Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Does that mean that it's not bad behavior for people to mock mormonism, if they believe it deserves to be mocked?I will always disagree with mockery of the Church of Jesus Christ or His gospel. But I've already said I found Mark Twain's treatment of Mormonism in Roughing It to be humorous.
KevinG Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 I will always disagree with mockery of the Church of Jesus Christ or His gospel. But I've already said I found Mark Twain's treatment of Mormonism in Roughing It to be humorous. Our culture and some of the myths about us on the other hand are fair game, and as I pointed out above, can be quite profitable.
sethpayne Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 Maybe not the people so much as the views. As jkwilliams has acknowledged, it depends on the conditions, time, place, circumstances, etc. And this is where we disagree. Because of the important role religious belief plays in people's lives, mocking or deriding those beliefs is problematic because inevitably, we end up hurting people when we do so. But as I say, criticism is markedly different from mocking and derision. All views should be open to criticism.
sethpayne Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 I will always disagree with mockery of the Church of Jesus Christ or His gospel. Ah. So it is ok to mock beliefs that are not your own. But if anyone mocks your beliefs, well that's where we draw the line. Do you see the inconsistency here?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Ah. So it is ok to mock beliefs that are not your own. But if anyone mocks your beliefs, well that's where we draw the line. Do you see the inconsistency here?Why did you clip off the last part of my post in quoting it? It addresses your question here.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 And this is where we disagree. Because of the important role religious belief plays in people's lives, mocking or deriding those beliefs is problematic because inevitably, we end up hurting people when we do so. But as I say, criticism is markedly different from mocking and derision. All views should be open to criticism.I see a fundamental difference between "mocking or deriding [other's religious] beliefs" and satirizing attacks that others make on one's own beliefs. I'm incredulous that you don't see the distinction.
sethpayne Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 Why did you clip off the last part of my post in quoting it? It addresses your question here. Your comment about Twain? Ok. So you find something Twain said is funny. I don't see the relevance.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Our culture and some of the myths about us on the other hand are fair game, and as I pointed out above, can be quite profitable.True. One of the criteria I use to evaluate it is whether or not it is fair.
bluebell Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 I will always disagree with mockery of the Church of Jesus Christ or His gospel. But I've already said I found Mark Twain's treatment of Mormonism in Roughing It to be humorous. This is the double standard that i struggle with, as it seems like you are holding other people to a standard that you aren't willing to hold yourself to. It comes across like "Because i'm right, i can do stuff to you that you can't do to me." If someone doesn't believe that the LDS church is God's church--if they sincerely believe it's the devil's church--then can we be upset when they mock it, especially when we ourselves have implied that it's o.k. to mock beliefs that are of satan? Such people are behaving acceptably, per our own words. If i don't want someone to do something to me, I'm not sure how to justify doing it to them, regardless of who's right (because, obviously, we both think we are). 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Your comment about Twain? Ok. So you find something Twain said is funny. I don't see the relevance.I pointed it out to contradict your accusation that I am being inconsistent.
bluebell Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 On the contrary it is quite funny and profitable. I am not one to complain about a good natured spoof of my quirks. People who intentionally seek to tear down my religion however do not escape disdain. I agree. But in the same vein, we then have to admit that anytime we (or any members of our faith) seek to tear down someone else's religion that we (or they) are also worthy of disdain.
sethpayne Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) I see a fundamental difference between "mocking or deriding [other's religious] beliefs" and satirizing attacks that others make on one's own beliefs. I'm incredulous that you don't see the distinction. Again -- why do you put words in my mouth, Scott? Please stop. Who said I don't see the distinction between satire and malicious attack? But Scott -- do you think this is funny or offensive? Is it a good natured remark or an offensive jab? Edited October 29, 2015 by sethpayne 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Does that mean that it's not bad behavior for people to mock mormonism, if they believe it deserves to be mocked?The reality of whether it deserves to be mocked transcends whether or not people believe it does.
sethpayne Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 I pointed it out to contradict your accusation that I am being inconsistent. Well, help a poor brother out. I still have no idea what your point is. 1
sethpayne Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 The reality of whether it deserves to be mocked transcends whether or not people believe it does. So there is some objective standard someone -- upon which we can all agree -- that defines what can, and cannot be mocked? Can you point me to this source?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Again -- why do you put words in my mouth, Scott? Please stop. Who said I don't see the distinction between satire and malicious attack? But Scott -- do you think this satire is funny or offensive? I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. It appeared to me that you weren't recognizing a distinction. I'm glad to know that you do. And I don't have the time to view your video and comment on it. Sorry,
Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 So there is some objective standard someone -- upon which we can all agree -- that defines what can, and cannot be mocked? Can you point me to this source?Are you implying with your question that there is no such thing as objective reality?
sethpayne Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. It appeared to me that you weren't recognizing a distinction. I'm glad to know that you do. And I don't have the time to view your video and comment on it. Sorry, Thanks, Scott. It's just a picture..... no video. 1
sethpayne Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 Are you implying with your question that there is no such thing as objective reality? Not at all. I'm hardly a moral relativist. But what objective standard do you think sits out there to define what can and cannot be mocked? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 If i don't want someone to do something to me, I'm not sure how to justify doing it to them, regardless of who's right (because, obviously, we both think we are).So are you saying we should never oppose error or falsehood on the premise that we would not want someone contradicting us?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) Not at all. I'm hardly a moral relativist. But what objective standard do you think sits out there to define what can and cannot be mocked?God. And the Holy Ghost. And common sense. And the light of Christ that is given to everyone who is born into the world. Edited October 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
sethpayne Posted October 29, 2015 Author Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) God. And the Holy Ghost. And common sense. Ah. But no objective standard which we all can both observe and agree upon. So if one believes God and the HG are on their side, they have free reign to mock as long as they believe this is what God thinks is ok to mock? I'm sure you can see the problems that come from this. People do all sorts of horrible things because they believe God gave them the OK. BONUS ROUND: Offensive or Funny? Edited October 29, 2015 by sethpayne 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) Thanks, Scott. It's just a picture..... no video.OK. I disagreer with its premise. "History" available on the Internet is not necessarily real history. It is quite often slanted and distorted. When all available truth is taken into account, it pretty much ends up supporting the Sunday School version. Furthermore, having taught Sunday School gospel doctrine for several years, I reject the concept of "Sunday School history" as being shallow. I always tried to be accurate and as thorough as I could within the confines of the time available and the relevance to the topic at hand. Is it offensive? I would instead say that it is flawed. Edited October 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Ah. But no objective standard which we all can both observe and agree upon. You seem to be saying here that it is impossible for people to seek and receive divine truth and thereby come to agreement. I don't hold with that.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Well, help a poor brother out. I still have no idea what your point is.Perhaps you can explain better how I am being inconsistent, since I don't believe that I am.
Recommended Posts