An Evangelical Professor Comes to Defense of LDS

[Daniel Peterson]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/when-faith-is-mocked-who-responds/2011/04/08/AFIHZ60C_blog.html#WeighIn

[Mordecai]

Sometimes I worry that the world has gone insane with corruption, cruelty, hypocrisy and arrogance. Then I read from a guy like this and am reminded there are lots of good people outside of the Church.

[LDSGuy]

That was an awesome article. It's refreshing to hear some commonsense in a paper.

[Jaybear]

That was an awesome article. It's refreshing to hear some commonsense in a paper.

Commonsense?

He compared an artistic production with a publicity stunt.

[frankenstein]

Sometimes I worry that the world has gone insane with corruption, cruelty, hypocrisy and arrogance. Then I read from a guy like this and am reminded there are lots of good people outside of the Church.

what a woefully arrogant statement; and yet you are the one to has a dislike for arrogance. What you are saying is that but for this article there are only good people within the Church.

[Daniel Peterson]

Sigh.

Is this board worth saving?

[Bill Hamblin]

Sigh.

Is this board worth saving?

No. It's like riding a cosmic merry-go-round.

[Mudcat]

No. It's like riding a cosmic merry-go-round.

Self inflicted deja vu.

I think I have said that before.

[Mordecai]

what a woefully arrogant statement; and yet you are the one to has a dislike for arrogance. What you are saying is that but for this article there are only good people within the Church.

Reading comprehension anyone? Guess not.

Commonsense? He compared an artistic production with a publicity stunt.

LOL Wow. So there's a gigantic difference between the Book of Mormon Broadway play and a publicity stunt? I mean, they're practically synonymous. Art is a type of publicity. That the musical is so over the top and required such metaphorical tightrope walking, we might call it a "stunt" even. It IS a publicity stunt, essentially. I think it's pretty clear that someone here is really lacking common sense. The two are comparable on several levels, really. Not much difference, other than that the Koran burning idiot doesn't have the intelligence, sophistication nor sense of humor of the Broadway show writers. But seriously... on a moral level, they're so different? Not profoundly different. One is more blatant, ape-like arrogant hate, while the other is arrogantly disrespectful. Big difference morally? Not so much.

Granted, Mormons cold probably hang out with the South Park creators, and they'd be relatively polite. But polite isn't respectful nor is it good evidence that they are good people.

Is this board worth saving?

Meh...

[bluebell]

Commonsense?

He compared an artistic production with a publicity stunt.

Or....

He compared a money making scheme with a sincere (if not completely misguided) action based on personal belief.

Automatically trying to imply that the 'artists' had pure motives while the religionist had impure ones actualy proves the author's point.

[Mordecai]

Automatically trying to imply that the 'artists' had pure motives while the religionist had impure ones actualy proves the author's point.

Quoted for truth. Hear, hear.

[frankenstein]

frankenstein, on 12 April 2011 - 04:18 AM, said:what a woefully arrogant statement; and yet you are the one to has a dislike for arrogance. What you are saying is that but for this article there are only good people within the Church.

mordecia: Reading comprehension anyone? Guess not.

I suppose in a way you are correct, it is articles like the one DP linked that reminds you there are good people who are not members of the Church; so I need to restate.

Your arrogance is still there, as but for articles like the one linked you seem to forget that there are good people who are not members of the Church, what a sad state of affairs.

[Jaybear]

Or....

He compared a money making scheme with a sincere (if not completely misguided) action based on personal belief.

Automatically trying to imply that the 'artists' had pure motives while the religionist had impure ones actualy proves the author's point.

I implied no such think. The play was not doubt a commercial, profit driven enterprise.

The different was that play was intended to amuse and entertain the audience, which includes Mormons. Sure, some Mormons might have predictable taken offense. But that was not the purpose.

The pastor burned the Koran to inflame the Muslim world.

Frankly, I am embarrassed that I have spell this out for you.

[Jeff K.]

You can make anything profane and amusing at the same time. That does not justify making it so. My son's friend once told a homophobic joke. I explained to him that a good friend of mine in Palm Spring died of AIDS several years back. While I do not agree with the lifestyle, nor agree with what they do, and consider such couplings wrong, I will not demean them with amusement or laughter, even sophisticated amusement or laughter, a good joke does not make it right to tell that joke. I will not make a joke out of people dying of AIDS. Maybe I am humorless to do so, making fun of what some hold important even sacred.

[Nofear]

The different was that play was intended to amuse and entertain the audience, which includes Mormons. Sure, some Mormons might have predictable taken offense. But that was not the purpose.

I was skeptical of your statement about their intent. But I did find this:

Even at their most sacrilegious, Parker says, they never plan to inflict pain. He seems relieved at the Mormon response to his satire.

...

“When someone goes, ‘Oh, this group is really pissed off at what you said,’ there’s not a piece of my body that goes, ‘Sweet!’ ” Parker asserts. “That means I did it wrong. I’m just trying to make people laugh.” (source)

For my part, I would suggest Parker "did it wrong".

Apparently Stone had a different view:

Stone predicted last week his musical will not only offend Mormons "It will offend everyone." But for how it both satirizes and embraces its subjects, Brantley wrote, " 'The Book of Mormon' achieves something like a miracle." (source)

[Mordecai]

Your arrogance is still there, as but for articles like the one linked you seem to forget that there are good people who are not members of the Church, what a sad state of affairs.

On occasion, I do forget, because sometimes it seems people not only hate Mormons but also only love money, power and/or pleasure. You don't see that a lot? Because if not, perhaps you're naive. I just feel like there are very few people who are sane out there sometimes. I admit that's a character flaw. I'd call it pessimism. Not arrogance, though. It's not like I'm saying I'm a great person and seeing members of the Church not being insane with rage and hatred isn't actually awesome.

I'm the first to say, however, that Mormons are awesome. I don't think that's arrogance. We are commanded to love one another. I think most Mormons are great. What can I say? I live in the Bay Area, where people are quite elitist and have worked in public schools. I also watch the news too much. That'll make anyone pessimistic.

[Mordecai]

The pastor burned the Koran to inflame the Muslim world.

Your wording did seem to suggest that because the production was art, it wasn't bad. Art can be bad. Also, I doubt the guy's intent was to inflame the Muslim world. I think he just hates Islam and wanted to make a statement, which might be deemed art, if it weren't for the lack of creativity. Maybe the guy just isn't creative.

[bluebell]

I implied no such think. The play was not doubt a commercial, profit driven enterprise.

The different was that play was intended to amuse and entertain the audience, which includes Mormons. Sure, some Mormons might have predictable taken offense. But that was not the purpose.

The pastor burned the Koran to inflame the Muslim world.

Frankly, I am embarrassed that I have spell this out for you.

Try to set aside your proclaimed superior intellect for a moment and ponder that these two actions from a deeper level.

Compare the actions of someone who does something that he knows will hurt others feelings for what he believes to be a just cause, with the actions of people who do things they know will hurt others feelings for money and/or laughs.

Now, if it's possible, condescend one more time to explain to me how the pastor comes off worthy of derision and the 'artists' don't.

It seems like either both should be worthy of it, or neither should be.

[Jaybear]

Now, if it's possible, condescend one more time to explain to me how the pastor comes off worthy of derision and the 'artists' don't.

It seems like either both should be worthy of it, or neither should be.

Were any Muslims amused and entertained by the Koran burning?

Were any innocent people killed by Mormons enraged by the play?

[bluebell]

Were any Muslims amused and entertained by the Koran burning?

Were any innocent people killed by Mormons enraged by the play?

Are you trying to argue that it's not the action but the outcome that makes something acceptable or unacceptable?

Your first question implies that if the entire muslim world had responded by ignoring the burning of their Koran, that people in the U.S. and other places would have had no reason to condemn the Pastor's actions.

Your second question implies that if a mormon killed someone because of their anger over the play, the 'artists' and their actions would have been worthy of condemnation.

Is this what you meant to imply by your questions?

My own answer to the questions is that whether or not someone laughs at something, has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it should be acceptable to society. As the author the article states, bullys are usually funny, and sometimes their victims laugh at the jokes at their own expense or honestly do not mind them, but no rational person would try to argue that if the bullying is entertaining to a few then it should be permissible.

My answer to the second question is again, whether or not someone is willing to either harm or ignore disrespectful actions of another has no real bearing on whether or not the action should be acceptable.

[Avatar4321]

Sigh.

Is this board worth saving?

Of course. Though, it may need more help than even you can provide good Doctor.

[Jaybear]

Are you trying to argue that it's not the action but the outcome that makes something acceptable or unacceptable?

That is not what I said, argued or implied.

In fact, the assertion that speech or art is something that is "acceptable" or "unacceptable" if an offensive concept to me.

The point I expressed is that the two examples cited are not comparable.

One was intended to entertain and amuse the other to incite anger and hatred.

One was an expensive, time consuming artistic production involving many creative and talented people, the other was a stunt which required a Koran, a match and lighter fluid.

Your first question implies that if the entire Muslim world had responded by ignoring the burning of their Koran, that people in the U.S. and other places would have had no reason to condemn the Pastor's actions.

That is not the world we live in. Why would you draw an inference from the question which presume that we live in a parallel world.

Your second question implies that if a mormon killed someone because of their anger over the play, the 'artists' and their actions would have been worthy of condemnation.

Wrong again. We don't live in a world, when Mormons responded to blasphemy with violence.

Is this what you meant to imply by your questions?

No. Rest assured, if you have to change reality to draw an inference from my question, then you can reasonably assume that you reached the wrong inference.

My own answer to the questions is that whether or not someone laughs at something, has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it should be acceptable to society.

Your answer would be wrong. The correct answer to the questions are "no," and "no."

What you meant to say is that the questions are not relevant, but the mere fact that you deliberately refused to answer the questions suggests that you understand the relevance of the question, and prefer not to answer them, as the answer would undermine your position.

[Jeff K.]

One was intended to entertain and amuse the other to incite anger and hatred.

One was an expensive, time consuming artistic production involving many creative and talented people, the other was a stunt which required a Koran, a match and lighter fluid.

And if Southpark created anger and hatred, if LDS reacted as angry Muslims do would that have changed your idea of "intent"? The assertion is ridiculous in that both were meant to demean what another held sacred. The difference is the reaction, not the intent.

While saints reacted with greater forebearance, it does not mean that what was done was any less mean spirited in its destruction of the sacred.

[Jeff K.]

By implication Jaybear, whether you know it or not, you show that if Mormons react violently, then those who would demean our religion would react more carefully and with greater respect. Pissing on a crucifix is easy to do when you are sure no one will kill you. Why do you think Southpark would not show Mohammed, but only Mohammed in a bear suit? A ploy? or an understanding and respect towards a religion some of whose members would not refrain from violence for disrespect.

Much like Yale University press or so many "free speech" establishments who have no problem with showing crude or insulting images of Christ, but suddenly have a "newfound" respect and refuse to show any image of Mohammed.

The lesson you present Jaybear is that violence breeds respect. That as long as Latter-Day Saints are not violent we can continue to see our religion smeared by "well intentioned" parodies. However, if we want resepct and if we want the parodies to stop, well, lets just be violent about it.

I would never advocate such a position, but it appears you have painted yourself in exactly that corner.

[bluebell]

That is not what I said, argued or implied.

In fact, the assertion that speech or art is something that is "acceptable" or "unacceptable" if an offensive concept to me.

The point I expressed is that the two examples cited are not comparable.

One was intended to entertain and amuse the other to incite anger and hatred.

One was an expensive, time consuming artistic production involving many creative and talented people, the other was a stunt which required a Koran, a match and lighter fluid.

That is not the world we live in. Why would you draw an inference from the question which presume that we live in a parallel world.

Wrong again. We don't live in a world, when Mormons responded to blasphemy with violence.

No. Rest assured, if you have to change reality to draw an inference from my question, then you can reasonably assume that you reached the wrong inference.

Your answer would be wrong. The correct answer to the questions are "no," and "no."

What you meant to say is that the questions are not relevant, but the mere fact that you deliberately refused to answer the questions suggests that you understand the relevance of the question, and prefer not to answer them, as the answer would undermine your position.

You've missed my point. I didn't answer your questions because they were not relevant-they were smoke and mirrors trying to deflect from the real meat of the issue. I confidently feel that your posts have proven my position though, not undermined it.