Bigotry against the CoJCoLDS?

[_wenglund]

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

This is excellent. I was hoping you would get more specific, and you did. I will add what I think it "looks like" once I hear from other participants on this thread.

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.

I agree that one does not need to belong to a formal group to qualify as bigotted. However, I disagree that my definition suggests that they do. It doesn't. So, it is not fundamentally flawed in that way--though I do apprecieate the feedback.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

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

This is excellent. I was hoping you would get more specific, and you did. I will add what I think it "looks like" once I hear from other participants on this thread.

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.

I agree that one does not need to belong to a formal group to qualify as bigotted. However, I disagree that my definition suggests that they do. It doesn't. So, it is not fundamentally flawed in that way--though I do apprecieate the feedback.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

here is ABI’s definition of bigot/bigotry:
toxic attitudes and behaviors manifest towards a group based primarily on membership in that group.

(emphasis added)

So... Perhaps I misunderstood this? If so, then it is still very strange, particularly in lieu of your use of Jews and blacks as examples. I mean, are you actually trying to claim that anti-Semitic bigots are bigots based "primarily on membership in that group"? I.e., that the Nazis were former Jews? Or that people bigoted against blacks were "members of that group"---i.e., "former blacks"? Or current blacks?

Regardless, your definition of bigotry clearly makes a connection between being a bigot and group membership of some kind. As to this, I think it's worth pointing out that one can be an "ex-Mormon," but so far as I know, one cannot be an "ex-Jew" or "ex-black," so perhaps a new analogy is in order.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

I belong to no group except the human race and I want to simply rise above the rest and go back to doing what is best for the people

I think I may move to Amsterdam or what ever

Smoke Pot and gather in churches as public meeting place to come together as one unified group the group of humans

Life will still go on and no one will die and no will hate and no one will be afraid and everyone can trust one another

How does that sound to you all????

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

No more churches........No more hate........imagine that.........I can and I do..........and plenty of good drugs......

[_Pahoran]

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".

You can't really be that ignorant, Scratch, unless you are doing so on purpose.

Of course the people you mention think they have "facts" and "reasons" and are arguing from a position of "knowledge."

And, of course, they even have "research" to back them up.

Not too long ago, I came across a hate site that is every bit as hateful as this one; the only difference was that it was targeted at Jews instead of the Saints. This site quoted, with approval, one of Martin Luther's long anti-Semitic rants. It included a narrative that resembles in detail some very common anti-Mormon narratives: it specifically said that Luther started out sympathetic to Jews, but as he learned more about them and did more research, he came to see how evil they really were.

You see Scratchy, anti-Semites are just like anti-Mormons--with one important exception: they are braver than you are.

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.

The possibility!!? How intentionally blind are you?

Here it is, Scratch: free of charge, a simple self-test.

1) If you use the word "cult" as a common polemical pejorative, and apply it to the Church of Jesus Christ, you might just be a bigot.

2) If you refer to The Church of Jesus Christ as a "corporation" instead of as a Church, you might just be a bigot.

3) If you assume that "the sole reason that Joseph Smith started polygamy was to satisfy his own sexual desires," you might just be a bigot.

4) If you think your own failure to cut it as a Latter-day Saint justifies hate-filled venting at the Church, you might just be a bigot.

5) If you think invidious comparisons to mass murderers, evil dictators and suicidal/homicidal maniacs is a legitimate way to discuss the leaders of the Church, you might just be a bigot.

If you do more than one of the above, there's no longer any "might just" about it; a bigot is what you are.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Mister Scratch]

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".

You can't really be that ignorant, Scratch, unless you are doing so on purpose.

Of course the people you mention think they have "facts" and "reasons" and are arguing from a position of "knowledge."

And, of course, they even have "research" to back them up.

Not too long ago, I came across a hate site that is every bit as hateful as this one; the only difference was that it was targeted at Jews instead of the Saints. This site quoted, with approval, one of Martin Luther's long anti-Semitic rants. It included a narrative that resembles in detail some very common anti-Mormon narratives: it specifically said that Luther started out sympathetic to Jews, but as he learned more about them and did more research, he came to see how evil they really were.

You see Scratchy, anti-Semites are just like anti-Mormons--with one important exception: they are braver than you are.

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.

The possibility!!? How intentionally blind are you?

Here it is, Scratch: free of charge, a simple self-test.

1) If you use the word "cult" as a common polemical pejorative, and apply it to the Church of Jesus Christ, you might just be a bigot.

2) If you refer to The Church of Jesus Christ as a "corporation" instead of as a Church, you might just be a bigot.

3) If you assume that "the sole reason that Joseph Smith started polygamy was to satisfy his own sexual desires," you might just be a bigot.

4) If you think your own failure to cut it as a Latter-day Saint justifies hate-filled venting at the Church, you might just be a bigot.

5) If you think invidious comparisons to mass murderers, evil dictators and suicidal/homicidal maniacs is a legitimate way to discuss the leaders of the Church, you might just be a bigot.

If you do more than one of the above, there's no longer any "might just" about it; a bigot is what you are.

Regards,
Pahoran

What a sad spectacle this is. Why such hatred, Pah? We know that you're probably embarrassed about being exposed as the hypocritical hate-mongerer that you are. Honestly, I can no longer take you seriously at all. You have completely demolished whatever credibility you may have once had in my eyes. I recognize the fact that you probably care not a whit about this. But then again, your behavior more or less demonstrates that you don't really care about anything other than your own hate. Have fun with that, Ahab.

[_wenglund]

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

This is excellent. I was hoping you would get more specific, and you did. I will add what I think it "looks like" once I hear from other participants on this thread.

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.

I agree that one does not need to belong to a formal group to qualify as bigotted. However, I disagree that my definition suggests that they do. It doesn't. So, it is not fundamentally flawed in that way--though I do apprecieate the feedback.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

here is ABI’s definition of bigot/bigotry:
toxic attitudes and behaviors manifest towards a group based primarily on membership in that group.

(emphasis added)

So... Perhaps I misunderstood this? If so, then it is still very strange, particularly in lieu of your use of Jews and blacks as examples. I mean, are you actually trying to claim that anti-Semitic bigots are bigots based "primarily on membership in that group"? I.e., that the Nazis were former Jews? Or that people bigoted against blacks were "members of that group"---i.e., "former blacks"? Or current blacks?

Your confusing the the subject and object. The group being referred to here is not those who are bigotted, but those towards whom the bigotry is directed.

Regardless, your definition of bigotry clearly makes a connection between being a bigot and group membership of some kind. As to this, I think it's worth pointing out that one can be an "ex-Mormon," but so far as I know, one cannot be an "ex-Jew" or "ex-black," so perhaps a new analogy is in order.

It does clearly make a connection between bigotry and a group membership, but not in the way you suppose. The bigotry is towards a group and those who are members thereof, and not those who are bigotted. Do you understand the difference?

However, bigotry often is a group thing (whether a formal or losely structured group--i.e such as an unorganized group of religionist who may be bigotted towards athiests), though it doesn't necessarily have to be a group.

My definition doesn't mention "ex-" anything so I am not sure what your point is regarding ex-Jews or ex-Blacks. Please clarify.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Southern Redneck]

Back on track. Am I, and other exmo's, bigots?

You ask a good question and I have been seriously thinking about it.

I think to start with I want to define two things. For me the term bigotry has a level of anger and hate involved in it. Like neo-cons(A term I hate) is the extreme of the conservative party, I think 'bigotry' is the extreme of 'not liking'.

I will admit a strong bias. what seperates 'bias' from 'bigotry' I think is the underlying level of anger/hate in bigotry.

I have a strong bias towards the church.

Examples

*When I hear of an activity that is outside of the ward building such as working at a food kitchen, or clearing trees after Katrina I assume the worse. My bias shows itself in the fact that my first reaction is that this is good on the surface, but will be used as another missionary activity.

*When a sister drops by without notice with a loaf of pumpkin/banana/whatever bread, I assume that she is there to 'remind' my wife that she has missed several Sundays.

*When a missionary I am feeding asks if I have any siblings, followed by the "are they members", I assume they are fishing for contacts.

*When the church releases a statement on an issue(Gay marriage etc.) I see them pussy footing around the edge of loosing their tax exempt status. Their 'issue statements' is pretty much a 'this is how you should vote members' statement. I don't see them being honest in these letters.

A lot of these biases are founded on some truth.

Of course the shoe is often on the other foot. I see and hear members judge exmo's as anger filled, sinful, offended and even prideful by habit. They have a bias just like me.

I see a wide chasm between 'bias' and 'bigotry'. I have a bias, but I am not a bigot on this issue.

[_wenglund]

Back on track. Am I, and other exmo's, bigots?

You ask a good question and I have been seriously thinking about it.

I think to start with I want to define two things. For me the term bigotry has a level of anger and hate involved in it. Like neo-cons(A term I hate) is the extreme of the conservative party, I think 'bigotry' is the extreme of 'not liking'.

I will admit a strong bias. what seperates 'bias' from 'bigotry' I think is the underlying level of anger/hate in bigotry.

I have a strong bias towards the church.

Examples

*When I hear of an activity that is outside of the ward building such as working at a food kitchen, or clearing trees after Katrina I assume the worse. My bias shows itself in the fact that my first reaction is that this is good on the surface, but will be used as another missionary activity.

*When a sister drops by without notice with a loaf of pumpkin/banana/whatever bread, I assume that she is there to 'remind' my wife that she has missed several Sundays.

*When a missionary I am feeding asks if I have any siblings, followed by the "are they members", I assume they are fishing for contacts.

*When the church releases a statement on an issue(Gay marriage etc.) I see them pussy footing around the edge of loosing their tax exempt status. Their 'issue statements' is pretty much a 'this is how you should vote members' statement. I don't see them being honest in these letters.

A lot of these biases are founded on some truth.

Of course the shoe is often on the other foot. I see and hear members judge exmo's as anger filled, sinful, offended and even prideful by habit. They have a bias just like me.

I see a wide chasm between 'bias' and 'bigotry'. I have a bias, but I am not a bigot on this issue.

What kinds of things would a bigot against the Church do, think, or say, that you wouldn't or haven't done, thought, or said?

I am just trying to clarify the distinction you made above using concrete examples.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Physics Guy]

Further, I think that there is something fundamentally flawed in your definition of bigotry.

I agree that one does not need to belong to a formal group to qualify as bigotted.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

here is ABI’s definition of bigot/bigotry:
toxic attitudes and behaviors manifest towards a group based primarily on membership in that group.

(emphasis added)

So... Perhaps I misunderstood this? If so, then it is still very strange, particularly in lieu of your use of Jews and blacks as examples. I mean, are you actually trying to claim that anti-Semitic bigots are bigots based "primarily on membership in that group"? I.e., that the Nazis were former Jews? Or that people bigoted against blacks were "members of that group"---i.e., "former blacks"? Or current blacks?

Your confusing the the subject and object. The group being referred to here is not those who are bigotted, but those towards whom the bigotry is directed.

Well, then, I still have issues with your definition. I doubt very much that bigotry directed towards the LDS Church is merely a function of.... What? Your definition doesn't really specify. You make it sound as if these bigots hate the Church for no reason at all, or simply because the Church exists, and that doesn't make very much sense, in my opinion.

Regardless, your definition of bigotry clearly makes a connection between being a bigot and group membership of some kind. As to this, I think it's worth pointing out that one can be an "ex-Mormon," but so far as I know, one cannot be an "ex-Jew" or "ex-black," so perhaps a new analogy is in order.

It does clearly make a connection between bigotry and a group membership, but not in the way you suppose. The bigotry is towards a group and those who are members thereof, and not those who are bigotted. Do you understand the difference?

Yes, now that you've clarified. The grammar in your original sentence confused the issue somewhat, imho.

However, bigotry often is a group thing (whether a formal or losely structured group--i.e such as an unorganized group of religionist who may be bigotted towards athiests), though it doesn't necessarily have to be a group.

My definition doesn't mention "ex-" anything so I am not sure what your point is regarding ex-Jews or ex-Blacks. Please clarify.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Since you've clarified your definition, it seems a moot point.