Bigotry against the CoJCoLDS?

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

I am with Southern Redneck

I feel that at face value the Cult appears to want to spread good

There are too many of us out here that Unfornatuliy can see past the good and see intentions of the CULT/CULTURE

[_wenglund]

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.

That is because you fail to correctly understand what a definition is and its purpose. My definition is merely a brief description of what bigotry is--a starting point for more indepth discussions. It is not intended to be an exaustive treatis explaining all the how, why, and wherefores. Those things are dealt with, in part, here: "What May Cuase Anti-Mormon Religious Bigotry?"

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.

The grammar was borrowed from leading social scientists in the field. Whether confusing or not (I had no trouble understanding them), I thought it best to use their phaseology in order to maintain continuity. Either way, though, I am glad you now correctly understand.

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.quote]

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

I am glad.

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.

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-

I did give concrete examples of my bias. Concrete examples of what a bigot would do or think should come from you. After all. You are the one who seems to desire to know if we are bigotted.

Please give examples of bigotted actions and I we will see if we feel they rise to the level of anger/hate to be bigotted.

The balls in your court now.




small note. I have seen many interviews given by police and in them you can see the interviewer is working towards one thing. The point when the criminal gives themselves away, or admits to their deeds. small questions and random talk all leads to the point when the cop has all of the advanatges. I get the same feeling by reading your posts on this thread. That is why I waited to post on what I think is my bias.

If you want to gain a verbal/written advantage then just say so, but word games don't suit a real discussion. Your first question was simple. 'Are you a bigot'. After finding flaws in your definition you rephrased the question, but always it seems to be attempting to put us at the disadvantage.

I'm likely stepping away from this thread. Word games wear me out.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

That is because you fail to correctly understand what a definition is and its purpose. My definition is merely a brief description of what bigotry is--a starting point for more indepth discussions. It is not intended to be an exaustive treatis explaining all the how, why, and wherefores. Those things are dealt with, in part, here: "What May Cuase Anti-Mormon Religious Bigotry?"

Wade, I've looked over the material on your link, and see a number of problems/potential issues. For one thing, aren't you concerned that your characterization of bigots as being "developmentally stunted" is a bit of a straw man argument? Second, so far as I know there is little to no disagreement that the Church itself is "authoritarian." (I know you say that some kinds of authoritarianism are okay, but it seems to me that you will have to first reckon with the presence of this within the Church before you can begin extending your criticism and analysis to the so-called bigots.) Third, you write (discussing authoritarians):

By using Double Standards, Scape-goating, and Projectivity--where they are quite merciful, flexible, and understanding of themselves and their respective in-groups, but highly judgmental, rigid, and skeptical of others, and tend to blame their "troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless.[...]

(emphasis added)

So, by your own definitions, isn't the Church (as an authoritarian organization) thus "blaming its troubles on the powerless"? Or vice versa, are the bigots attacking the Church, which, according to your own formulations, is "relatively powerless"? It seems a double-bind, in my opinion. Either the Church is weak and "powerless" (I strongly disagree with this) in the face of the "authoritarian" bigots; or else the Church itself is the "authoritarian" in this equation, and is itself more guilty of bigotry, by your own definition, than the so-called bigots. I think, ala juliann, that you have painted the Church into a rather disagreeable corner, Wade. What say ye?

[_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

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.

Scratch,

when I edit out your personal remarks, spiteful ad hominem and off-topic diversions, the substance of your post comes down to:

Which is about what I expected.

Anti-Mormon bigotry is a reality. You participate in it.

And that's the way it is.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_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-

I did give concrete examples of my bias. Concrete examples of what a bigot would do or think should come from you. After all. You are the one who seems to desire to know if we are bigotted.

Please give examples of bigotted actions and I we will see if we feel they rise to the level of anger/hate to be bigotted.

The balls in your court now.

If you look again at the statement from me that you bolded above, you will see that I am inquiring about the distinction YOU made. And, YOUR distinction is not clarified by ME giving MY distinction, is it? You did give concrete examples of your bias, but that is only half of YOUR distinction. In order for to be clear on YOUR distinction, YOU need to give concrete examples of what bigotry towards the Church looks like. So, sorry, the ball is still in YOUR court now.

small note. I have seen many interviews given by police and in them you can see the interviewer is working towards one thing. The point when the criminal gives themselves away, or admits to their deeds. small questions and random talk all leads to the point when the cop has all of the advanatges. I get the same feeling by reading your posts on this thread. That is why I waited to post on what I think is my bias.

If you want to gain a verbal/written advantage then just say so, but word games don't suit a real discussion. Your first question was simple. 'Are you a bigot'. After finding flaws in your definition you rephrased the question, but always it seems to be attempting to put us at the disadvantage.

I'm likely stepping away from this thread. Word games wear me out.

If you are not a "criminal" (to use your analogy), then stop acting like one (as though you have something to hide, and imagine some elaborate conspiracy used to unhide it, and so you "step away") because you should have nothing to fear from my GENERIC questions. On the other hand....

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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 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.

That is because you fail to correctly understand what a definition is and its purpose. My definition is merely a brief description of what bigotry is--a starting point for more indepth discussions. It is not intended to be an exaustive treatis explaining all the how, why, and wherefores. Those things are dealt with, in part, here: "What May Cuase Anti-Mormon Religious Bigotry?"

Wade, I've looked over the material on your link, and see a number of problems/potential issues. For one thing, aren't you concerned that your characterization of bigots as being "developmentally stunted" is a bit of a straw man argument?

No. But, I am open to hearing why you think it is.

Second, so far as I know there is little to no disagreement that the Church itself is "authoritarian." (I know you say that some kinds of authoritarianism are okay, but it seems to me that you will have to first reckon with the presence of this within the Church before you can begin extending your criticism and analysis to the so-called bigots.)

Yes, the Church does have an authority structure (just as do most every formal organization--such as the family and the medical establishment and the scientific community and the government, etc.), and thus it is, in that sense, "authoritarian" (not to be confused with 'authoritarianism"). And, if the authority structure in the Church were to be anti-Mormon religious bigots (which is the topic I am addressing in the linked article you are responding to), then you may have a point. They aren't, and so you don't.

Third, you write (discussing authoritarians):

By using Double Standards, Scape-goating, and Projectivity--where they are quite merciful, flexible, and understanding of themselves and their respective in-groups, but highly judgmental, rigid, and skeptical of others, and tend to blame their "troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless.[...]

(emphasis added)

So, by your own definitions, isn't the Church (as an authoritarian organization) thus "blaming its troubles on the powerless"?

No. But, I wonder if you agree with my causal analysis, and I am open to hearing why you think it is.

Or vice versa, are the bigots attacking the Church, which, according to your own formulations, is "relatively powerless"?

First of all, not surprisingly, you are keying in on the least significant variable in the statement, and one that need not necessarily be the case for the significant variables of the statement to hold true. Second, that is not my "formulation". The word "powerless" is in reference to "some one", not some thing. Do you understand the difference? In other words, it is in reference to a member of the Church, and not the Church as a whole. Third, members of the Church, both individually and collectively, may be "powerless" in certain case of perceived "threats" by the bigots, because the perceived threats may be purely in the mind of the bigot. The Church and its members can't control (in spite of wild accusations by some to the contrary) or prevent bigots from imagining threats that aren't real. In that specific sense, the Church and its members are relatively powerless in stopping fundamentalistic and authoritarianistic delusions and cognitive distortions in the hate-driven minds of bigots.

It seems a double-bind, in my opinion. Either the Church is weak and "powerless" (I strongly disagree with this) in the face of the "authoritarian" bigots; or else the Church itself is the "authoritarian" in this equation, and is itself more guilty of bigotry, by your own definition, than the so-called bigots. I think, ala juliann, that you have painted the Church into a rather disagreeable corner, Wade. What say ye?

I say that the imagined corner is a product of your misunderstanding what I am saying--not unlike what I suspect is the case with you and Juliann.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Second, so far as I know there is little to no disagreement that the Church itself is "authoritarian." (I know you say that some kinds of authoritarianism are okay, but it seems to me that you will have to first reckon with the presence of this within the Church before you can begin extending your criticism and analysis to the so-called bigots.)

Yes, the Church does have an authority structure (just as do most every formal organization--such as the family and the medical establishment and the scientific community and the government, etc.), and thus it is, in that sense, "authoritarian" (not to be confused with 'authoritarianism"). And, if the authority structure in the Church were to be anti-Mormon religious bigots (which is the topic I am addressing in the linked article you are responding to), then you may have a point. They aren't, and so you don't.

Wade. You are the one who has been so insistent upon using "generic" theoretical and definitional frames. Now I am beginning to see why. By your own definition, authoritarianism leads to bigotry. Also by your own definition, the LDS Church is an authoritarian organization. Thus, don't we have to say that the Church itself is bigoted?

Third, you write (discussing authoritarians):

By using Double Standards, Scape-goating, and Projectivity--where they are quite merciful, flexible, and understanding of themselves and their respective in-groups, but highly judgmental, rigid, and skeptical of others, and tend to blame their "troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless.[...]

(emphasis added)

So, by your own definitions, isn't the Church (as an authoritarian organization) thus "blaming its troubles on the powerless"?

No. But, I wonder if you agree with my causal analysis, and I am open to hearing why you think it is.

Not sure what you mean, Wade. This is your own definition, after all.

Or vice versa, are the bigots attacking the Church, which, according to your own formulations, is "relatively powerless"?

First of all, not surprisingly, you are keying in on the least significant variable in the statement, and one that need not necessarily be the case for the significant variables of the statement to hold true.

If it's insignificant, why include it in the definition?

Second, that is not my "formulation". The word "powerless" is in reference to "some one", not some thing. Do you understand the difference? In other words, it is in reference to a member of the Church, and not the Church as a whole.

So.... You're saying that individual members of the Church are powerless? But you said in your shorter definition that bigotry was dependant upon "membership in a group." As such, I hardly see how you can separate out the individual from the group in this instance. By your own definitions, anyhow.

Third, members of the Church, both individually and collectively, may be "powerless" in certain case of perceived "threats" by the bigots, because the perceived threats may be purely in the mind of the bigot. The Church and its members can't control (in spite of wild accusations by some to the contrary) or prevent bigots from imagining threats that aren't real. In that specific sense, the Church and its members are relatively powerless in stopping fundamentalistic and authoritarianistic delusions and cognitive distortions in the hate-driven minds of bigots.

So you're dealing only with "perceived threats" rather than actual ones? In other words, your theory is meant only to deal with what's happening in people's minds, and is useless in reckoning with the actual, physical world?

It seems a double-bind, in my opinion. Either the Church is weak and "powerless" (I strongly disagree with this) in the face of the "authoritarian" bigots; or else the Church itself is the "authoritarian" in this equation, and is itself more guilty of bigotry, by your own definition, than the so-called bigots. I think, ala juliann, that you have painted the Church into a rather disagreeable corner, Wade. What say ye?

I say that the imagined corner is a product of your misunderstanding what I am saying--not unlike what I suspect is the case with you and Juliann.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Could be. I am all ears, and amenable to being corrected, as always.

[_wenglund]

Second, so far as I know there is little to no disagreement that the Church itself is "authoritarian." (I know you say that some kinds of authoritarianism are okay, but it seems to me that you will have to first reckon with the presence of this within the Church before you can begin extending your criticism and analysis to the so-called bigots.)

Yes, the Church does have an authority structure (just as do most every formal organization--such as the family and the medical establishment and the scientific community and the government, etc.), and thus it is, in that sense, "authoritarian" (not to be confused with 'authoritarianism"). And, if the authority structure in the Church were to be anti-Mormon religious bigots (which is the topic I am addressing in the linked article you are responding to), then you may have a point. They aren't, and so you don't.

Wade. You are the one who has been so insistent upon using "generic" theoretical and definitional frames. Now I am beginning to see why. By your own definition, authoritarianism leads to bigotry. Also by your own definition, the LDS Church is an authoritarian organization. Thus, don't we have to say that the Church itself is bigoted?

No, "we" don't have to say that. You are equivocating in your use of the word "authoritarianism". The GENERIC definition I give for that term, and the one that is causal to bigotry, does not apply to the Church--though it may apply to individual members of the Church who may thereby be vulnerable to leaving the church and becoming bigotted against it, like some who have gone before them.

Third, you write (discussing authoritarians):

By using Double Standards, Scape-goating, and Projectivity--where they are quite merciful, flexible, and understanding of themselves and their respective in-groups, but highly judgmental, rigid, and skeptical of others, and tend to blame their "troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless.[...]

(emphasis added)

So, by your own definitions, isn't the Church (as an authoritarian organization) thus "blaming its troubles on the powerless"?

No. But, I wonder if you agree with my causal analysis, and I am open to hearing why you think it is.

Not sure what you mean, Wade. This is your own definition, after all.

While it is my definition, you are the one suggesting that Church is "blaming its troubles on the powerless", not me. If you are not sure what you mean by that, then who is?

Or vice versa, are the bigots attacking the Church, which, according to your own formulations, is "relatively powerless"?

First of all, not surprisingly, you are keying in on the least significant variable in the statement, and one that need not necessarily be the case for the significant variables of the statement to hold true.

If it's insignificant, why include it in the definition?

I didn't say it was "insignificant". I said it was the "least significant" portion of the statement. I included it so as to add potential insight and perspective. I also included it to provide additional context to the quote I was citing.

Second, that is not my "formulation". The word "powerless" is in reference to "some one", not some thing. Do you understand the difference? In other words, it is in reference to a member of the Church, and not the Church as a whole.

So.... You're saying that individual members of the Church are powerless?

...as powerless as the individual bigots.

But you said in your shorter definition that bigotry was dependant upon "membership in a group." As such, I hardly see how you can separate out the individual from the group in this instance. By your own definitions, anyhow.

You are, as usual, confusing the causal explanation for bigotry with the definition of bigotry, and you are conflating the members, themselves, with the group in which they are members. You are also fixating on one of the least significant aspect of the causal explanation, and thus missing the more significant points.

Think of it this way: jobless white men may feel threatened by black men in the work force--thinking the blacks may receive preferential treatment in hiring, thus preventing the white men from getting a job. The white man may then blame their jobless condition on the black men, and feel powerless against that perceived threat--the source of which may be a figment of their imagination or governmentally mandated quotas, etc. In the process, they may fail to take personal responsibility and consider their own possible contribution to their jobless condition--such as a lack of education, poor interviewing skills, sitting at home on the couch, or drowning their sorrows at the local pub, etc. This may lead to them becoming bigotted towards black men--who, individually or collectively, may be as powerless in preventing the white men from getting a job as the white men are themselves. In other words, these white men are "scape-goating" black men for their jobless condition and the threat against their getting a job. They are being "quite merciful, flexible, and understanding of themselves and their respective in-group, but highly judgmental, rigid, and skeptical of others, and tend to blame their 'troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless. This may occur when one group [or individuals within a group] feels threatened, but are themselves powerless to act against the actual source of the threat . . . where they deny 'particular characteristics in [themselves] but notices them in others.'" (Farley, 2000.25)

Third, members of the Church, both individually and collectively, may be "powerless" in certain case of perceived "threats" by the bigots, because the perceived threats may be purely in the mind of the bigot. The Church and its members can't control (in spite of wild accusations by some to the contrary) or prevent bigots from imagining threats that aren't real. In that specific sense, the Church and its members are relatively powerless in stopping fundamentalistic and authoritarianistic delusions and cognitive distortions in the hate-driven minds of bigots.

So you're dealing only with "perceived threats" rather than actual ones? In other words, your theory is meant only to deal with what's happening in people's minds, and is useless in reckoning with the actual, physical world?

No. It is intended to deal with both (though perhaps more the perceived than the real threats). There are effective ways of dealing with real threats rather than resorting to the dysfunction and corrosive strategy of bigotry.

It seems a double-bind, in my opinion. Either the Church is weak and "powerless" (I strongly disagree with this) in the face of the "authoritarian" bigots; or else the Church itself is the "authoritarian" in this equation, and is itself more guilty of bigotry, by your own definition, than the so-called bigots. I think, ala juliann, that you have painted the Church into a rather disagreeable corner, Wade. What say ye?

I say that the imagined corner is a product of your misunderstanding what I am saying--not unlike what I suspect is the case with you and Juliann.

Could be. I am all ears, and amenable to being corrected, as always.

Great!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Second, so far as I know there is little to no disagreement that the Church itself is "authoritarian." (I know you say that some kinds of authoritarianism are okay, but it seems to me that you will have to first reckon with the presence of this within the Church before you can begin extending your criticism and analysis to the so-called bigots.)

Yes, the Church does have an authority structure (just as do most every formal organization--such as the family and the medical establishment and the scientific community and the government, etc.), and thus it is, in that sense, "authoritarian" (not to be confused with 'authoritarianism"). And, if the authority structure in the Church were to be anti-Mormon religious bigots (which is the topic I am addressing in the linked article you are responding to), then you may have a point. They aren't, and so you don't.

Wade. You are the one who has been so insistent upon using "generic" theoretical and definitional frames. Now I am beginning to see why. By your own definition, authoritarianism leads to bigotry. Also by your own definition, the LDS Church is an authoritarian organization. Thus, don't we have to say that the Church itself is bigoted?

No, "we" don't have to say that. You are equivocating in your use of the word "authoritarianism". The GENERIC definition I give for that term, and the one that is causal to bigotry, does not apply to the Church--though it may apply to individual members of the Church who may thereby be vulnerable to leaving the church and becoming bigotted against it, like some who have gone before them.

Well then, I guess you can't very well called it "GENERIC" if you're making specific exceptions for your definition.

Third, you write (discussing authoritarians):

By using Double Standards, Scape-goating, and Projectivity--where they are quite merciful, flexible, and understanding of themselves and their respective in-groups, but highly judgmental, rigid, and skeptical of others, and tend to blame their "troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless.[...]

(emphasis added)

So, by your own definitions, isn't the Church (as an authoritarian organization) thus "blaming its troubles on the powerless"?

No. But, I wonder if you agree with my causal analysis, and I am open to hearing why you think it is.

Not sure what you mean, Wade. This is your own definition, after all.

While it is my definition, you are the one suggesting that Church is "blaming its troubles on the powerless", not me. If you are not sure what you mean by that, then who is?

No.... Your definition is what's suggesting that.

Or vice versa, are the bigots attacking the Church, which, according to your own formulations, is "relatively powerless"?

First of all, not surprisingly, you are keying in on the least significant variable in the statement, and one that need not necessarily be the case for the significant variables of the statement to hold true.

If it's insignificant, why include it in the definition?

I didn't say it was "insignificant". I said it was the "least significant" portion of the statement. I included it so as to add potential insight and perspective. I also included it to provide additional context to the quote I was citing.

Well then, which is it? Is the Church "powerless," or not?

Second, that is not my "formulation". The word "powerless" is in reference to "some one", not some thing. Do you understand the difference? In other words, it is in reference to a member of the Church, and not the Church as a whole.

So.... You're saying that individual members of the Church are powerless?

...as powerless as the individual bigots.

But you said in your shorter definition that bigotry was dependant upon "membership in a group." As such, I hardly see how you can separate out the individual from the group in this instance. By your own definitions, anyhow.

You are, as usual, confusing the causal explanation for bigotry with the definition of bigotry,

Aren't the "explanation" and the "definition" related?

and you are conflating the members, themselves, with the group in which they are members.

No---it's your definition that's doing the conflating.

You are also fixating on one of the least significant aspect of the causal explanation, and thus missing the more significant points.

Well then, what are the "more significant points"? Perhaps you should delete that portion of the causal explanation, so that people won't fixate on it in the future. It seems to detract from what you're trying to say or prove.

Think of it this way: jobless white men may feel threatened by black men in the work force--thinking the blacks may receive preferential treatment in hiring, thus preventing the white men from getting a job. The white man may then blame their jobless condition on the black men, and feel powerless against that perceived threat--the source of which may be a figment of their imagination or governmentally mandated quotas, etc. In the process, they may fail to take personal responsibility and consider their own possible contribution to their jobless condition--such as a lack of education, poor interviewing skills, sitting at home on the couch, or drowning their sorrows at the local pub, etc. This may lead to them becoming bigotted towards black men--who, individually or collectively, may be as powerless in preventing the white men from getting a job as the white men are themselves. In other words, these white men are "scape-goating" black men for their jobless condition and the threat against their getting a job. They are being "quite merciful, flexible, and understanding of themselves and their respective in-group, but highly judgmental, rigid, and skeptical of others, and tend to blame their 'troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless. This may occur when one group [or individuals within a group] feels threatened, but are themselves powerless to act against the actual source of the threat . . . where they deny 'particular characteristics in [themselves] but notices them in others.'" (Farley, 2000.25)

As I mentioned elsewhere, I think this is a false analogy (imho). One chooses whether or not to be a member of the Church, right? On the other hand, one cannot choose whether to be black or white. Thus, the "blam[ing] their troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless" is utterly different when applied to the Church because A) the Church is quite powerful, and B) part of that power is associated with the underlying choice/free agency requisite to Church membership.

Third, members of the Church, both individually and collectively, may be "powerless" in certain case of perceived "threats" by the bigots, because the perceived threats may be purely in the mind of the bigot. The Church and its members can't control (in spite of wild accusations by some to the contrary) or prevent bigots from imagining threats that aren't real. In that specific sense, the Church and its members are relatively powerless in stopping fundamentalistic and authoritarianistic delusions and cognitive distortions in the hate-driven minds of bigots.

So you're dealing only with "perceived threats" rather than actual ones? In other words, your theory is meant only to deal with what's happening in people's minds, and is useless in reckoning with the actual, physical world?

No. It is intended to deal with both (though perhaps more the perceived than the real threats). There are effective ways of dealing with real threats rather than resorting to the dysfunction and corrosive strategy of bigotry.

Hmmm. Interesting, and I wish you'd elaborate. I agree that bigotry is "corrosive and dysfunctional."

It seems a double-bind, in my opinion. Either the Church is weak and "powerless" (I strongly disagree with this) in the face of the "authoritarian" bigots; or else the Church itself is the "authoritarian" in this equation, and is itself more guilty of bigotry, by your own definition, than the so-called bigots. I think, ala juliann, that you have painted the Church into a rather disagreeable corner, Wade. What say ye?

I say that the imagined corner is a product of your misunderstanding what I am saying--not unlike what I suspect is the case with you and Juliann.

Could be. I am all ears, and amenable to being corrected, as always.

Great!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Simple question: Is the Church powerful, or not?