Bigotry against the CoJCoLDS?

[_Jason Bourne]

It could probably be just as easily argued that the CoJCoLDS is bigoted against them.

Hardly.

They have left the Church and now are irrationally fill of vile and spite for any believer. Look, I am ok if they want to leave, and even if they want to debate the issues they have trouble with. There are many that do that and are certianoly not bigots, do not hate the Church or all things related to it and are not enemies. Beastie, Shades even, folsk like this...not bigots. PP, Norton, Vegas, etc. Yep.

Jason

Wow. You missed that target by a mile.

My family and wife are members, and I have no bad feeling towards any of them due to their church membership. I do see vile and spite...but only froom your comments.

Really,


Where and towards whom is my vile and spite and please compare and contrast it to PP, Norton and Vegas rather then just pontificate.

Jason

[_Runtu]

Bigot, racist and intolerant, are three words that have almost no meaning, yet carry with them tremendous power and influence.

Idiots use them when they cannot argue intelligently.

I wonder what that says about those who start the discussion using such words? It's like they've given up on their argument before they have even started.

Or, those who look at it this way may be irrationally avoiding the discussion for reasons not too hard to guess. Time will tell.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sigh. You've already admitted that the word "bigot" is overused and unhelpful. So, yes, you shut down the discussion before it got going. And now you imply I have some "irrational" reason for believing that your thread is unhelpful. So, basically, if I say I'm a bigot, I'm condemned. If I don't, I'm a hypocrite. And if I think this whole thread is silly, I'm irrational and have "reasons not hard to guess" for avoiding answering.

Considering that my entire family is LDS (and so am I), so I can't imagine I hate myself and my own family. What is your point with this thread? I don't get it.

[_wenglund]

It could probably be just as easily argued that the CoJCoLDS is bigoted against them.

Hardly.

They have left the Church and now are irrationally fill of vile and spite for any believer. Look, I am ok if they want to leave, and even if they want to debate the issues they have trouble with. There are many that do that and are certianoly not bigots, do not hate the Church or all things related to it and are not enemies. Beastie, Shades even, folsk like this...not bigots. PP, Norton, Vegas, etc. Yep.

Jason

I don't begrudge people's anger toward the church. I know what it is to feel totally betrayed by an organization you gave your life to. I'm glad I've gotten past a great deal of that anger, but if people like Nort, Vegas, and PP need to vent their feelings, I'm not going to criticize them. I think we lose a lot in our attempts to be "nice."

I think the "begrudging" or victimology and anger towards the Church, may be at the very heart of the matter. William Gaylin M.D. explores this probability (not specific with the Church, but in general) in his book on "Hatred: The Psychological Descent into Violence". Aaron Beck does the same with his book on: "Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive basis of Anger, Hostility, and Violence" and his article on "The Mind of the Terrorist".

As intimated in these works and other social science material on bigotry and prejudice, it is rare if ever that those who are bigotted don't feel victimized or threatened by the groups they are bigotted against. That is, in a way, why they don't view themselves as prejudiced or bigotted. Rather, they see themselves as victims who believe they are justifiably attempting to stop or avenge the wrongs that have been or could be perpetrated against them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Sure, I guess it's possible to be bigoted against anything. But the difficulty is, the term "bigotry" is tossed around so much, I don't even really know what it's supposed to mean anymore. Like, every hyper-sensitive person in any supposedly oppressed group screams bigotry at everything from the most innocent slip-ups to real discrimination and everything in between. Ideological fanatics, like say your local Muslims, scream bigotry when we say we ought not to put a bombing operation on hold because of Ramadan. Some Mormons seem like they just yearn to feel as discriminated against as possible. Some Mormons think anti-Mormon bigotry is a guy saying "Mormonism is a fraud". I don't even know what the term means anymore. Actually, maybe I do - it can mean whatever someone who desperately wants to feel like a member of a victimized group wants it so mean. It can include a light joke, a heavy joke, a nasty look, silence, a declaration that what the would-be-victim believe is false, an expressed preference for some other group, anything and everything that someone needs it to mean, who for whatever reasons, requires enemies or victimization.

Bigot, racist and intolerant, are three words that have almost no meaning, yet carry with them tremendous power and influence.

Idiots use them when they cannot argue intelligently.

Granted, the term "bigot" is volitile and has been misused and abused by people who may be hyper-senative or "idiots".

However, do you deny that the term can be used legitimately and meaningfully and for valid reasons? Do you deny that the term may be used legitimately and meaningfully and for valid reason in reference to certain antagonists against the Church? If not, then would you please answer my question?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You have continuously dodged Tal's very straightforward question to you, Wade. Why should anybody have to thus answer *your* questions? Or are we supposed to provide evasive answers such as, "Well, I think your definition of bigot is upside down, etc."? Just admit that you don't want to know whether the Church is actually true of not, and we can continue.

Perhaps my responses to Tal have been a bit too sublte for your keen mind. So, let me be a little more blunt for your benefit. Yes, I am, and have long been interested in knowing if the Church is actually true or not. My interest in knowing that has resulted in my strong confindence that it is true.

Now, with that out of the way, perhaps you and Tal and Kevin and others can answer my question.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Sure, I guess it's possible to be bigoted against anything. But the difficulty is, the term "bigotry" is tossed around so much, I don't even really know what it's supposed to mean anymore. Like, every hyper-sensitive person in any supposedly oppressed group screams bigotry at everything from the most innocent slip-ups to real discrimination and everything in between. Ideological fanatics, like say your local Muslims, scream bigotry when we say we ought not to put a bombing operation on hold because of Ramadan. Some Mormons seem like they just yearn to feel as discriminated against as possible. Some Mormons think anti-Mormon bigotry is a guy saying "Mormonism is a fraud". I don't even know what the term means anymore. Actually, maybe I do - it can mean whatever someone who desperately wants to feel like a member of a victimized group wants it so mean. It can include a light joke, a heavy joke, a nasty look, silence, a declaration that what the would-be-victim believe is false, an expressed preference for some other group, anything and everything that someone needs it to mean, who for whatever reasons, requires enemies or victimization.

Bigot, racist and intolerant, are three words that have almost no meaning, yet carry with them tremendous power and influence.

Idiots use them when they cannot argue intelligently.

Granted, the term "bigot" is volitile and has been misused and abused by people who may be hyper-senative or "idiots".

However, do you deny that the term can be used legitimately and meaningfully and for valid reasons? Do you deny that the term may be used legitimately and meaningfully and for valid reason in reference to certain antagonists against the Church? If not, then would you please answer my question?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You have continuously dodged Tal's very straightforward question to you, Wade. Why should anybody have to thus answer *your* questions? Or are we supposed to provide evasive answers such as, "Well, I think your definition of bigot is upside down, etc."? Just admit that you don't want to know whether the Church is actually true of not, and we can continue.

Perhaps my responses to Tal have been a bit too sublte for your keen mind. So, let me be a little more blunt for your benefit. Yes, I am, and have long been interested in knowing if the Church is actually true or not. My interest in knowing that has resulted in my strong confindence that it is true.

Now, with that out of the way, perhaps you and Tal and Kevin and others can answer my question.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Sure, no problem, Wade, and thanks for your forthrightness.

My answer is that, "yes," the term "bigot" can be used meaningfully. As to whether the term can accurately be applied to antagonists of the Church, I would say, almost without fail, "No." I've yet to see an antagonist whom I would define as being "bigoted," though if you could offer up a specific example, I may change my mind. The reason I say "No," is because I agree with the theory outlined by Bromley & et. al.---which is that the Church's status as a subversive NRM results in these so-called "apostates." In other words, the correct label is "apostate," rather than "bigot."

[_wenglund]

Bigot, racist and intolerant, are three words that have almost no meaning, yet carry with them tremendous power and influence.

Idiots use them when they cannot argue intelligently.

I wonder what that says about those who start the discussion using such words? It's like they've given up on their argument before they have even started.

Or, those who look at it this way may be irrationally avoiding the discussion for reasons not too hard to guess. Time will tell.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sigh. You've already admitted that the word "bigot" is overused and unhelpful. So, yes, you shut down the discussion before it got going.

Not to the reasonably minded. They would note that while I agree that the term bigot is misuded and abused, there are valid and meaningful and useful usages, and that it may be benefitial to explore those usage and examples thereof. So, rather than shutting down the discussion, I am openning it up.

Now, I understand how this discussion may be uncomfortable for some, and as a result they may dissmiss, evade, attempt to close down the discussion or mistakenly assume it is already closed down--anything but rationally engage the issue. So, in that sense you may be correct.

And now you imply I have some "irrational" reason for believing that your thread is unhelpful. So, basically, if I say I'm a bigot, I'm condemned. If I don't, I'm a hypocrite. And if I think this whole thread is silly, I'm irrational and have "reasons not hard to guess" for avoiding answering.

Actually, your transpatent sympathy ploy is but another way for you poison the well--so to speak. It won't work. If you don't want to participate, then don't. If you do, then please respond reasonably and rationally to the questions.

Considering that my entire family is LDS (and so am I), so I can't imagine I hate myself and my own family. What is your point with this thread? I don't get it.

Very simple and obvious:

1. Determine if there are legitimate and meaningful and valid ways to define and understand what bigotry in general "looks like".
2. If so, determine if it is advantageous to eradicate or diminish bigotry in general.
3. If so, determine effective ways for meeting that objective.
4. Determine if there are antagonists against the CoJCoLDS who "look like" bigots--as legitimately and meaningfully and validly and GENERICALLY defined by those participating on this thread.
5. If so, determine if it is advantageous to eradicate or diminish bigotry towards the CoJCoLDS.
6. If so, determine effective ways for meeting that objective.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Sure, I guess it's possible to be bigoted against anything. But the difficulty is, the term "bigotry" is tossed around so much, I don't even really know what it's supposed to mean anymore. Like, every hyper-sensitive person in any supposedly oppressed group screams bigotry at everything from the most innocent slip-ups to real discrimination and everything in between. Ideological fanatics, like say your local Muslims, scream bigotry when we say we ought not to put a bombing operation on hold because of Ramadan. Some Mormons seem like they just yearn to feel as discriminated against as possible. Some Mormons think anti-Mormon bigotry is a guy saying "Mormonism is a fraud". I don't even know what the term means anymore. Actually, maybe I do - it can mean whatever someone who desperately wants to feel like a member of a victimized group wants it so mean. It can include a light joke, a heavy joke, a nasty look, silence, a declaration that what the would-be-victim believe is false, an expressed preference for some other group, anything and everything that someone needs it to mean, who for whatever reasons, requires enemies or victimization.

Bigot, racist and intolerant, are three words that have almost no meaning, yet carry with them tremendous power and influence.

Idiots use them when they cannot argue intelligently.

Granted, the term "bigot" is volitile and has been misused and abused by people who may be hyper-senative or "idiots".

However, do you deny that the term can be used legitimately and meaningfully and for valid reasons? Do you deny that the term may be used legitimately and meaningfully and for valid reason in reference to certain antagonists against the Church? If not, then would you please answer my question?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You have continuously dodged Tal's very straightforward question to you, Wade. Why should anybody have to thus answer *your* questions? Or are we supposed to provide evasive answers such as, "Well, I think your definition of bigot is upside down, etc."? Just admit that you don't want to know whether the Church is actually true of not, and we can continue.

Perhaps my responses to Tal have been a bit too sublte for your keen mind. So, let me be a little more blunt for your benefit. Yes, I am, and have long been interested in knowing if the Church is actually true or not. My interest in knowing that has resulted in my strong confindence that it is true.

Now, with that out of the way, perhaps you and Tal and Kevin and others can answer my question.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Sure, no problem, Wade, and thanks for your forthrightness.

My answer is that, "yes," the term "bigot" can be used meaningfully. As to whether the term can accurately be applied to antagonists of the Church, I would say, almost without fail, "No." I've yet to see an antagonist whom I would define as being "bigoted," though if you could offer up a specific example, I may change my mind. The reason I say "No," is because I agree with the theory outlined by Bromley & et. al.---which is that the Church's status as a subversive NRM results in these so-called "apostates." In other words, the correct label is "apostate," rather than "bigot."

To your way of thinking, then, what does a legitimate and meaningful case of "bigotry" look like?

Do you believe there may be legitimate and meaningful cases of bigotry towards Jews--even in such cases where the large segments of certain societies may view the Jews as "subversive"? Or, would this also be correctly labeled as "apostate," rather than "bigot."

What about the KKK, neo-Nazis, and White Supremicists who view non-whites, and blacks in particular, as "subversive"?

What about those who have, or may now, view the CoJCoLDS as "subversive", but yet never belonged to the CoJCoLDS, if they "look like" bigots, would you still consider them as "apostates"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

To your way of thinking, then, what does a legitimate and meaningful case of "bigotry" look like?

I have no idea what a clear case of bigotry towards the Church would look like. That's why I asked you to supply a specific example. If there are little or no specific examples, then bigotry starts to seem like a moot point, in my opinion.

Do you believe there may be legitimate and meaningful cases of bigotry towards Jews--even in such cases where the large segments of certain societies may view the Jews as "subversive"? Or, would this also be correctly labeled as "apostate," rather than "bigot."

Yes, I do think that bigotry is possible towards Jews. Then again, there is no "Church of the Jews." As Norman Mailer once said, Judaism is no longer either a religion nor an ethnicity, really. Further, I think that bigotry tends to be focussed on specific people, rather than on instutions such as the Church.

What about the KKK, neo-Nazis, and White Supremicists who view non-whites, and blacks in particular, as "subversive"?

I don't think that these groups view non-whites as "subversive," really. I think they view them as inferior, and that their hatred arises primarly from ignorance.

What about those who have, or may now, view the CoJCoLDS as "subversive", but yet never belonged to the CoJCoLDS, if they "look like" bigots, would you still consider them as "apostates"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think this is a key point. Most people who are antagonistic towards CoJCoLDS feel that way due to things they've learned. Whereas KKK and Aryan Nation tend to operate from a position of ignorance, most "apostates" and critics of the Church have at least a fundamental grasp of LDS history and doctrine, in my opinion, and in fact this is a key reason for their criticism/"apostasy".

Bottomline: I would have to be given an example of bigotry towards CoJCoLDS before I could really begin to evaluate the possiblity of such a thing existing. I realize that you want to stick to generalizations, Wade, but I really think it's far more effective to couple those generalizations with specifics. Do you have any concrete examples of bigotry towards the Church in mind?

[_wenglund]

To your way of thinking, then, what does a legitimate and meaningful case of "bigotry" look like?

I have no idea what a clear case of bigotry towards the Church would look like. That's why I asked you to supply a specific example. If there are little or no specific examples, then bigotry starts to seem like a moot point, in my opinion.

My question was in general, and not specific to the Church. You had said that you believe there are legitimate and meaningful cases of bigotry in general. I just wanted to know what you think it looks like. Can you give me examples?

Do you believe there may be legitimate and meaningful cases of bigotry towards Jews--even in such cases where the large segments of certain societies may view the Jews as "subversive"? Or, would this also be correctly labeled as "apostate," rather than "bigot."

Yes, I do think that bigotry is possible towards Jews. Then again, there is no "Church of the Jews." As Norman Mailer once said, Judaism is no longer either a religion nor an ethnicity, really. Further, I think that bigotry tends to be focussed on specific people, rather than on instutions such as the Church.

I am not sure I agree with your religion/non-religion distinction, but whatever the case, can you tell me what bigotry towards the Jews looks like to you?

What about the KKK, neo-Nazis, and White Supremicists who view non-whites, and blacks in particular, as "subversive"?

I don't think that these groups view non-whites as "subversive," really. I think they view them as inferior, and that their hatred arises primarly from ignorance.

If it can reasonably shown that they do view these groups as subversive (I believe this can easily be established), then how would you answer my question?

What about those who have, or may now, view the CoJCoLDS as "subversive", but yet never belonged to the CoJCoLDS, if they "look like" bigots, would you still consider them as "apostates"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think this is a key point. Most people who are antagonistic towards CoJCoLDS feel that way due to things they've learned. Whereas KKK and Aryan Nation tend to operate from a position of ignorance, most "apostates" and critics of the Church have at least a fundamental grasp of LDS history and doctrine, in my opinion, and in fact this is a key reason for their criticism/"apostasy".

Bottomline: I would have to be given an example of bigotry towards CoJCoLDS before I could really begin to evaluate the possiblity of such a thing existing. I realize that you want to stick to generalizations, Wade, but I really think it's far more effective to couple those generalizations with specifics. Do you have any concrete examples of bigotry towards the Church in mind?

If it can be demonstrated that there are those who have or do now view the CoJCoLDS as "subversive", and "look like" a bigot as YOU and OTHERS HERE define it, then how will you answer my question above?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

To your way of thinking, then, what does a legitimate and meaningful case of "bigotry" look like?

I have no idea what a clear case of bigotry towards the Church would look like. That's why I asked you to supply a specific example. If there are little or no specific examples, then bigotry starts to seem like a moot point, in my opinion.

My question was in general, and not specific to the Church. You had said that you believe there are legitimate and meaningful cases of bigotry in general. I just wanted to know what you think it looks like. Can you give me examples?

Eh. I don't know. Stuff like KKK lynch mobs advancing on a black. Or the material portrayed in something like Schindler's List.

Do you believe there may be legitimate and meaningful cases of bigotry towards Jews--even in such cases where the large segments of certain societies may view the Jews as "subversive"? Or, would this also be correctly labeled as "apostate," rather than "bigot."

Yes, I do think that bigotry is possible towards Jews. Then again, there is no "Church of the Jews." As Norman Mailer once said, Judaism is no longer either a religion nor an ethnicity, really. Further, I think that bigotry tends to be focussed on specific people, rather than on instutions such as the Church.

I am not sure I agree with your religion/non-religion distinction, but whatever the case, can you tell me what bigotry towards the Jews looks like to you?

See above. Also, this isn't *my* distinction. It's Norman Mailer's.

What about the KKK, neo-Nazis, and White Supremicists who view non-whites, and blacks in particular, as "subversive"?

I don't think that these groups view non-whites as "subversive," really. I think they view them as inferior, and that their hatred arises primarly from ignorance.

If it can reasonably shown that they do view these groups as subversive (I believe this can easily be established), then how would you answer my question?

A) Show me that they do views these groups as subversive, and we'll talk, and B) even if they do view these groups as "subversive," I would still maintain that their views are a function of ignorance rather than knowledge.

What about those who have, or may now, view the CoJCoLDS as "subversive", but yet never belonged to the CoJCoLDS, if they "look like" bigots, would you still consider them as "apostates"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think this is a key point. Most people who are antagonistic towards CoJCoLDS feel that way due to things they've learned. Whereas KKK and Aryan Nation tend to operate from a position of ignorance, most "apostates" and critics of the Church have at least a fundamental grasp of LDS history and doctrine, in my opinion, and in fact this is a key reason for their criticism/"apostasy".

Bottomline: I would have to be given an example of bigotry towards CoJCoLDS before I could really begin to evaluate the possiblity of such a thing existing. I realize that you want to stick to generalizations, Wade, but I really think it's far more effective to couple those generalizations with specifics. Do you have any concrete examples of bigotry towards the Church in mind?

If it can be demonstrated that there are those who have or do now view the CoJCoLDS as "subversive", and "look like" a bigot as YOU and OTHERS HERE define it, then how will you answer my question above?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I *know* that there are people who view the Church as "subversive." But as I've pointed out, these people feel this way based on knowledge rather than ignorance. Moreover the "what does it look like" element I discussed above involves unprovoked violence. Most of the violence directed towards the Church, historically speaking, cannot really be characterized as "totally unprovoked." Or can you provide specific contrary examples?

Edited to add: I've been thinking this over some more, Wade, and I've changed my mind. I would characterize the folks who stand on Temple Square dragging the Book of Mormon on the ground, or who wave garments around, to be bigots against the CoJCoLDS. So, that is what it "looks like," in my opinion. What do you think it "looks like"?

Further, I think that there is something fundamentally flawed in your definition of bigotry. Namely, I don't think that you have to be a member of any group in order to qualify as a bigot. After all, there are people who are bigoted towards blacks and Jews who aren't card-carrying members of the Aryan Nation, or the KKK.