Comic's ad for Utah Show includes picture of him in garments

[rpn]

Well, it IS protected free speech.   If we want to preserve our rights, we must allow others to do really stupid, unkind, offensive things without government interference.   What that means is even though government cannot abridge free speech, we can refuse to give people who are offense or their offenses any conversation, online discussion, in addition to any news coverage.   A thread here guarantees more people know about him.   Do we really want to give him reach?

 

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

What does that mean, "thinking equal"?

Since "we all have a right to say things," how far does my "right to say things" extend?  May I raise a false alarm of "Fire!" in a crowded theatre?  May I make statements about you that I know are false and which a reasonable person would conclude may well subject you to public opprobrium?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owns the networks on which it broadcasts General Conference and other Church-related programming, so if it is in compliance with the law otherwise, yes, I would say it would be a problem for the Federal Communications Commission  or some other government apparatus to say, "Nope!  Sorry, Church of Jesus Christ!  You can't broadcast your programming on your stations!"  Again, does the fact that "we all have a right to say things" mean that the State must guarantee me a venue and an audience?

I am thinking equal in a very democratic way. That though we may hurt others or others hurt us, the right to speak out is a right.  That right gives you a voice in anything you feel..and I need that kind of democracy.  But I will use that to carry on and liften up...some people can't do that..they just make money off of it...or there are voices that are not heard by fear.  It is our choice.  I am not so understanding in what government and/or other entities that could deprive you from having conference..but you have to realize that in other parts of the world..this would not work. 

[USU78]

He's a coward.  Pull similar dreck in Riyadh.  Then we'll see.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but the ADL (for example) would never accept the notion that anti-Semitic remarks are O.K. in light of some of the wrongs done by the state of Israel to the Palestinians, and Cross wouldn't dare use an anti-Semitic slur just for the reason that the ADL would hit him so hard.  Mormons are an easy target, and Cross is a hypocrite to selectively attack when he sees a weakness.  The Mormon herd is easy pickens for a predator.  The UofU goes along with it for the same reason that they have always allowed atrocious behavior toward the Mormons and BYU.  Civility be damned.

Some years ago, an elderly couple from my ward went to a BYU - UofU game.  Aside from all the profanity freely expressed by UofU students, they got beer poured on them by UofU students.  They never went to another such game.  

As to the claim that "the church devalues gay marriages, their families, as well as their civil rights," that is not completely true.  It leaves out concrete improvements in LDS official efforts to push for LGBTQ civil rights, as well as to find some sort of rapprochement with that community in keeping with actual LDS doctrine.  Certainly moreso than Muslims and Orthodox Jews.  LDS are simply not credited for anything positive that they do.  Anything short of completely changing doctrine is viewed as complete failure to comply with the demands of the LGBTQ community.  I should have thought that finding a modus vivendi would be enough.  Nothing short of unconditional surrender?

Thanks for sharing your perspective.  Hopefully both groups will continue to try and find a middle ground.  

Sometimes it is hard to remain neutral when it comes to how groups should be treated.  Some do better at it than others at keeping things in perspective.  I can certainly see why some people think the church is fair game to disrespect.  But that doesn't make it right.  

[poptart]

On 8/20/2018 at 2:13 PM, jkwilliams said:

Yep. This is exactly why very few people outside the church objected to the Book of Mormon musical's merciless lampooning of the church and its missionaries but some people did object to the depiction of African people, calling it offensive and racist. Apparently, if you're a small enough group on the margins of society, you're still fair game. 

For a small religion you guys suuuure are loaded.  Look at it this way, the turn it off part with the gay elder was kinda cute. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, poptart said:

For a small religion you guys suuuure are loaded.  Look at it this way, the turn it off part with the gay elder was kinda cute. 

That is the one part of the musical that hit me hard. But who you mean by “you guys”? I’m a filthy apostate. 

[poptart]

9 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

That is the one part of the musical that hit me hard. But who you mean by “you guys”? I’m a filthy apostate. 

Ops, my bad thought you were a good churchgoer. 

[SouthernMo]

Not sure which post to reply to because there have been a few about the lack of social defense Mormons enjoy as a subgroup.  Isn't there a danger in holding onto this victim mentality?

Whether fair or not is beside the point.  Working to earn respect is more a admirable quality than lamenting the lack of respect.

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Not sure which post to reply to because there have been a few about the lack of social defense Mormons enjoy as a subgroup.  Isn't there a danger in holding onto this victim mentality?

Whether fair or not is beside the point.  Working to earn respect is more a admirable quality than lamenting the lack of respect.

I don't know, creating a social awareness of mistreatment of minority groups seems to have worked for African Americans.  They certainly didn't just sit back and take it. How is one to earn respect in this specific instance without raising awareness?  Social pressure and awareness is a very valid tool in earning respect. Knowing our boundaries and speaking up when people cross those boundaries is not a victim mentality really - it teaches people that we are not door-mats. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Not sure which post to reply to because there have been a few about the lack of social defense Mormons enjoy as a subgroup.  Isn't there a danger in holding onto this victim mentality?

Whether fair or not is beside the point.  Working to earn respect is more a admirable quality than lamenting the lack of respect.

If it's true, what do you see is the danger of acknowledging it?  And also (and probably more important than the first question), is acknowledging it the same thing as a 'victim mentality'?  

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If it's true, what do you see is the danger of acknowledging it?  And also (and probably more important than the first question), is acknowledging it the same thing as a 'victim mentality'?  

Acknowledging it can be helpful.  Like a starting point for a problem.

Where the 'tipping point' is from acknowledging to a victim mentality I think happens when the thinking, expectations, and actions shift from productive to unproductive.

Unproductive is when one complains about their state, and expects others to change (in most cases).  A much healthier response to a difficult situation is asking how oneself can change, as opposed to wishing & hoping others will change.

In some cases in which others should change, being productive is difficult.  In this case and others, the group that needs to change is a large, unorganized nebulous group that is 'doing the discriminating.'   Who are we going to talk to specifically, and what specifically are we going to ask them to change?  For those on that board who lament how unfairly Mormons are treated, I ask what are you going to do about it?  How will you be productive?

Again, raising awareness is a good starting point.  Do more Mormons know that our feelings and sensitivities aren't as socially protected as others?  Do non-Mormons know this?  How are you going to tell both/either Mormons or non-Mormons about this important disparity?

Then, after awareness (diagnosis), we move on to change (treatment).  What specifically would you like this group of Mormons and non-Mormons to do who now see that it's socially acceptable to make jokes about our subgroup, but not others?  I think this is productive.

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know, creating a social awareness of mistreatment of minority groups seems to have worked for African Americans.

This is true, but not the same if we are talking about the civil rights changes.  Those were specific changes that African Americans wanted (and deserved).  The need for change was addressed at specific governmental policies and leaders at federal, state, and local issues.  The issues were segregation, employment discrimination, voting rights, etc...  The civil rights movement did not end racism.

The issue with Mormons not being as socially protected is different.  There is no institutional discrimination, there are no 'rights' we are being denied.  But, I would agree that we often see a different social standard/political correctness applied to the Mormon subgroup compared to others.  Is there a word for racism applied to religions?  Religionism?  We can certainly see that happening!

So, to my point, if one wishes to change this social standard, with whom does the issue need to be raised?  What specifically would you want that person or people to change?  I think the answers to those questions are somewhat nebulous.

I think the most productive approach is to vote with our dollars for those people or groups who don't display the 'religionism' that we see from David Cross and the likes of him, and withhold our dollars from those who show the love and respect humans should show for others race, beliefs, nationalities, etc...

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Not sure which post to reply to because there have been a few about the lack of social defense Mormons enjoy as a subgroup.  Isn't there a danger in holding onto this victim mentality?

Whether fair or not is beside the point.  Working to earn respect is more a admirable quality than lamenting the lack of respect.

Could the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do more, institutionally, to earn respect from the world at large?  Could its members individually?  Perhaps, but I think a good argument can be made that whatever it does will never be enough in the eyes of some (indeed, in the eyes of many) because of irreconcilable paradigms: "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own ..."

[pogi]

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

But, I would agree that we often see a different social standard/political correctness applied to the Mormon subgroup compared to others.  Is there a word for racism applied to religions?  Religionism?  We can certainly see that happening!

I think society is more accepting/tolerant/protective of minority groups, diversity of appearance, thought, belief, etc. then it ever has been.  Political correctness is upheld as a virtue in today's society.  That is the leverage that can be used.  It is something society already believes in.  Gays, women, blacks, people with disabilities, Muslims, Jews, etc. are all protected classes socially.  Anyone who attempts to marginalize, insult, or discriminate against one of these groups is publicly shamed - it has ended careers.  Should Mormons be included in that group?  Why not?  The same arguments and principles used to protect Muslims and Jews should be universally applied if they are principles worth keeping - otherwise a person is not being integrous to those principles.

Quote

So, to my point, if one wishes to change this social standard, with whom does the issue need to be raised?  What specifically would you want that person or people to change?  I think the answers to those questions are somewhat nebulous.

The answers to those questions are simple and plain.  The social standards of political correctness/tolerance are already in place.  The same arguments and principles that are used against those who insult religions like Islam by mocking their sacred scriptures (Koran the Musical), religious garments etc. can be used in our case.  The same expectations of tolerance and respect should be in place.  The issue needs to be raised with as many as will hear.  I think of the "me too" movement and how simply creating an environment of awareness and speaking out against mistreatment can make a big change.  The fact that this is being talked about is good.

Edited August 22, 2018 by pogi

[Calm]

On 8/21/2018 at 11:24 AM, bluebell said:

No, it's frankly not irrelevant.  It's my entire point.

My point is that entertainers in our society get away with mocking the restored gospel of Jesus Christ when they would never get away with mocking black people, Jewish people, or, being pro-white supremacy (to name a few examples).  All of those forms of mockery or support would be issues of free speech, but not all of them are as acceptable as mocking latter-day saints.

There are still groups that are at least as acceptable mocking, imo.  Fat people for example.  Catholics feel this way according to what I have seen:  

https://www.amazon.com/New-Anti-Catholicism-Last-Acceptable-Prejudice/dp/0195176049

Latter-day Saints are hardly unique yet even if there are fewer groups in the Not acceptable category.

Just wanted to point that out.  I think if we focus solely on mockery of our own group, that can slip into victimhood pretty quickly.  If we recognize that mocking 'safe' minority groups has never stopped, but just shifted over time, we can work to diminish that quality of our culture that promotes this.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are still groups that are at least as acceptable mocking, imo.  Fat people for example.  Catholics feel this way according to what I have seen:  

https://www.amazon.com/New-Anti-Catholicism-Last-Acceptable-Prejudice/dp/0195176049

Latter-day Saints are hardly unique yet even if there are fewer groups in the Not acceptable category.

Just wanted to point that out.  I think if we focus solely on mockery of our own group, that can slip into victimhood pretty quickly.  If we recognize that mocking 'safe' minority groups has never stopped, but just shifted over time, we can work to diminish that quality of our culture that promotes this.

Oh I completely agree, we aren't unique in this regard.

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The fact that this is being talked about is good.

Talking about it is one thing, but ruminating on the offense of it is another.

“He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.”

—Brigham Young

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Talking about it is one thing, but ruminating on the offense of it is another.

“He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.”

—Brigham Young

I haven't seen a lot of rumination in offense here, mostly just a good healthy dose of social walloping on Cross for his inappropriate behavior.  If he throws a social jab, we will return one.  Most comments here are "lazy comedy", "how can he think this is ok?" etc.  I see that as needed for social change.  Or, we could play the door-mat and see how far that gets us.

[SouthernMo]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

If he throws a social jab, we will return one. 

Just like Matthew 5:39 teaches us...

[pogi]

16 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Just like Matthew 5:39 teaches us...

I was thinking more in terms of Mathew 23 where he calls out the teachers and pharisees.

He gave them a social walloping for sure. Saying that they don't practice what they preach, that everything they do is for show, Hypocrite (many, many times), blind guides, snakes, sons of vipers, "sorrow awaits you".  

When you take the scriptures in context of the whole, Jesus was no door-mat and was not afraid to oppose evil and socially condemn those who mock sacred things. 

[SouthernMo]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

I was thinking more in terms of Mathew 23 where he calls out the teachers and pharisees.

He gave them a social walloping for sure. Saying that they don't practice what they preach, that everything they do is for show, Hypocrite (many, many times), blind guides, snakes, sons of vipers, "sorrow awaits you".  

When you take the scriptures in context of the whole, Jesus was no door-mat and was not afraid to oppose evil and socially condemn those who mock sacred things. 

This is a good point.  Christ really seemed to have a problem with hypocrites.  He could (can?) put up with a lot of sins, but hypocrisy gets under his skin.

But, he seems to pick his battles, doesn't he?  If he can allow men to crucify him, and forgive them on the spot, maybe I don't have to be offended by David Cross.

But the hypocrisy of some (hopefully a small group) who defend the rights and feelings of one subgroup, but not another for no valid reason perhaps should be brought to attention.

Again - good point.  You've shifted my thinking on this issue... 

[jpv]

Just want to say I really appreciate jwilliams and caliboy's support on this issue.

[Kenngo1969]

"Arrested Development," indeed.   

Can Mr. Cross mock the members and the sacred practices (to them, at least, if to no one else) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  Of course, he can.  Should he?  I suppose such things play well with his intended audience, but, if so, that says much more about him and his audience than it does about members of the Church of Jesus Christ.  That ought to give him and his audience pause, and prompt some needed self-reflection.  I realize that the odds are very long (read, "practically nonexistent") that such self-reflection will occur, but it ought to.

I'm sure his intended audience ate it up.  More power to them.  But I have much the same reaction to Mr. Cross's work as I do to the work of the Messrs. Parker, Stone, and Lopez: https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/laughing-at-mormons/