The Rev. Kishkumen Comes Under Fire at "SeN"

[Paloma]

What struck me was the disconnect I experienced when watching the latest episode of the Becoming Brigham videos - in close proximity with reading the Sic et Non post (and resulting comments) that negatively referenced Kishkumen's words.

Near the end of the video, Peterson along with the two young actors agree on the importance of having a readiness to listen and understand before acting with hostility and accusatory, negative assumptions.

The contrast between the sincere desire to do right and to view others thoughtfully and compassionately and to advocate for peace rather than enmity (in the video) - and then the polarizing attitude in the blog post was striking.

[Gadianton]

Near the end of the video, Peterson along with the two young actors agree on the importance of having a readiness to listen and understand before acting with hostility and accusatory, negative assumptions.

That sounds about right. The Before hasn't figured out yet that the Afore and his crew are in it for the conflict. Two things must be true before a question will be answered. The first is the question must be easy so there won't be a risk of being wrong. The second is the question must advance a polemical agenda in some way.

Back on Z, the afore generally responded to newish critics who were upset and not always making a lot of sense. They were the easiest to make fun of and dismiss without risking being wrong about something. But even then, responses usually weren't going to address the question, they would let the questioner know how important the Afore is, how he has important things to do and doesn't have time to talk, or prefers pursuing such questions with real academics in journals or scholarly settings; reminding the questioner of their lack of academic standing.

[Kishkumen]

I happened across a comment the other day from an intelligent but deeply disaffected and now completely non-communicant Latter-day Saint that included this (to me rather astonishing) passage, in which he summarizes the Church’s program of ministering brothers and sisters (formerly known as “home teachers”):

Completely non-communicant indeed, and fine with it. Sadly, fine with it. I would not wish to be out of the religion that my ancestors struggled and died for, but, yes, I am completely non-communicant. And, really, I am not sure they would have stuck with the LDS Church as it is today either. That is neither a denigration of them nor a criticism of the LDS Church. I think of it as an open question. Would they have stayed in?

We can seek to thrive in ways that become incompatible with the societies we once found a home in. If I wanted people feeling for my garments, checking my eyes to see whether I have the sparkle of the Holy Ghost, looking at my video collection for rated "R" movies, sniffing for the telltale smells of coffee or tobacco on me, or many other informal, busybody inspections, I might still be active LDS. I might even be thankful for their scrutiny.

I love, however, being free of such scrutiny. I decide for myself to adjust my lifestyle to thrive without Brother or Sister So-and-so and their disapproving frowns, furrowed brows, and gossip to the cabalistic leadership council. Sure, I would do the same within the LDS Church, but it sure is darn nice to be away from the prying eyes and loose lips of the censorious. And, really, who is Dr. Peterson kidding? Here we have a church that openly judges or has a history of judging its members by their dress ("porn shoulders"), their diet, their entertainment, their body piercings, etc., and he tells us this snooping is mysterious to him?

This is all just a question of me being a poor, miserable soul?

LOL!

Good heavens. Absolutely hilarious.

I have to admit that his remark is so utterly foreign to my understanding of home teachers and “ministers” (I’m not overly fond of the latter terminology) that, even days later, I find myself marveling at how . . . well, frankly, at how warped and dyspeptic and bizarre it seems to me. I can’t recall ever feeling that the ward teachers or home teachers or visiting teachers or ministering brothers and sisters were there to snoop or to spy on me.

NIMW (Not in my ward!). There it is, one of the oldest tricks in the Mopologetic book. "Your concerns are unimportant because I never had them." Yes, friends, I watched home teachers comb through my video collection to take stock of the movies there and comment on the Rated R films. Because, you know, that is what is important. "Are you following the Brethren? Or are you going astray and not following their counsel? Does your daughter have bare shoulders at church? Does she have double-pierced earlobes? Did we see you go into a Rated R movie? Do you listen to devil music like Ozzy Osbourne?"

Nor, when fulfilling my own assignments in visiting members of my wards over the years, have I ever viewed snooping or spying as any part of my role. Not a primary part nor a secondary part nor a tertiary part. Nor have I ever, ever, viewed the lifestyle of a committed and faithful Latter-day Saint as that of “a joyless prig.” Wow. If his words, cited above, really describe the view that he held while still active in the Church, and possibly even the disdain and contempt with which he came to view his fellow Latter-day Saints, I’m not at all surprised that he’s left it.

I feel really bad for Dr. Peterson that he comes here to mine me for quotes that he can take out of context and misuse in this way. No, I did not have universal contempt and disdain for my fellow Latter-day Saints. I felt bad for, and did not want to hang out with, those busybodies who got their jollies by monitoring others for the motes in their eyes. I found that the best way not to have to put up with such sad characters was to stay away from the LDS Church. All it costs for me to do this and publicly express my relief is that I have to be subjected to the distortions of Dr. Peterson, who, it would seem, does not see that he might be indirectly proving my point.

Don't get me wrong. I get it. DCP does what he does. I knew as I typed what I typed that this would be the inevitable outcome. I don't find it laudable, but this is the cross that he has chosen to bear. I wonder whether it is the cross he is really called to bear. Or whether he has that one wrong.

Is it really "warped and dyspeptic and bizarre" to assume that there might be any kind of "snooping" or "spying" being done by a "committed and faithful Latter-day Saint"? Has he ever heard of the SCMC? Did he not once work as an "agent" for said Committee? ("Agent" was *his* own word, by the way.) And what about "snooping" or "spying" on somebody's Facebook page, as was done to John Dehlin and others? (In fact, doing so led to the writing of the infamous "hit piece" and, by extension, to classic-FARMS getting jettisoned from the Maxwell Institute.) And what about the BYU spying incidents, during Wilkinson's reign?

Look, I had bishops pressure me to narc on people. I knew of professors sending their minions to spy on their colleagues at BYU. We currently have Dr. Peterson monitoring this board for thought and speech crimes so he can ridicule us for differing with his opinion. Notice, I did not attack Dr. Peterson. I referred to my personal experience with the panopticon of an LDS ward or an LDS university, and now I am the target of his misprision and disdain.

While reading about the disdain the former ‘active’ member of the Church now proclaims, I see the fulfillment of President Nelson’s declaration. I paraphrase: in coming days it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the companionship of the Holy Ghost. Previous modern prophets have made similar declarations and President Oaks has quoted President Nelson’s counsel.

It may very well be that the Holy Ghost makes one impervious to the invasive censoriousness of the ward prigs. In that case, maybe he has a point. Or it could be that not wanting to hang out with censorious prigs is just a healthy self-preservation reflex, and the Lord really does understand not wanting to be subjected to that in perpetuity.

Solomon: “The wicked flee when no man pursueth.”

The wise know when they are not wanted for who they are and get out of Dodge. That, too, is a solid truth.

I am happy with Dr. P and millions like him enjoying the company of the minority of censorious prigs in their midst. These censorious prigs have their good points, and I would not say otherwise. But, seriously, I have a hard time taking seriously the wisdom and divine direction of folks who would establish a rule against baptizing the children of gay parents, even after they later think better of it. Or of discriminating against people of color or women, though they assure us that God's decisions on "lineage" and gender are not to be questioned.

I should hope that reasonable people could disagree about these matters without getting nasty, but then I may be foolish in that regard. Yes, I am probably a foolish optimist to imagine that it is OK for me to communicate my differences of opinion with LDS leaders and members without them attributing that to my bad character. Foolish to think that my personal experience in Mormonism could be a valid reason for me to stop participating without being told that I am a bad person, or "warped . . . dyspeptic and bizarre."

There are those people who trust others to tell them what God is thinking, saying, and demanding. Then there are those of us who prefer not allowing others to lord such claims over us. I am of the latter sort. If DCP is of the former sort, more power to him. I wish him all the best, and I would kindly thank him for not beating up personally on those of us who are not his sort. I can dream . . . .

[The Before]

In this case, your advice amounts to taking the bait, but I think you know that. Peterson isn’t so much watching over anyone as he is hunting them down.

What bait? This could all be resolved with a telephone call. Remember what Friend and Lover once sang?

I knew a man that I did not care for /
And then one day this man gave me a call /
We sat and talked about things on our mind /
And now this man, he is a friend of mine /
Reach out in the darkness

Very wise words.

[Marcus]

In this case, your advice amounts to taking the bait, but I think you know that. Peterson isn’t so much watching over anyone as he is hunting them down.

What bait? This could all be resolved with a telephone call. Remember what Friend and Lover once sang?

I knew a man that I did not care for /
And then one day this man gave me a call /
We sat and talked about things on our mind /
And now this man, he is a friend of mine /
Reach out in the darkness

Very wise words.

You’re giving yourself away again, or you didn’t read the rest of the thread.

Near the end of the video, Peterson along with the two young actors agree on the importance of having a readiness to listen and understand before acting with hostility and accusatory, negative assumptions.

That sounds about right. The Before hasn't figured out yet that the Afore and his crew are in it for the conflict.

Apparently not.

Two things must be true before a question will be answered. The first is the question must be easy so there won't be a risk of being wrong. The second is the question must advance a polemical agenda in some way.

Back on Z, the afore generally responded to newish critics who were upset and not always making a lot of sense. They were the easiest to make fun of and dismiss without risking being wrong about something. But even then, responses usually weren't going to address the question, they would let the questioner know how important the Afore is, how he has important things to do and doesn't have time to talk, or prefers pursuing such questions with real academics in journals or scholarly settings; reminding the questioner of their lack of academic standing.

He did the same thing in his recent discussions on Facebook. All it did was escalate the conflict.

[Doctor Scratch]

It looks like RaymondSwenson has decided to join in on the dog pile:

The person complaining about ministering brothers believes that "joyless prig" is the standard personality of faithful Latter-day Saints. Presumably that includes students and faculty at Brigham Young University, who somehow break out of their joyless priggishness for several hours at a time to cheer at BYU football games. I have seen sports commentaters who describe BYU home games and fans as some of the most awesome and enthusiastic and friendly in the nation. After experiencing the joylessness of Utah's priggish people at the 2002 Winter Olympics, the International Olympic Committee has decided to come back for more punishment in 2034. Then there are the performances of the Tabernacle Choir and Orchestra on Temple Square which National Public Television inflicts on the nation every Christmas, out of pure hatred for the American public.

The complainant clearly knows what a "joyless prig" is, and he EXEMPLIFIES it. He demonstrates his ability to be a joyless prig without ANY help from his local ministering brothers.

And Dr. P. chimes in:

Well, I don't want to insult him or to tar him with same the broad brush that he seems to have used to characterize faithful Latter-day Saints. I hope that he was just having a bad day and that what he wrote in that case doesn't fully express his real attitude.

Lol.

[Marcus]

It looks like RaymondSwenson has decided to join in on the dog pile:

The person complaining about ministering brothers believes that "joyless prig" is the standard personality of faithful Latter-day Saints. Presumably that includes students and faculty at Brigham Young University, who somehow break out of their joyless priggishness for several hours at a time to cheer at BYU football games. I have seen sports commentaters who describe BYU home games and fans as some of the most awesome and enthusiastic and friendly in the nation. After experiencing the joylessness of Utah's priggish people at the 2002 Winter Olympics, the International Olympic Committee has decided to come back for more punishment in 2034. Then there are the performances of the Tabernacle Choir and Orchestra on Temple Square which National Public Television inflicts on the nation every Christmas, out of pure hatred for the American public...

It’s telling that Swenson brings up his perception of the public image of Mormons in an attempt to support his assertion that standard Mormons aren’t ‘joyless.’ Appearance matters so much to Mormons, and in my experience, many Mormons will place others noticing their positive appearance above the reality of their actual human experience. Whether the world actually sees Mormons in such a pleasant light is a different discussion.

[Shulem]

...I might still be active LDS.

Then you would incur the wrath of SHULEM here on this board and I would shove Facsimile No. 3 down your throat every single day here on this board until you couldn't take it anymore. I would pin you to the floor just like I did to MG and twist you like a f-ing pretzel.

[Kishkumen]

The person complaining about ministering brothers believes that "joyless prig" is the standard personality of faithful Latter-day Saints. Presumably that includes students and faculty at Brigham Young University, who somehow break out of their joyless priggishness for several hours at a time to cheer at BYU football games. I have seen sports commentators who describe BYU home games and fans as some of the most awesome and enthusiastic and friendly in the nation. After experiencing the joylessness of Utah's priggish people at the 2002 Winter Olympics, the International Olympic Committee has decided to come back for more punishment in 2034. Then there are the performances of the Tabernacle Choir and Orchestra on Temple Square which National Public Television inflicts on the nation every Christmas, out of pure hatred for the American public.

The complainant clearly knows what a "joyless prig" is, and he EXEMPLIFIES it. He demonstrates his ability to be a joyless prig without ANY help from his local ministering brothers.

LOL! "I know you are, but what am I?" ~RaymondSwenson inadvertently citing Peewee Herman

No, Ray, the person complaining about ministering brothers does not believe that "joyless prig" is the standard personality of faithful Latter-Day Saints. Not that you really care what the "person complaining" thinks, since you are only too eager to tell him and everyone else what he thinks for him.

I think it is pretty clear that what I am discussing here is a culture that, though not dominated by joyless prigs, does give them a comfortable place to flourish at the expense of their co-religionists. Otherwise, I would not have run into so many of them, and I would not have seen how the Church's structure and characteristics enabled such folk in their censoriousness. (See home teachers or "ministers.") I was a home teacher, after all. I did my best to be a friendly and compassionate person to all those whom I sought to serve. For the most part, my companions were similarly minded. And yet, I experienced those joyless prigs many times. I know that the majority of home teachers were not "joyless prigs," but I also know that the censorious were given too much oxygen to flourish.

Well, I don't want to insult him or to tar him with same the broad brush that he seems to have used to characterize faithful Latter-day Saints. I hope that he was just having a bad day and that what he wrote in that case doesn't fully express his real attitude.

I admit that I think a lot of Christian organizations give too much oxygen to censorious busybodies. These types can make the experience of Christian organizations unpleasant for those who do not conform to their hyper-religiosity. That practically goes without saying for those of us who have been awake and cognitively unimpaired sometime during the past 200 years. Had I said that all Latter-Day Saints were censorious busybodies, that would be one thing. Rather, my words were misused to create the impression that I believe such a thing. I do not.

But, yeah, "warped . . . dyspeptic and bizarre" are not insulting characterizations at all!

LOL!!!

It’s telling that Swenson brings up his perception of the public image of Mormons in an attempt to support his assertion that standard Mormons aren’t ‘joyless.’ Appearance matters so much to Mormons, and in my experience, many Mormons will place others noticing their positive appearance above the reality of their actual human experience. Whether the world actually sees Mormons in such a pleasant light is a different discussion.

Indeed. It is a burden to have to worry about how one represents the LDS Church. I am glad not to carry that burden any longer. The LDS Church, however, asks its members to worry about that quite a bit.

Then you would incur the wrath of SHULEM here on this board and I would shove Facsimile No. 3 down your throat every single day here on this board until you couldn't take it anymore. I would pin you to the floor just like I did to MG and twist you like a f-ing pretzel.

Don't worry, Shulem. I am no longer interested in following God's board of directors in all particulars.

[Gadianton]

Thanks for bringing those Swenson comments over, professor. Brother Swenson made an important contribution to the topic, but ultimately, I think it reinforces the Rev's point.

I absolutely agree with Swenson about the energy of Mormons once you get them outside of a church house, they tend to be hyperactive and quite honestly don't need coffee. Silly, nonsensical humor is the norm for sure. This overflows into Mormon business culture; high-energy multi-level marketing and all that. I remember a seminary teacher recounting his earlier "wild days" as a seminary teacher, and some party they had where they just let loose and found themselves rolling around on a pool table and bumping into each other while laughing hysterically. He used that as an example of where he may have gone too far and bordered on "light mindedness".

Is this tendency in social gatherings a result of letting out all the pent-up energy from church? I don't know. The meetings are drab and soulless, basically, any of the core activities as a member. Home teaching, general conference, temple, it's all soul-sucking depressing. Sitting on those tan fold-up aluminum chairs amidst white, cinderblock walls and it's cold with the air intake whistling away. Everything is prepackaged. Members conform themselves to a rote way of expressing things in talks. Everyone just suffers to get through it. Perhaps that's why they go overboard at football games when you get them out of those dress clothes. But maybe it's something else.

Anyway, where Swenson set himself up for checkmate is in that he had to look to extracurricular examples to make his point.