SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 I wonder how people who enjoy this satire felt about the Book of Mormon Musical? Here is a hint:http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/54690-book-of-mormon-musical-compared-to-amos-n-andy/
KevinG Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) I wonder how people who enjoy this satire felt about the Book of Mormon Musical? Here is a hint:http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/54690-book-of-mormon-musical-compared-to-amos-n-andy/ They don't speak for me. Mockery is fair game and won't detract from the truth being heard. What astonishes me is the number of people who spend extraordinary amounts of energy complaining about the church, its practices, its people, etc. Then whine loudly when answered with even a modicum of the derision and scorn they continually heap out. They hate it when the sheep bite back. I have seen several discussion forums destroyed by the bullies using the rules against everyone else, and playing victim when they are called on their own bad behavior. One indicator of intolerance is just how sensitive someone gets when they are mocked. If anti-Mormons, critics, friendly opposition, and devils advocates (not all the same) want to express their opinions they had better be prepared for some rhetorical responses. Edited October 29, 2015 by KevinG 3
Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 I once wrote a spoof on how to troll Mormon forums on line. It included among other things laundry lists of "faults" of the church, taking personal offense to any comment refuting the accusations, refusing to let the faithful speak for their own beliefs, discounting anything the faithful say as defensive and narrow minded... (This was of course before the popularization of Apologist = epithet) The funny part was when the most virulent trolls started objecting vociferously to my mean spirited-ness. To quote the wise and well penned Robert Burns: O wad some Power the giftie gie usTo see oursels as ithers see us!It wad frae mony a blunder free us,An' foolish notion:What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,An' ev'n devotion! ...but as I noted on the other thread, The holy sisters of the perpetually aggrieved will never concede that they might bear some responsibility for the aggravation they experience.On that subject, I have asked (or posed the implied question) more than once now (either here or in the other thread or both) how some who are incensed about Smoot's allegedly uncharitable satire feel about the social media pile-on going after Elder Ballard in recent days. Thus far, I have not gotten a response. Maybe I should ask the question more directly and generally: to those who don't like Smoot's piece and think it is uncharitable or unChristlike or whatever, where do you stand on the pile-on against Elder Ballard?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 On that subject, I have asked (or posed the implied question) more than once now (either here or in the other thread or both) how some who are incensed about Smoot's allegedly uncharitable satire feel about the social media pile-on going after Elder Ballard in recent days. Thus far, I have not gotten a response. Maybe I should ask the question more directly and generally: to those who don't like Smoot's piece and think it is uncharitable or unChristlike or whatever, where do you stand on the pile-on against Elder Ballard?Personally, I don't have a problem with Smoot's satire. I do think that there are people out there who fit his caricature. I just think that it is wonderfully ironic in that many defenders of the church would match a mirrored caricature. I think Elder Ballard's comments were outdated in that they told women to try to look better and men to reach out (in my mind both pieces of advice apply equally to both genders and had Elder Ballard done so, I don't think he would have gotten any flak). That said, he certainly didn't mean any harm by them and appeared to be trying to make a joke anyway.
provoman Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 I do so because I understand the board rules preclude making oneself the subject of a thread. I do believe they also forbid making personal attacks against another contributor to the board, which you are also doing.I have declined to report you for this thus far, but I'm reconsidering that course.By the way, I'm still awaiting your response to my question: Where do you stand on the social media uproar against Elder Ballard?Just as you wont address questions because you claim you can not make yorself the subject of a thread; I can make myself subject of a thread by addressing your question.I think it very accurate to suggest that the living Prophets and Apostles would not support fault-finding, ridicule or to be more exact satire.If you can find a defense of ridicule, fault-finding or satire in the teachings of the living Prophets and Apostles that would be very informative.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) Just as you wont address questions because you claim you can not make yorself the subject of a thread; I can make myself subject of a thread by addressing your question.I think it very accurate to suggest that the living Prophets and Apostles would not support fault-finding, ridicule or to be more exact satire.If you can find a defense of ridicule, fault-finding or satire in the teachings of the living Prophets and Apostles that would be very informative.I'll do that if you can show me any specific disapproval from any of the Brethren of the behavior of the prophet Elijah with respect to the priests of Baal. By the way, I'm pretty sure it would fall within board guidelines to answer a question about your opinion on something. I suspect, though, that your loathe to do so because it would reveal that you are taking part in the torches-and-pitchforks mentality against Elder Ballard. Edited October 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 Personally, I don't have a problem with Smoot's satire. I do think that there are people out there who fit his caricature. I just think that it is wonderfully ironic in that many defenders of the church would match a mirrored caricature. I think Elder Ballard's comments were outdated in that they told women to try to look better and men to reach out (in my mind both pieces of advice apply equally to both genders and had Elder Ballard done so, I don't think he would have gotten any flak). That said, he certainly didn't mean any harm by them and appeared to be trying to make a joke anyway.The thing is, even those who ostensibly are defending Elder Ballard in this seem to be doing it in a back-handed way, as in "I know he said something stupid but I forgiven him for it." As though he said or did anything that requires forgiveness. Better just to leave the whole thing alone.
KevinG Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) If you can find a defense of ridicule, fault-finding or satire in the teachings of the living Prophets and Apostles that would be very informative. Can include Brigham's treatment of Mark Twain? Or J. Golden's treatment of... anything? A contemporary and amusing example was when a 70 speaking at our Stake was testing the mic as a few of us were setting up for priesthood session. He said "test... test... Tonight's sermon will be on Blood Atonement". Those of us who were paying attention were snickering. Edited October 29, 2015 by KevinG
KevinG Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 This probably belongs here more than the other thread: If humor cuts us we should ask ourselves what we are doing (if anything) to earn the particular merit badge others are handing us. In the case of the Mormon musical- cultural imperialism, more than Mormonism, was being mocked. In fact the Mormon's came across as naive but nice guys. If there is a lesson to be learned from the caricature it is that we must be careful to shed our assumptions and cultural baggage if we are to understand and minister to others most effectively. If the anti-Mormons and others who find themselves bent out of shape over the Smoot article would be as introspective about what the article pins on them, and take less offense that the sarcasm may have hit its mark, they could learn from the experience too. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) Can include Brigham's treatment of Mark Twain? Or J. Golden's treatment of... anything? A contemporary and amusing example was when a 70 speaking at our Stake was testing the mic as a few of us were setting up for priesthood session. He said "test... test... Tonight's sermon will be on Blood Atonement". Those of us who were paying attention were snickering.President Hinckley could be rather sardonic on occasion. As in his comment to a gathering of missionaries: "Well, you don't look like much, but you're all the Lord's got." Or his rejoinder to Mike Wallace. Wallace had posed a question about the apparent rule by gerontocracy in the Church. President Hinckley: Isn't wonderful to have one in leadership who is well seasoned, who is not apt to be driven about by every wind of doctrine? Wallace: Absolutely -- so long as he's not dotty. President Hinckley: Thank you for the compliment! Edited October 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
KevinG Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Another favorite moment with President Hinckley was when the A/C wasn't keeping up during priesthood session. He invited the Brethren in the Tabernacle to remove their coats, then said something like, "if you don't repent then get used to this".
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) I find it absolutely appalling that anyone could actually defend the idea of hundreds of Priests (supposedly) being slain by the river Kishon, as in Kings, or burned alive, as James and John wanted to do in reference to the same story. As it happens, Jesus specifically condemns it in Luke 10:51-56, and it would still be wrong even if He [or anyone else] hadn't explicitly said so: And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. Edited October 29, 2015 by JeremyOrbe-Smith 3
HappyJackWagon Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Why didn't you respond this way to Five Solas? It was he who was doing the chest beating.Because I noticed yours, not his. Besides, you're more fun
provoman Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) I'll do that if you can show me any specific disapproval from any of the Brethren of the behavior of the prophet Elijah with respect to the priests of Baal.By the way, I'm pretty sure it would fall within board guidelines to answer a question about your opinion on something. I suspect, though, that your loathe to do so because it would reveal that you are taking part in the torches-and-pitchforks mentality against Elder Ballard.And I am pretty sure it fits with board guidelines for you to address what I brought about your position. Or is it double-standard day and I was not informed? I suspect you wont address them because you know you would have defend rejecting the teachings of the living Prophets and Apostles. Edited October 29, 2015 by provoman
sethpayne Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) The thing is, even those who ostensibly are defending Elder Ballard in this seem to be doing it in a back-handed way, as in "I know he said something stupid but I forgiven him for it." As though he said or did anything that requires forgiveness. I must have missed this post somewhere. Who said they forgave Elder Ballard? I agree with you that that would be pretty silly. To be clear: I'm genuinely curious here. Not doubting your claim, Scott. Seems a bit pretentious to "forgive" someone for making an outdated throw-away joke. Edited October 29, 2015 by sethpayne
Tacenda Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) I must have missed this post somewhere. Who said they forgave Elder Ballard?I agree with you that that would be pretty silly.To be clear: I'm genuinely curious here. Not doubting your claim, Scott. Seems a bit pretentious to "forgive" someone for making an outdated throw-away joke.Me, but I might say that to someone who burped or something, not to be taken so literally. Edited October 29, 2015 by Tacenda 1
sethpayne Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Me. Howdy Tacenda -- is "forgive" the right word here? When I think of forgiving someone I usually think of cases where some harm has been done to me -- intentionally or not. Another way to say it, I suppose is that I think of forgiveness when I have been a victim of some wrong Did Elder Ballard's off-hand and outdated remark cause harm to the point where he needs forgiveness? Would you consider yourself victimized by Elder Ballard? I don't want to minimize your experience but would you agree that by "forgiving" an Elderly man for using an outdated joke -- spoken with no ill-intent to a very friendly audience -- we are cheapening the meaning of that word?
sethpayne Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) Me, but I might say that to someone who burped or something, not to be taken so literally. Ah..... I see. So you are using it in more casual sense. Something akin to: "Grandpa, I forgive you for being such a lovable old dude who sometimes says inappropriate things." As opposed to: "Grandpa, as a victim of your off-hand joke, I forgive you." ETA: My wife has to forgive me for being a complete dork at least 3 times a week. Edited October 29, 2015 by sethpayne
Calm Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) Never mind, you saw it. Edited October 29, 2015 by Calm 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2015 Author Posted October 30, 2015 And I am pretty sure it fits with board guidelines for you to address what I brought about your position. Or is it double-standard day and I was not informed? I suspect you wont address them because you know you would have defend rejecting the teachings of the living Prophets and Apostles.So I take it, then, that you do consent to the torches-and-pitchforks mentality against Elder Ballard, or you would have denied it by now. Don't preach to me about being charitable then. I'm ending this conversation.
cynth Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 I have long been a fan of good satire and can appreciate a well-done effort even if I disagree with the message it is conveying. It's just that nearly every attempt I've seen by contemporary anti-Mormons is, well, as I said, lame. Maybe it's because they are so inherently mean-spirited and unfair that they can't be subtle. On the other hand, Mark Twain's treatment of the Book of Mormon in Roughing it, the one where he calls the book "chloroform in print"? It is clever enough that even I chuckle at it.They? as in every last one? Inherently? ....oh I get it, more satire! 1
provoman Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) So I take it, then, that you do consent to the torches-and-pitchforks mentality against Elder Ballard, or you would have denied it by now. Don't preach to me about being charitable then. I'm ending this conversation.My goodness is that really all you can do? Where is it in the Gospel that being charitabke is conditioned on the charity of others?I take it then, that you do reject the teachings of the living Prophets and Apostles, regarding kindness, respect, diagree but not being disagreeable when dealing with others of different opinions, or you would have denied it by now.Isn't it against board rules to derail a thread? Elder Ballard is not the subject of this thread. Edited October 30, 2015 by provoman
MiserereNobis Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Sheesh. If you're not down with satire, folks, it's time to figure it out and take it out on the town for a night of fun. Satire is one of the highest forms of humor because it requires wit (a skill often in short supply), irony (which is only understood by higher abstract thinking), and manipulation of tone (which requires objectivity). On top of that, satire has a purpose of trying to improve something, not just making fun of it to make fun of it. If you think the Three Stooges is harmless and satire is an affront to charity, well... then, I probably should write a satire about you 1
Ambrose Posted October 30, 2015 Posted October 30, 2015 Speaking as a millennial who has given in to the temptation of sarcasm way too often, Sarcasm seems to seep out of my tongue, though I am not generationally a Millennial; I wonder whether or not it is what I have in common with Millennials, namely, our technology, that open the floodgates.Is sarcasm always opposed to charity? Is there charitable sarcasm?
Recommended Posts