Russell C McGregor Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Far from Zion. Unfortunately for millenialstar and Mr. Huston (Las Vegas native, contributor to M*, and published in Interpreter) mockery seems to be entirely acceptable. It is also unfortunate that in defending the "mormonism", violating the very ideals of mormonism is the tactic.It is very sad, indeed, to see mockery were comfort and mourning should be offered. You've followed the template very well. Congratulations! I see a serious point under the satire. The weaponisation of outrage is manipulative, it has no place in informed discourse, and it is time for it to die out. And I think we can satirise it without having to mock any actual people. Don't you agree? 2
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Whatever you say grandpa. Now that's the phrase them kidlets need to learn. I don't expect good arguments from them either
mfbukowski Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Does being in pain now equate to the right to speak and have people listen? As a blithe dismisser I would have to repent and rearrange my schedule and quit my job so I can attentively read about all the anger and pain in the world.That is what experience teaches. Pain makes you stronger and is part of growing up.
Five Solas Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 ...The weaponisation of outrage is manipulative, it has no place in informed discourse, and it is time for it to die out....I do hope you'll reconsider and we can look forward to more posts from you, Russell;0) --Erik
The Nehor Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Far from Zion. Unfortunately for millenialstar and Mr. Huston (Las Vegas native, contributor to M*, and published in Interpreter) mockery seems to be entirely acceptable. It is also unfortunate that in defending the "mormonism", violating the very ideals of mormonism is the tactic.It is very sad, indeed, to see mockery were comfort and mourning should be offered. They do not want comfort. They want validation. Then some want Church HQ burned down and the ground salted. 3
bluebell Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 They do not want comfort. They want validation.This is what it has seemed like to me as well. Comfort wasn't wanted. The few people I knew of had a "nothing but having the policy changed to agree with my views will matter' frame of mind. How do you offer comfort in that situation? 1
Teancum Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 They do not want comfort. They want validation. Then some want Church HQ burned down and the ground salted.Total over the top hyperbole.
provoman Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) You've followed the template very well. Congratulations!I see a serious point under the satire. The weaponisation of outrage is manipulative, it has no place in informed discourse, and it is time for it to die out.And I think we can satirise it without having to mock any actual people.Don't you agree?I like you how split hairs "satirise without having to mock any actual people", and yet the entire premise upon which Mr. Huston basis his piece is mocking people. Edited November 30, 2015 by provoman
Bob Crockett Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 I consider myself a "progessive" but find the ignorance of 80 years practice in the church obnoxious. Waiting until the hue and cry of gays and friends makes it even more obnoxious and politically correct.
provoman Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 I'm beginning to wonder if this exercise may not boil down many progressive members of the Church being able to dish it out but not being able to take it. We TBMs come to this board and are constantly vexed by progressive members who think nothing of publicly declaring the leaders of the Church are in the wrong on many points of doctrine and policy, and that many of the teachings of the Church are false or -- even worse -- evil. Hearing progressives make these constant negative comments about the Church deeply troubles the souls of those of us who are determined to remain loyal to the Church and its living prophets whom we dearly love, appreciate and support, It"s also undeniably true that most of the progressive members who post here are entirely predictable: If the leaders of the Church come out against some progressive sacred cow, you can almost always count on the fact that the progressives will be outraged and then fearlessly blast the leaders of the Church for being "out of the way." So a perceptive TBM uses satire to point out the painfully obvious fact that the progressives are all too predictable in their outrages and condemnations of the Church, but now the progressives are offended because they don't want someone to use humor to point out an obvious truth. Would pointing out the obvious be acceptable as long as no humor is used to make the point? Consider the following that was posted on Millennialstar: "It is supposed to be the great and spacious building that is full of mocking and laughter, it should not be the model that is used for the saints."
Scott Lloyd Posted November 30, 2015 Author Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) Consider the following that was posted on Millennialstar:"It is supposed to be the great and spacious building that is full of mocking and laughter, it should not be the model that is used for the saints."When that was quoted in a response to Dan's Facebook post, I replied, "Depends on what is being mocked, I suppose. The prophet Elijah was none too gentle with the priests of Baal." The weaponization of outrage, as Russell has so aptly phrased it, seems to be a fairly new variation adopted in this day and age by the inhabitants of that tremendous and roomy structure. Perhaps a bit of satire is what's needed to fend off the weapon. When they are met with humor, however gentle, their only recourse is to respond with yet greater outrage, and we get rejoinders like "This is beneath even you," and "How dare you? These people are hurting". Edited November 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
provoman Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) When that was quoted in a response to Dan's Facebook post, I replied, "Depends on what is being mocked, I suppose. The prophet Elijah was none too gentle with the priests of Baal." The weaponizarion of outrage, as Russell has so aptly phrased it, seems to be a fairly new tack adopted in this day and age by the inhabitants of that tremendous and roomy structure. Perhaps a bit of satire is what's needed to fend off the weapon.From an talk from Elder Perry titled "The Peaceable Followers of Christ":“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” “But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.”“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”“But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.”What is the justification for not following the teachings of Elder Perry, who was quoting Christ? Why do you cling to Elijah when the Lord has spoken and the current Prophets and Apostles have spoken on how we should treat others? Edited November 30, 2015 by provoman
Scott Lloyd Posted November 30, 2015 Author Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) From an talk from Elder Perry titled "The Peaceable Followers of Christ":“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”“But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.”“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”“But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.”What is the justification for not following the teachings of Elder Perry, who was quoting Christ?When His Church is under attack in public, and the response is relatively gentle humor, my conscience is clear. Edited November 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
provoman Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) When His Church is under attack in public, and the response is relatively gentle humor, my conscience is clear.I missed the part about there being exceptions. Oh well, picking and choosing what to follow isn't anomalous to religious individuals, even the LDS. Edited November 30, 2015 by provoman
The Nehor Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Total over the top hyperbole.Not really. Many do want the church destroyed. Most will not admit it but they are motivated by hate. The salting part might be hyperbole. They would probably try to take over our mall and expand it instead of doing the salt thing. 1
Mystery Meat Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 From an talk from Elder Perry titled "The Peaceable Followers of Christ":“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”“But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.”“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”“But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.”What is the justification for not following the teachings of Elder Perry, who was quoting Christ? The short answer, is there is no justification, at least not a good one. I do not particularly like satire, especially when its point seems to demean and belittle the points of view of others. So I personally disagree with the spirit with which this was written and those who are defending it. Having said that, it doesn't mean I disagree with the author's point or the points made in this thread, and I think it highlights a bigger issue that is at play. I do not think it is fair to single out the "progressive Mormons" for getting outraged and using their progressive-ism to interpret the gospel of Jesus Christ (instead of the other way around), because I think "Conservative Mormons" and "Libertarian Mormons" and "LGBT Mormons" and "American Mormons" and "Polynesian Mormons" are just as guilty of letting their personal biases cloud the gospel. If I have learned one thing about God, it is that he is not conservative, progressive, libertarian, Polynesian, American and he sure as heck isn't LGBT. Our mortal moral codes are fallible and probably wrong as often as they are right. I am much conservative politically, because my conscious tells me that is what is right. Others are progressive for the same reason. Which one of us is right? When it comes to the Kingdom of God, it probably doesn't make a difference (and saying that probably bothers a lot of progressives and a lot of conservatives who are convinced it does). A person's conscious is a pretty crappy method for determining truth and scripture is not for private interpretation. So as much as I think progressives who view the gospel as an extension of their beloved, but utterly unreliable, progressive-ism are more or less damning themselves to cheapened and lesser gospel, I think that conservatives who do the same are in no less danger of being on the outside looking in. Thankfully we have prophets who the Lord God sustains and qualifies. 1
The Nehor Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Consider the following that was posted on Millennialstar: "It is supposed to be the great and spacious building that is full of mocking and laughter, it should not be the model that is used for the saints."So you are saying we should follow through on the lesson of Lehi's dream and instead tell the mockers that their building has no foundation, is going to collapse, they are all going to die in agony, and they are all going to burn in hell? Furthermore that our prayers are, like Joseph Smith's, that they will repent but if they will not our prayers are for them to be swept aside and destroyed?I can run with that model but I am sure if our enemies will like it more.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 30, 2015 Author Posted November 30, 2015 I missed the part about there being exceptions. Oh well, picking and choosing what to follow isn't anomalous to religious individuals, even the LDS.Ramping up the outrage. All part of the weaponization. See above. 1
The Nehor Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 From an talk from Elder Perry titled "The Peaceable Followers of Christ":“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” “But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.”“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”“But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.”What is the justification for not following the teachings of Elder Perry, who was quoting Christ? Why do you cling to Elijah when the Lord has spoken and the current Prophets and Apostles have spoken on how we should treat others?Which ignores the obvious. Charity is to do good. Not the "good they want" but good. We do them no favors by overly sympathizing and giving the impression that we understand and that God understands and it is okay to fight the Kingdom of God when they are forging for themselves the chains of hell that will bind them in torment for a very long time.The Savior was amazingly tender with the penitent sinner but with the person sinning who would not recognize the sin he was harsh, used satire, and was even brutal. Jacob hated how brutal he had to be with his people in the Book of Mormon and lamented how much hurt it was going to cause (sound familiar?) but he had to do it. When Abinadi was hauled before Noah's priests they quoted Isaiah at him to try to shame him for not preaching less harshly and Abinadi verbally tore them to pieces for it and insulted them and their lifestyle.By comparison to precedent most LDS today are quite restrained. 2
provoman Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) Ramping up the outrage. All part of the weaponization. See above.Nice use of Mormon context emotional blackmail, by suggesting that I "weaponize outrage"; can that be regarded as an attempt to silence my defense of the current standard for dialogue taught by the Leaders of the Church.It is clear from this thread and similar thread that mockery is acceptable to you when it is done in defense of the Church. We all engage in selective following of what we are taught. We all find ways or justifications to ignore what we are taught. There is no value to what Mr Huston wrote, it is fails on all counts to be uplifting or edifying. Edited November 30, 2015 by provoman
provoman Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 By comparison to precedent most LDS today are quite restrained.By comparison, no one compares to Christ, your comparison fails.By comparison, the vast majority of LDS do not compare to living Prophets and Apostles, your comparison fails.Given that living Prophets and Apostles have counseled and provided direction regarding discourse, your comparison fails.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 30, 2015 Author Posted November 30, 2015 (edited) Nice use of Mormon context emotional blackmail, by suggesting that I "weaponize outrage"; can that be regarded as an attempt to silence my defense of the current standard for dialogue taught by the Leaders of the Church.It is clear from this thread and similar thread that mockery is acceptable to you when it is done in defense of the Church. We all engage in selective following of what we are taught. We all find ways or justifications to ignore what we are taught. There is no value to what Mr Huston wrote, it is fails on all counts to be uplifting or edifying.To the extent that satire uses humor to tell truth, I felt measurably edified.As far as trying to silence someone, from where I stand, it is you who are endeavoring to do that through the weaponization of outrage and your incessant net nannying, which, if I understand the newly revised guidelines posted yesterday, is a violation of board rules. Edited November 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
The Nehor Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 By comparison, no one compares to Christ, your comparison fails.By comparison, the vast majority of LDS do not compare to living Prophets and Apostles, your comparison fails.Given that living Prophets and Apostles have counseled and provided direction regarding discourse, your comparison fails.Actually everyone compares to Christ and we achieve salvation by taking upon ourselves his name and becoming him. True, that seems like the height of hubris but God actually tells us to do it.The apostles and prophets have used cutting humor from Elijah to the sermons of Brigham Young to some of the now-funny tracts mocking the follies of the RLDS church written by apostles early last century. Yes, civility should be the norm but acting civil while being lied about to the liar is not encouraged. Instead you try to correct them. The method of correction varies with the nature of the attack.Many of our enemies want us to say nothing because they see it as a tacit admission they are right. The gospel is a standing indictment to the world, not one faith in a civilized compromise of equally valuable beliefs. It has always been a disturber. It is obnoxious and annoying. Prophets and apostles tend to spend time in prisons for their criminal activities. We go around telling the world it is way off base. This hurts people's feelings and they lash back with everything from angry posts on social media to killing people. Fortunately it is more of the former at the moment but I doubt that will last.You want the counsel of the apostles and prophets to defang us. You see it as a call to shut up and weep a lot and worry about mercurial feelings of our enemies. I see it as instruction to avoid unnecessary conflict, to not resort to violence, or needless harangues of other groups. It is not to take the bite out of the gospel. The gospel has bite and always will.So yeah, I am going to continue to use sarcasm when I decide it is appropriate. All the feeble hand-wringing types who weep when told they are being ridiculous should avoid reading anything I write. 3
provoman Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 To the extent that satire uses humor to tell truth, I felt measurably edified.As far as trying to silence someone, from where I stand, it is you who are endeavoring to do that through the weaponization of outrage and your incessant net nannying, which, if I understand the newly revised guidelines posted yesterday, is a violation of board rules.As I understand it the purpose of this board is to permit "People of all faiths ... to engage in substantive and civil discussion about topics related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Mormonism in general."I posted excerpts from a talk given by Apostle of the LDS Church that are substantive to the subject matter of the discussion. Tis the Lords servants instructing us on how to we should conduct ourselves.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 30, 2015 Author Posted November 30, 2015 As I understand it the purpose of this board is to permit "People of all faiths ... to engage in substantive and civil discussion about topics related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Mormonism in general."I posted excerpts from a talk given by Apostle of the LDS Church that are substantive to the subject matter of the discussion. Tis the Lords servants instructing us on how to we should conduct ourselves.Very well. We'll let the moderators make the determination. But if you continue in this vein much longer, I might elect to lock the thread temporarily to preclude it being locked permanently.You've made your point. Move on.
Recommended Posts