'Critics unhappy about the choice of apostles': a satire

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I guess you could characterize every difference of opinion as a prejudice.  Do you think you have a prejudice against people like me.  What about Dan Peterson, does he have prejudice against those who don't think that church leaders are diversified enough.  

 

Your remarks went beyond a difference of opinion. The amounted to attacking others based on a fanciful scenario of your own contrivance. They amounted to stereotyping. That's the essence of prejudice.

Quote

I've clarified how you're incorrect and provided the actual definition for what ad hominem is. 

The definition you gave did not differ materially from the one I gave. I've not been incorrect in my understanding or application of the term.

Quote

Nothing I said was directed at the person, ...

In essence, you said that "orthodox" (your term) Mormons -- and by inclusion, Daniel Peterson -- are closed minded, and hence, Peterson's position is not worthy of consideration. If that wasn't "directed at the person," I wonder what your conception of such a thing is.

Quote

... you misread my original post and now you're stubbornly beating that same misreading drum.  Get over it.  

Is this your last resort when you can't win an argument? Tell the person to "get over it"?

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

On 3/26/2018 at 12:45 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Attendant to the inevitable chatter about ethnic consideration in the approaching selection of two new apostles, Dan Peterson has posted this satire on his blog.

Like any good satire, it is at once incisive and insightful. A couple of noteworthy snippets:

Isn’t satire also supposed to be funny? 😉

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your remarks went beyond a difference of opinion. The amounted to attacking others based on a fanciful scenario of your own contrivance. They amounted to stereotyping. That's the essence of prejudice.

Pot meet kettle, seems this is your MO.  

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The definition you gave did not differ materially from the one I gave. I've not been incorrect in my understanding or application of the term.

It was not only materially different but the two don’t resemble each other in the slightest.  

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In essence, you said that "orthodox" (your term) Mormons -- and by inclusion, Daniel Peterson -- are closed minded, and hence, Peterson's position is not worthy of consideration. If that wasn't "directed at the person," I wonder what your conception of such a thing is.

I gave an opinion about how I think Orthodox members would respond to a hypothetical situation, and I expressed that opinion using respectful language.  Any opinions you disagree with are now considered Ad Hominem?  We might as well close down the message board then.  

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is this your last resort when you can't win an argument? Tell the person to "get over it"?

I already won the argument by clearly explaining your misuse of a term that you apparently want to keep belaboring over and over about in a most tedious and fallacious manner.  Ok, I’ll make this simple.  I’ll ignore your next reply to me and you can feel like you’ve won because you get the last word.  

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Isn’t satire also supposed to be funny? 😉

 

Ideally. 

Apparently a lot of folks think this one is, as indicated by responses to the blog post and the associated Facebook post. And Gray's post on this thread.

On the other hand, it is scarcely surprising that one whose behavior is skewered by a satire would not find the experience amusing.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[SamIam]

On 3/26/2018 at 1:24 PM, Duncan said:

I was talking the other day to a friend of mine and we were saying, how much impact does an Apostle have on our lives? We will never most likely meet them, only hear them twice a year and we didn't grow up with their kids or was their law partner or something. I am not saying they are irrelevant but what would they say that would impact my life enough to change stuff? usually people you know and know you have more of an impact on your day to day operations, rather than Elder Jentreigh W. Dubbleme, from Lunchbucket Falls, Utah, who is an Apostle

I'm presuming this is part of your Canadian jester role...but if not then I am a bit surprised at this appraisal of the influence of an apostle. Several have been key in developing my knowledge base, my testimony, and my love of the Savior. I am truly sorry that you have not worked hard enough to perceive their worth. My apologies if perhaps, and I hope so, that I have misunderstood your comment.

[Exiled]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Now you are thinking:

”Haha that fool Nehor will never know that I was thinking that and just said I was not. He will never know. Exiled, you sly devious dog. You are brilliant. Nehor seems nice though. I wonder if I should ask him out.”

No. I don't think of you that way 🤔 ... not that there is anything wrong with it as seinfeld says ... to each his own 👍

[Duncan]

20 minutes ago, SamIam said:

I'm presuming this is part of your Canadian jester role...but if not then I am a bit surprised at this appraisal of the influence of an apostle. Several have been key in developing my knowledge base, my testimony, and my love of the Savior. I am truly sorry that you have not worked hard enough to perceive their worth. My apologies if perhaps, and I hope so, that I have misunderstood your comment.

yes you have, that's okay though! What I am saying is I am not going to get bent outta shape if one person was called over another as I don't know these men, personally. The last time an Apostle even came here was 2005 for Stake Conference, Elder Renlund came here 2 years ago but just for a special Priesthood mtg. Life goes on, whomever is an Apostle or not but I would I live my life differently if a Black man or a Polynesian Man were called? no

[Freedom]

On 2018-03-26 at 1:41 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

It does make me wonder if Jesus would have had more diversity had he not been confined to such a small geographical location. If he had members of many races in countries around the world, would all of his apostles been from Galilee? I doubt it. If he had modern communication and travel methods and boasted a "worldwide" membership, would the 12 have been so similar? I doubt it. But it's all speculation. A pretty silly one, really. Just like Peterson's satire.

He certainly did have access to diversity but his strict mandate was to only teach jews. It was not until Peter had his vision that non jews were allowed to join the church. 

[CA Steve]

I can't imagine what some people might do without their windmills.

[california boy]

On 3/26/2018 at 7:02 PM, Thinking said:

Let's say you own a car that needs a lot of work done. If you fix one thing, does that make all the other problems go away?

This is why I agree with the tbm’s   Choosing an apostle that is not white is not going to make the church an inclusive church where everyone feels welcome   It will be window dressing. Kinda like the church’s efforts to portray itself as a place that accepts differences. More PR than reality. 

If they took a poll and asked the general population if they thought the Mormon Church was an inclusive church, I think there would be certain demographics that would have negative numbers. . We are talking about a church that one can be made uncomfortable if their shirt is not white for heavens sake.  I certainly don’t feel welcomed or accepted, and I used to be a member. 

If you are white married and have kids, or are planning to have kids, you fit like a glove, seamlessly with both the ward members and the dogma. Anyone else struggles to fit the mold.

[CMZ]

It mildly rubs me the wrong way that people think that general conference is the only possible time for new apostles to be announced. Apostles can be announced at any time and sometimes there are vacancies in the Quorum that are not filled the next time conference comes around.

If we get more racial diversity ("other flavors in the mix") in the Quorum of the Twelve I would personally be delighted. But individuals need to be careful about setting themselves up as the ones to determine exactly how things should be. When they do so they tend to see the whole issue incorrectly, as though being an apostle makes you a celebrity for the common folk to adulate and therefore representatives from every race deserve adulation, rather than seeing the apostles as lifelong servants of all with extremely demanding responsibilities. The complaints also tend to overlook that the apostles don't seek their callings and I'm sure many wouldn't mind getting honorably released and letting anyone of any race take their place. I heard it from David Bednar's own mouth that you would have to be crazy to want to be in the Quorum of the Twelve, yet there are people who claim they want people of non-white races to be in a position that Elder Bednar says you would have to be crazy to want. "We're not going back to church until there are non-white Apostles! Never mind that even the current apostles didn't seek out the responsibility of being apostles and probably would have chosen not to be. We still want other people in those positions." And, yeah, these same people would always just raise their bar higher. "So the Church finally gave into our pressure to choose non-white apostles, but they still haven't put one in the First Presidency yet." And it would just go on ad nauseum.

When Elder Andersen was called he said he knew of the vacancy and had thought of a number of non-Caucasian brothers that he would have raised his hand high in support of if they had been called. In that same spirit I would raise my hand high in support of so many different non-Caucasians being chosen to fill the two current vacancies. Just a few such examples are Edward Dube, Joseph W. Sitati, Vince Haleck, Gerrit Gong, etc. But demanding it in my mind is maybe not the wisest course of action.

Edited March 29, 2018 by CMZ