lothda]

The shrines dedicated to Hindu gods or any other deities or spirits have nothing to do with Buddhism. But it is not forbidden for Buddhists to pay their respects there or pray for good fortune or make wishes. They are part of popular belief structures and supposed to be powerful. It's as simple as that.

I doubt that the Mormon boys will have much success. I have to ask if they looked exactly like this:

Just so I can stay away from them...

Edited August 18, 2009 by lothda

[xen]

The evangalists have always been around Bangkok trying to find converts - in fact i know a few Thais here in Sydney that have converted to Christianity.

I also remember being cornered by two evangalists around Soi 8 Sukhumvit in the middle nineteen eighties who proceeded to tell me the good word and how i need to be saved and that my Thai wife must have been a girl i had just picked up from a bar and rambled on in very paternalistic and racist attitudes about the Thais. They didn't suceeded in saving me with that type of attitude .

[Thongkorn]

My Thai wifes father was a Christian, there are also Muslims , each to there own live and let live

[rodcourt49]

My Thai wifes father was a Christian, there are also Muslims , each to there own live and let live

Really !

[phetaroi]

The shrines dedicated to Hindu gods or any other deities or spirits have nothing to do with Buddhism. But it is not forbidden for Buddhists to pay their respects there or pray for good fortune or make wishes. They are part of popular belief structures and supposed to be powerful. It's as simple as that.

Yes, I understand that. It's the logic that escapes me.

I doubt that the Mormon boys will have much success. I have to ask if they looked exactly like this:

Just so I can stay away from them...

Near carbon copies, of course, although not the same guys.

[agent69]

Ten years ago, a couple of them stopped me. so I stopped and had a chat with them. well, I told them if they came to me five years earlier, I would have considered. But does it really matter how one gets to their destination as long as their are comfortable with their way?

For their success rate, I would say could be quite good. pushing-sort of marketing is always better than no marketing at all. it's being in the right place at the right time. It's like luck. The more you try, the higher chance of getting lucky.

[TongueThaied]

The Church of Scientology has an operation in Bangkok. If you are a lost soul, they will be happy to help!

[bina]

i just tell them that according to my dad, i belong to the levites tribe (teh servers to the cohens). and i live in the holy holey land. that stops them cold.

bina

israel

[Captain Haddock]

My father-in-law is into animism as well as buddhism. Seen him do a quick prayer and the blood puring out of my over-head-fan-cut thumb just stopped flowing out of the wound. Seriously. Quite bizzare, but effective. And no, I'm not a believer in any religion, not even after seeing the "evidence" with my own eyes.

But there has to have been something to his prayer...

[camerata]

And no, I'm not a believer in any religion, not even after seeing the "evidence" with my own eyes.

But there has to have been something to his prayer...

But presumably you are a believer in psychology. It's well-known that in a trance state people can stick spikes through their cheeks without any blood flowing. The subconscious mind knows how to do this, but we don't have access to the technique other than through what we call "faith." In Life as a Siamese Monk, the author manages to teach himself to do this during various states of meditation.

[Captain Haddock]

But I wasn't in a trance... I was quite lucid and just a bit pee-ed off that I'd have to go to the hospital for some stitches. But his prayer/chant/subliminal-trance-inducing-verbage did stop my thumb bleeding immediately.

[rockyysdt]

But I wasn't in a trance... I was quite lucid and just a bit pee-ed off that I'd have to go to the hospital for some stitches. But his prayer/chant/subliminal-trance-inducing-verbage did stop my thumb bleeding immediately.

Could it be possible that the bleeding would have stopped anyway & the timing was coincidental?

[camerata]

But I wasn't in a trance... I was quite lucid and just a bit pee-ed off that I'd have to go to the hospital for some stitches. But his prayer/chant/subliminal-trance-inducing-verbage did stop my thumb bleeding immediately.

Right, you weren't in a trance but at some subconscious level you had some faith that he could help you. That's enough for the subsconscious to set in motion the healing process that we have no conscious control over. Not really black magic or some Buddhist power - just human psychology.

Or as Rocky said, a coincidence.

[Erithacus]

My Thai wifes father was a Christian, there are also Muslims , each to there own live and let live

Really !

But some Muslims in Southern Thailand won't let you live in peace.

[Erithacus]

The Church of Scientology has an operation in Bangkok. If you are a lost soul, they will be happy to help!

Christianity is declining in the West. The Evangelists are promoting it in the third world.

[chutai]

My Thai wifes father was a Christian, there are also Muslims , each to there own live and let live

Really !

But some Muslims in Southern Thailand won't let you live in peace.

Without condoning any violence whatsoever and having a deeper Buddhist understanding of it's fundamental causes. I am, however, prompted to ask whether you know the historical origins of the present discontent in the deep South ?

[phetaroi]

Without condoning any violence whatsoever and having a deeper Buddhist understanding of it's fundamental causes. I am, however, prompted to ask whether you know the historical origins of the present discontent in the deep South ?

A more interesting question might be whether or not the Muslim majority in the area actually knows the historical origins of the present discontent.

I talked with a couple of Muslims from the south once about this topic.

First they said the Buddhist majority hold us down and make us the poorest group of people in Thailand. When I answered that the Buddhist majority in many parts of Issan are just as poor or even poorer, there was silence and finally, "You just don't understand."

Then they said that they are ignored because they are so far away from Bangkok. I pointed out that Chiang Rai, Udon, Ubon, Nakhon Phanom are in a similar situation in terms of distance from Bangkok and the central government. There was silence and finally, "You just don't understand."

Then they said they weren't allowed to practice their religion, while Buddhists were. I pointed out that there are hundreds of active mosques throughout Yala, Narithawat, and Pattani, as well as many other places throughout Thailand including right in Bangkok . I also pointed out that in many Muslim countries the practice of other religions is not allowed. There was silence and finally, "You just don't understand."

A couple of other points came up, which I don't even recall, but I walked away thinking they, themselves, aren't really clear on why they are unhappy. Hence my question above...that it would be more interesting to know if many of them (Southern Thai Muslims) know the answer to your question.

[phetaroi]

Christianity is declining in the West. The Evangelists are promoting it in the third world.

Interesting quote from Harpers: "Depending on which poll you look at and how the question is asked, somewhere around 85 percent of us call ourselves Christian. Israel, by way of comparison, is 77 percent Jewish. It is true that a smaller number of Americans—about 75 percent—claim they actually pray to God on a daily basis, and only 33 percent say they manage to get to church every week. Still, even if that 85 percent overstates actual practice, it clearly represents aspiration. In fact, there is nothing else that unites more than four fifths of America. Every other statistic one can cite about American behavior is essentially also a measure of the behavior of professed Christians. That's what America is: a place saturated in Christian identity."

It would be interesting to have comparative data for Thailand and Buddhism.

[chutai]

A more interesting question might be whether or not the Muslim majority in the area actually knows the historical origins of the present discontent.

It's really not a question of whether it's interesting to you or not. Rather one of relevance and accuracy and trying to veer away apportioning blame solely to one side . And to suggest that most Muslims in the deep south are unaware is absurd and not a little patronising, in my opinion. I suggest that you Google something like Thaksin + human rights + record to gain a better historical understanding concerning the ignition point of the present minority violence. That at least can be dated

However, for pertinence sake. From a Buddhist perspective, what would be your understanding of the profound nature of conflict and violence ?

Edited August 23, 2009 by chutai

[dave_boo]

A more interesting question might be whether or not the Muslim majority in the area actually knows the historical origins of the present discontent.

It's not a question of whether it's interesting to you or not. Rather one of relevance and accuracy. And to suggest that most Muslims in the deep south are unaware is absurd. I suggest that you Google something like Thaksin + human rights + record to gain a better historical understanding of the origins of the present violence. It can be dated.

From a Buddhist perspective. What would be your understanding of the nature of conflict and violence ?

While not trying to defend Khun Thaskin, I do believe that those abuses were a direct result of actions taken by the 'separatists'.

It's easy to go back less than 10 years and examine the events and conclude that they solely are responsible for the current issues, but that would be extremely naive.

Let's go back to the beginning; the kingdom of Pan Pan. This kingdom was a Hindu culture based society; not surprising considering the amount of contact that SE Asia had with India/Sri Lanka at the time. It has been recorded that they sent tribute to China from the mid 500-late 600s. Apparently in the late 8th century it was conquered by another Hindu/Buddhist kingdom (Srivijaya).

It was at this time that Islam was spreading out of the Arabian penisnula. Some would say that it was spread by sword, but the world was not sitting around singing kumbaya at that time so we'll let that point slide. There is speculation that Pan-Pan was well into decline by that time. It is thought that the King of that vassal state (generally referred to as Pattani by then) converted to Islam in the 11 century. It is worth noting though that it was still under the control of Srivijaya, until Nakhon Si Thammarat kingdom broke free.

Of course in the 14th century it fell under Siamese control. Come 1569 when the Burmese sacked Ayutthaya, Pattani was for all intents and purposes free. Ayutthaya reinvaded in 1688 and eventually managed to hold on until the Burmese invaded yet again in 1767. Prince Surasi reincorporated Pattani back into Siam within a decade.

So, as we can see, Pattani has never really been its own country. If we compare similar areas in the region that have nearly identical histories we don't see the violence; so perhaps dreaming of the 'good old days' isn't the real reason.

We could look at the economical reasons, but that has already been touched on in the thread so we'll let it lie.

Legal reasons? Seems to me (although I could be in error) that any legal, and by that I mean laws being in force from the central government that are diametrically opposed to the rules/customs of the local, reasons are disproven by considering the historical dominant ruling government and the integration of other kingdoms/cultures that are not currently exhibiting the same level of violence.

So what does that leave us? Religion. Specifically a religion that allows for no seperation of church and state. A religion that teaches that all must wage jihad until the whole world is Dar-al-Islam. A religion that has no qualms in committing what most wouldn't consider atrocities to further its agenda. A religion that allows taqiyya which is useful in wrapping itself in a veneer of respectability to further its goals. A religion that teaches the superiority of its own concepts and the demonstrated eagerness to crush those others that would conflict with it; especially if it means that a Muslim must live under non-Sharia rules.

Any suggestion that this is simply an isolated incident by a few radicals misinterpreting their religion is quickly debased by the examination of Islamic conquest through the ages. Their Modus Operandi is clearly defined and exhibited by the actions sanctioned by their holy books and committed by the adherents. Everything that is committed to day has been committed before.

Granted not every Muslim will follow these rules and guidelines; it would be foolish to think that humans are committed enough to their beliefs to such an extent that everyone would follow the strictest interpretations (like Thais and Buddhism or Italians and Catholicism), but there is a tacit approval of the actions taken by those who follow their scriptures by others of the religion when there is no condemnation nor persecution of those fellow religion believers who commit atrocities. The only time that there is an outcry is when Muslims get killed; try and remember when there was real condemnation about attacks on non-Muslims.

[camerata]

Being from my hometown of Palmyra, New York, I was not particularly surprised to spot two Mormon boys boarding the Skytrain this morning. And, like vampires they latched on to two young Thai men to begin the conversion attempt. How successful are they here in Thailand?

From A History of Mormonism:

"Before 1860, Mormon missionaries had preached in Australia, Chile, India, Germany, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong, and Siam (now Thailand). Mormons in other countries like Germany and Australia faced fierce persecution, and so fled to America. In those places, Mormon missionaries were routinely arrested and jailed, books were confiscated and burned, and converts were threatened and expelled. In other places like Chile, Siam, and India, few converts were made, but the first inroads were established and the voice proclaiming the restored gospel of Jesus Christ was heard."

From A Resource for the study of the Thai Church (pretty much a history of missionary activity in Thailand):

"Although a Mormon missionary resided in Bangkok for some four months in 1854, the work of the Latter-day Saints (LDS) did not begin in Thailand until 1961 when two American couples unofficially formed its first group in Bangkok. That group was given official recognition in 1962 and grew steadily during the influx of American military and civilian personnel during the Vietnam War. In 1966, the LDS baptized its first Thai convert in Thailand, Nangnoi Thitapoora, and in that same year it organized the Thailand District of the Southern Far East Mission. The Bangkok group was also reorganized as the Bangkok Branch, the first branch in Thailand; the branch purchased the first SDA property in Thailand in 1967. In February 1968, the first group of full-time Mormon missionaries arrived in Bangkok, and by the end of the year they had initiated a program for translating and publishing SDA literature. The team soon began to win a number of converts, most important among them was Srilaksana Gottsche, known as "Sister Sri," in 1968. She played a key role in the translation of numerous SDA publications, esp. the Book of Mormon, which was published in Thai in 1976. The SDA opened Thailand's first chapel, the Asoke Chapel, in 1974.

Meanwhile, in June 1972, an SDA missionary was photographed sitting on the neck of a Buddha image in Sukhothai by another missionary. The photograph came into the hands of the Thai press, and a national scandal occurred, which proved to be a disaster for the SDA in Thailand. The two missionaries were jailed and then deported, and all hope for the SDA becoming officially registered with the government was lost.

The SDA organized its Thailand Mission (renamed Thailand Bangkok Mission) in 1973, and during the 1970s, the SDA took various steps to improve its images, and in 1980 it initiated work in the refugee camps in the Northeast, which were then rapidly growing in numbers. Theological work began in the late 1970s. In 1988, Anan Eldridge became the first Thai President of the Thailand mission, and during the lated 1980s and the 1990s the SDA began experienced increased growth so that by 1995 it numbered over 6,000 members. In that same year, the SDA formed the Bangkok Stake, the first stake in Thailand, with Thipparat Kitsaward as its first president and Pornchai Juntratip as its first patriarch."

6,000 members by 1995 sounds miniscule to me, and converts in refugee camps may well not be Thai or Buddhist. I remember the incident of the missionary sitting on the Buddha very well. I think it was mentioned in one of the Lonely Planet guide books, although the foreigner may have been described as a tourist.

[camerata]

Any more off-topic posts about separist problems in the south will be deleted.

[phetaroi]

A more interesting question might be whether or not the Muslim majority in the area actually knows the historical origins of the present discontent.

It's really not a question of whether it's interesting to you or not. Rather one of relevance and accuracy and trying to veer away apportioning blame solely to one side . And to suggest that most Muslims in the deep south are unaware is absurd and not a little patronising, in my opinion. I suggest that you Google something like Thaksin + human rights + record to gain a better historical understanding concerning the ignition point of the present minority violence. That at least can be dated

However, for pertinence sake. From a Buddhist perspective, what would be your understanding of the profound nature of conflict and violence ?

May I suggest that you cool down just a tad.

1. In a discussion things may be of different levels of interest to different people who are participating. A discussion flows.

2. I'm not aware that I blamed anyone or any side for anything.

3. My suggestion was that many Muslims in the south may not be aware of the historical background of the situation. And by historical, I'm not talking about anything that has happened in the past...well...10 or 20 years. Many, perhaps most are somewhat or well aware of recent events. Mr. Thaksin is still on the scene...he's not history yet.

4. And since you mention "pertinence sake", the title of the thread is "Replying To The Conversion Of Thais Away From Buddhism", and I was the OP. So no, I'm not going to discuss the profound nature of conflict and violence, although I will point out that you certainly have brought a tone of conflict to the discussion.

[toptuan]

The Church of Scientology has an operation in Bangkok. If you are a lost soul, they will be happy to help!

Christianity is declining in the West. The Evangelists are promoting it in the third world.

What do those two posts have to do with each other?

[phetaroi]

Let's go back to the beginning; the kingdom of Pan Pan. This kingdom was a Hindu culture based society; not surprising considering the amount of contact that SE Asia had with India/Sri Lanka at the time. It has been recorded that they sent tribute to China from the mid 500-late 600s. Apparently in the late 8th century it was conquered by another Hindu/Buddhist kingdom (Srivijaya).

It was at this time that Islam was spreading out of the Arabian penisnula. Some would say that it was spread by sword, but the world was not sitting around singing kumbaya at that time so we'll let that point slide. There is speculation that Pan-Pan was well into decline by that time. It is thought that the King of that vassal state (generally referred to as Pattani by then) converted to Islam in the 11 century. It is worth noting though that it was still under the control of Srivijaya, until Nakhon Si Thammarat kingdom broke free.

Of course in the 14th century it fell under Siamese control. Come 1569 when the Burmese sacked Ayutthaya, Pattani was for all intents and purposes free. Ayutthaya reinvaded in 1688 and eventually managed to hold on until the Burmese invaded yet again in 1767. Prince Surasi reincorporated Pattani back into Siam within a decade.

So, as we can see, Pattani has never really been its own country. If we compare similar areas in the region that have nearly identical histories we don't see the violence; so perhaps dreaming of the 'good old days' isn't the real reason.

We could look at the economical reasons, but that has already been touched on in the thread so we'll let it lie.

Legal reasons? Seems to me (although I could be in error) that any legal, and by that I mean laws being in force from the central government that are diametrically opposed to the rules/customs of the local, reasons are disproven by considering the historical dominant ruling government and the integration of other kingdoms/cultures that are not currently exhibiting the same level of violence.

So what does that leave us? Religion. Specifically a religion that allows for no seperation of church and state. A religion that teaches that all must wage jihad until the whole world is Dar-al-Islam. A religion that has no qualms in committing what most wouldn't consider atrocities to further its agenda. A religion that allows taqiyya which is useful in wrapping itself in a veneer of respectability to further its goals. A religion that teaches the superiority of its own concepts and the demonstrated eagerness to crush those others that would conflict with it; especially if it means that a Muslim must live under non-Sharia rules.

Any suggestion that this is simply an isolated incident by a few radicals misinterpreting their religion is quickly debased by the examination of Islamic conquest through the ages. Their Modus Operandi is clearly defined and exhibited by the actions sanctioned by their holy books and committed by the adherents. Everything that is committed to day has been committed before.

Granted not every Muslim will follow these rules and guidelines; it would be foolish to think that humans are committed enough to their beliefs to such an extent that everyone would follow the strictest interpretations (like Thais and Buddhism or Italians and Catholicism), but there is a tacit approval of the actions taken by those who follow their scriptures by others of the religion when there is no condemnation nor persecution of those fellow religion believers who commit atrocities. The only time that there is an outcry is when Muslims get killed; try and remember when there was real condemnation about attacks on non-Muslims.

Thanks at least for the first half of your thread...you really got into the historical aspect. I have had somewhat similar discussions with a very dear friend of mine who is Cambodian who feels that Cambodia should be able to reclaim all lands that were once under Khmer control. My point to her is always that who is going to be the person who decides when to "stop the clock", so to speak. Boundaries in the world have been in a state of flux since the beginning of governments.

As to your comments about Muslim attitudes in the second half of your post, I come at this from a different perspective. My son is a Pakistani Muslim (it's a long story) and in the States I was the principal of a school that had a small but significant number of Muslim families who seemed to enjoy the fact that I was Buddhist in a predominantly Christian nation. After 9/11 I had a number of Muslim parents who came to me to apologize for the terrorism. When invited to Muslim events by the son, I was treated with extreme kindness and as "one of the family", so to speak. Some of the conversations were, however, bizarre (for example, 9/11 was of course perpetrated by the Jews...didn't I agree?). But I never was told by any Pakistani Muslim I met that they endorsed 9/11. Of course, that's not going as far as condemning it, either. I think the problems are compounded by different views of life by Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists.

Thanks for an interesting post.

[a99az]

I love the way Buddhism is not sold, it’s up to you if you want to become a Buddhist and they are very tolerant of other religions. Unlike Muslim and some Christian faiths that want to save you or kill you, crazy.

[phetaroi]

Being from my hometown of Palmyra, New York, I was not particularly surprised to spot two Mormon boys boarding the Skytrain this morning. And, like vampires they latched on to two young Thai men to begin the conversion attempt. How successful are they here in Thailand?

From A History of Mormonism:

"Before 1860, Mormon missionaries had preached in Australia, Chile, India, Germany, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong, and Siam (now Thailand). Mormons in other countries like Germany and Australia faced fierce persecution, and so fled to America. In those places, Mormon missionaries were routinely arrested and jailed, books were confiscated and burned, and converts were threatened and expelled. In other places like Chile, Siam, and India, few converts were made, but the first inroads were established and the voice proclaiming the restored gospel of Jesus Christ was heard."

From A Resource for the study of the Thai Church (pretty much a history of missionary activity in Thailand):

"Although a Mormon missionary resided in Bangkok for some four months in 1854, the work of the Latter-day Saints (LDS) did not begin in Thailand until 1961 when two American couples unofficially formed its first group in Bangkok. That group was given official recognition in 1962 and grew steadily during the influx of American military and civilian personnel during the Vietnam War. In 1966, the LDS baptized its first Thai convert in Thailand, Nangnoi Thitapoora, and in that same year it organized the Thailand District of the Southern Far East Mission. The Bangkok group was also reorganized as the Bangkok Branch, the first branch in Thailand; the branch purchased the first SDA property in Thailand in 1967. In February 1968, the first group of full-time Mormon missionaries arrived in Bangkok, and by the end of the year they had initiated a program for translating and publishing SDA literature. The team soon began to win a number of converts, most important among them was Srilaksana Gottsche, known as "Sister Sri," in 1968. She played a key role in the translation of numerous SDA publications, esp. the Book of Mormon, which was published in Thai in 1976. The SDA opened Thailand's first chapel, the Asoke Chapel, in 1974.

Meanwhile, in June 1972, an SDA missionary was photographed sitting on the neck of a Buddha image in Sukhothai by another missionary. The photograph came into the hands of the Thai press, and a national scandal occurred, which proved to be a disaster for the SDA in Thailand. The two missionaries were jailed and then deported, and all hope for the SDA becoming officially registered with the government was lost.

The SDA organized its Thailand Mission (renamed Thailand Bangkok Mission) in 1973, and during the 1970s, the SDA took various steps to improve its images, and in 1980 it initiated work in the refugee camps in the Northeast, which were then rapidly growing in numbers. Theological work began in the late 1970s. In 1988, Anan Eldridge became the first Thai President of the Thailand mission, and during the lated 1980s and the 1990s the SDA began experienced increased growth so that by 1995 it numbered over 6,000 members. In that same year, the SDA formed the Bangkok Stake, the first stake in Thailand, with Thipparat Kitsaward as its first president and Pornchai Juntratip as its first patriarch."

6,000 members by 1995 sounds miniscule to me, and converts in refugee camps may well not be Thai or Buddhist. I remember the incident of the missionary sitting on the Buddha very well. I think it was mentioned in one of the Lonely Planet guide books, although the foreigner may have been described as a tourist.

Very interesting post. It reminded me about Palmyra, my home town. Young Joseph Smith visited the Sacred Grove in a forested area just over the hill from my childhood home. The famous Golden Plates were buried on Hill Cumorah about 3 miles south of my home. Although the birthplace of Mormonism, Joseph Smith was driven out of town as a horse thief, although I am convinced that was simply religious bigotry...although that belief persisted for well over a century. When I was growing up in the 1950's, the number of Mormons in Palmyra was so insignificant that its services were held in a fairly small house a couple of blocks from Main Street. In the early 1960's, as I recall, the first real Mormon Church in Palmyra was built nearly across the road (route 21) from my house. Still relatively small, but slowly growing numbers.

I have to admit, however, that while the numbers of Mormons in Palmyra at the time was small, they certainly outnumbered Buddhists! :-)

[kapasao]

Okay...I suppose that got the attention of a few. Just a couple of things in the past few days bothered me a bit.

Instead of a Thai Buddhist going to pray to the Hindu gods at Central World Plaza, why not just walk down the street and meditate at the lovely wat?

Being from my hometown of Palmyra, New York, I was not particularly surprised to spot two Mormon boys boarding the Skytrain this morning. And, like vampires they latched on to two young Thai men to begin the conversion attempt. How successful are they here in Thailand?

There is a big mormon-brand franchise operating in Udon Thani. How successful are they? Moderately. They speak thai,

and keep coming back, won't leave you alone. The locals are too polite, and thus unable to pronounce the necessary

warning, to wit, "If you come here again I will throw a bucket of sh_t in your face!" And, naturally, lack the wisdom to decline

the invitation to attend a "party."

My thai gal (then girlfriend, now wife) was involved with them. After eight months of constant e-mailing, we

planned to travel around Thailand together for a month, and become better acquainted. The puying yai of local mormons

said that a chaperone was called for. My gal (forty years old, twice married before, once widowed) replied "Thanks for your

kind concern, but I DON'T THINK SO!" Subsequently much bad juju. Threats, withdrawal of chuch "privileges," "visitations."

The puying yai further said to my gals impressionable teenage daughter "He is farang and not a Mormon. Mabey

he will kill your mother!"

The trip was made as originally planned, and surprise, surprise--the woman in question returned alive and unbruised. She

was however, the most willing victim of oft-repeated molestation.

Think about it. You take a thai who has never been in a position to boss other people around, but has alway craved to do so--and offer her POWER over others, back by religious authority. Naturally she goes completely nuts. The mormons

are very much into UNQUESTIONING OBEDIENCE.

The Mormon Mafia has translated a lot of their fictionalized history into thai, but neglect to mention the deceit and bloodshed that are consistent from the beginning right up to the present day.

In the end, my gal was happy for the opportunity to relocate to a long-distant province, because it seemed like the only way

for her to escape.

People here need to be warned, and trained how to respond.

[kapasao]

Okay...I suppose that got the attention of a few. Just a couple of things in the past few days bothered me a bit.

Instead of a Thai Buddhist going to pray to the Hindu gods at Central World Plaza, why not just walk down the street and meditate at the lovely wat?

Being from my hometown of Palmyra, New York, I was not particularly surprised to spot two Mormon boys boarding the Skytrain this morning. And, like vampires they latched on to two young Thai men to begin the conversion attempt. How successful are they here in Thailand?

How successful are they? As far as "serious" lifetime converts are concerned, not very. Here everyone is looking for

any opportunity which will give them something. Preferably for nothing. They are hoping for a free ride. Trying to scam

the scammers, if you will. Remember that "serious" is a dirty word in Thailand. Thais have a very short attention span,

and a very limited ability to pretend to be serious about anything for very long. Mormons and the like have to take a

page from the Moonies and other who can offer lots of "sanuk," otherwise Thai interest will quickly pall in "len sassana"

(playing religion).

Theravada Buddhism is known for being "as dry as dust." This means that if you are looking "excitement" in the form

of music, pageantry, etc., you would do better to look elsewhere. The Thai version of Theravada Buddhism emphasizes

1. generously supporting"monks" who are manifestly "unworthy of the yellow robe," and

2. competion in the construction of extravagant gingerbread palaces for the same.

For all intents and purposes the preaching of Buddhadhamma by monks or the

study of dhamma by laypeople is virtually unknown.

Any person of even modest intelligence and sensitivity would, in observing

things as they are here, be susceptible to a missionary touting "morality" and "family values."

Add to this a lively social scene, and they are sold on the product.

They cannot understand that the missionary is not their friend, but a salesman

who once he gets their signature on the dotted line, plans to control every aspect

of their lives and (in the case of Mormons in particular) every moment of their

time, with absolutely endless church obligations.

There are cultures, their problems not withstanding, that give birth to

noble philosophies, religious sentiments, and numerous individuals of

world-renowned genius, and there are other cultures where people sit in the mud

[crass comment deleted], thinking "We are sooooo special!"

Edited August 24, 2009 by camerata
Comment denigrating Thais and/or Asians deleted.