We take into account who started it. We allow the LDS to defend themselves. The lesson everyone needs to learn is, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T START IT.
Now get on topic.
Indeed. I well remember Juliann’s account of reality on the Z board, which was basically that critics, just by the fact of their persistent criticism, always can be blamed for “starting it”, and LDS are always just defending themselves. So the already biased board embraces an even more aggressive bias.
This makes the original thread that caught my interest, “Can it Get Worse than This” (Bill Maher thread) understandable. If you read it, you can’t help but notice how often the critics are censored for, frankly, simply being critics, when believers are allowed to practically call those same critics bigots without censor. But that isn’t what amused me the most about the thread: it’s the persecution complex already raising its head.
Sometimes it seems to me modern LDS have an inferiority complex in comparison to the early pioneers, who obviously earned their martyr brownie points in heaven by enduring real, and at times fatal, persecution. Modern LDS seem to create persecution and bigotry out of anything in their eagerness to garner some of those brownie points with the God who delights in his believers’ blood being shed in his name.
At any rate, I watched Bill Maher, and yes, he made derisive comments about LDS beliefs, but these comments were couched within his larger point that believers ought not to be prejudiced towards Mormons when THEIR beliefs are just as nutty. That point was lost on the believers howling bigotry because Maher mentioned magic underwear and some offensive past teachings. But this thread had so many enjoyable tidbits I had to share it with those of you who cannot access MAD.
First I’d like to share a statement made by Joseph Fielding Smith:
"Mormonism must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false..." ("Doctrines of Salvation," vol. 1 pp 188-189.)
Hmmm. JFS seems to paint a black/white picture that leaves nonbelievers little option other than viewing Joseph Smith as a fraud. So it is really bigotry that causes nonbelievers to label him as such, or just agreeing with the given dichotomy?
Here are some highlights.
Several believers immediately labeled Maher’s comments as bigoted, and predicted just how much worse it could get.
Selek:
And yes, it can get a lot worse. We can go back to politically driven disenfranchising of believers that we saw in the late 1800's or the the mobbings, burnings, rapes, and murders of the early-to-mid 1800's.
There you go. Bill Maher makes derisive comments about Mormonism, in the context of criticizing other believers who are pointing the finger at weird Mormons, and it’s a portent of burnings, rapes, and murders.
Another wild leap of selek’s logic:
In modern America, the only acceptable targets for bigotry, hatred, and vitriol are conservative Christians (which sterotypical Mormons qualify, whatever the EV's say).
Maher is appealing to the trendy bigotry by smearing those who don't agree with his (and his audience's) "enlightened" liberal secularism. He's making these bigots feel good by reinforcing their stereotypes- both of those who don't agree with them and those who do.
He's reinforcing their sense of smug (and baseless) superiority by mocking and ridiculing what he can't or doesn't care to understand.
Unfortunately, the only way to arbitrarily stop this sort of rhetorical nonsense is speech codes and censorship. Better to let the ideas stand for themselves, debate them, and expose them for what they are.
Oh please. In modern America, atheists are quite acceptable as a target for bigotry, etc etc. In fact, what other group could a man running for the president of the United States openly speculate can’t even count as “real” Americans but atheists?
When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice-president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates, had the following exchange with then-Vice-President Bush.
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
More believers jump on the “Maher is a bigot” bandwagon. by the way, was Joseph Fielding Smith also a bigot for suggesting that there are only two alternatives to the story of Joseph Smith?
notquitewet
He only does this because he can get away with it and make $$$$. Just the run-of-the-mill bigot.
thesometimessaint
I generally like Bill Maher. But his rants on religion have become offensive.
In specific to his comments on Mormons. It would behoove him to know what we actually believe before acting the total bigot he came acrossed as.
Every now and then a voice of sanity intrudes, such as the dude’s
thedude
I understand that. He took a lot of cheap shots. But while people on this thread are complaining about run-of-the-mill bigotry let's be clear that the underlying bigotry in our politics is against non-theists who stand zero chance of getting a nomination as long as they are honest about their beliefs.
Also see above – what other group could a man running for president of the United States so openly attack?
More of selek’s astounding illogic:
selek
I have to fundamentally disagree with you here, NQWY. Maher isn't as talented as most of the run-of-the-mill-bigots.
How is it bigotry to have an informed discussion and expose the weakness in his own assumptions and dogmatism?
Or is it bigotry because you agree with Maher (but not his present antics, as you've indicated)?
As I pointed out earlier, Maher is reinforcing the bigotry and smug superiority of those who agree with him by ridiculing those who don't. How is it bigotry to address the beam in his eye when he attacks us for the mote in ours?
Maher’s assertions were actually informed and correct. What believers are contesting is how these real statements should be interpreted, but there is little doubt that Maher’s interpretation is a reasonable as theirs. It’s their belief that makes them insist otherwise. (see the silliness about Brigham Young’s comment about blacks only entering the CK as servants…someone, probably selek, given the level of logic, asserted that ANYONE who enters the CK is a servant… )
Our pal gets predictably involved and rachets up the rhetoric.
Pahoran
And the fact that he had the opportunity to enact this view into law and never did so, but deliberately chose a far more enlightened legislative course instead, is something that your kind are kind of stuck with. But the Bill Mahers and other cheap scumbags of this world are simply going to dismiss that with another glib quip.
Sethbag made a sane comment, and of course, our Pal Pahoran turns it into a reason to attack:
QUOTE(Sethbag @ Feb 20 2007, 10:13 AM)
I'm afraid you're just going to have to get used to it, because quite a few apostles and prophets in the past said quite a few things that won't play very well on TV.
So did most of their contemporaries, but contemptible people will either ignore that completely, or will find a way to justify a deliberate double standard.
Of course, how could we forget. Everyone else was doing it, maw. Just because someone claims to be a prophet to GOD doesn’t mean we should expect him to do anything other than what every one ELSE gets to do.
Another sane voice, this one from a believer:
Bsix
My observation is that we all need to get thicker hides.
As Mormonism grows and becomes more visable, we are going to be the targets of some pretty ruthless comedic shots. I suspect that every religion gets that sort of treatement.
We can't whine everytime a comedian takes a pot shot at us.
I look at the blistering comedy aimed at the Catholic Church in regards to the priest/child abuse scandals.
I Bill Mayer has to dig back half a century in our history to pull some non-creedal beliefs, we may not be doing so badly.
This was perhaps the sanest comment on the thread. These people on this thread look ridiculous – acting as if Maher’s comments portend burnings, rapings, mobbings. Good grief, get a grip people. Maher has been making (bad) jokes about pedophile catholic priests and anyone else he can think of for ages, and I don’t see catholics being burned at the stake yet. (by the way, I enjoy Maher’s panels and interviews, but he really isn’t a very funny comedian, in my opinion)
Our Pal Pahoran escalates things even more:
So, the viler it is, the better you like it, providing the Latter-day Saints are on the receiving end; is that it?
You must think the Jew-baiting scene in Schindler's List is a real hoot.
Or is that different, because the fellow getting his ear-locks clipped wasn't a Mormon?
Oh, goodie. Now it’s not just rapings, burnings, mobbings Maher’s comments portend, but a holocaust? Or rather, it’s just that those who don’t believe Maher’s comments mean he is a raging bigot APPROVE of the holocaust, as long as Mormons are the target. Stellar Pahoranism.
Why me takes the hilarity to a new level, by actually suggesting (wait for it…) that the removal of the priesthood ban CAUSED an improvement in race relations in the US.
why me
When I look at the African issue and the church I can come to a couple of conclusions. First, when the brethern spoke on this issue, and related their opinion or doctrine about the plight of the african in american society and in the world it seems that they were trying to make sense of it all. And they gave it a good attempt at doing so. Second, their attempt was well formulated and well thought out when one considers the curse of cain and being less valiant in the preexistence understandings. Third, when the african did receive the priesthood blessings, there seemed to be shift in just how americans and the world began to see the african. And I find that quite a coincidence. And african americans have come a long way from slavery but much still needs to be improved.
It is easy now to see the former church leaders world from our times but their world was different from ours. And yet, can anyone deny that when the church gave the african the priesthood and granted him the blessings of the priesthood, the world began to see the african differently? I think so, especially in America.
Also, although the brethern's views would not be popular today, can I claim that they were wrong with their interpretation? I can't say so. But then I can't say that I agree with them either. But I do know that they tried to make sense of it. They saw the plight of the african and put it to doctine or to opinion and it was a noble attempt. But were they right or were they wrong?
I am just questioning here and nothing more and I make no statement of belief.
why me
The problem is as I see it, is that critics will pull something out of hat and suddenly the LDS need to feel sorrow or shame. But I don't see it that way. One can never convince a person deep in secularism or with a closed heart. But the church at that time made an interpretation about why the african were experiencing problems in societies. And it was a bold interpretation. And at that time, it did make sense to many people. Were they wrong with the cain doctrine or with less valiant theory. Perhaps...but perhaps not. I have no idea. But at least the LDS church made an attempt at interpretation for the times it found itself in.
Easy to judge from the standpoint of years ahead. But...it doesn't get to the heart of the issue. And when the ban was lifted, it does seem that the situation of american blacks began to improve in american society and also in south african society...the two most prejudiced societies on earth at that time.
A few critics manage to insert more sane comment for which they will probably be Qd
Why Me, I don't normally see a problem with a society doing that. The problem here is that this is the kind of thing I'd expect from a manmade society, with manmade beliefs, being lead by men with no particular inspiration but their own ideas and the culture they grew up in. And that's troubling, because the LDS church was supposed to be the church started and lead by revelation from God, with the Truth from God. It's the clash between the idea that LDS church teaches revealed truth and the idea that they're just men leading other men through the opinions and ideas of men, that is the problem.
Tchild2
Calm down buckaroo. I am not "imposing" anything on you. I am offering an opinion. The church claims to be divinely appointed, to "bind on earth as in heaven". It offers the only way to exhaltation and eternal life. Its leaders had better act more like leaders chosen by God, than ordinary men from a critics view. That is my opinion. That is probably the opinion of anyone that is outside of organized religion and still refusing to believe in the many and varied claims, despite the apparent ordinariness of the men making the claim.
If members don't want their leaders unduly judged, then those members shouldn't ask that anyone outside of their circle of belief afford them special status. You can claim it (priesthood, God's mouthpiece, etc..) but if you don't show it, who is going to believe you?
tchild2
I am not necessarily trying to be critical to LDS members here. I am just trying to highlight how on its face, LDS members are going to have difficulty getting past certain teachings of past LDS leaders. I don't study Scientology, or know its nuances as known by its members...probably never will. But, based on the negative press, I am not inclined to do more research or to ever take their claims seriously.
As a former member it is the contrast of seeing the inside and the outside, from a believer to an unbeliever's point of view. Now on the outside, the church doesn't seem to have the leadership that is doing anything, believing anything or providing anything that is "godlike". They just seem to be doing what other men and society at large are doing. It is just an opinion that I offer that probably explains what others who are outside are also seeing. Bill Mayer's attitude was condescending towards all religions and not just Mormonism. It was a credulity that faith, which is belief in the unproveable, is actually a necessity for high political office.
For believers, it is hard to see from this secular perspective unless you no longer believe in religions as literal pathways to God. I can empathize with Bill's point, but disagree with the soundbite format and its abrasive deliveryl.
Now for the claims Maher doesn’t know what he is talking about.
thesometimesaint
Mr. Maher claimed to have studied "the Mormons" then deliberately told falsehoods about "the Mormons". Either way it does not look good for Mr. Maher. Either he knows nothing about "the Mormons" and is being deceptive about it, or he knows about "the Mormons" and is being deceptive.
Deceptive? Please. He didn’t just make this stuff up. Of course he puts a different interpretation on statements than believers are going to, but he’s not making anything up, and chances are good any nonbeliever is going to interpret the statements in just the way Maher has.
More insults
notquitewet
What intelligence department? You think the man actually has intelligence? He's just an atheist pontificating more than any pontiff ever could.
Maher is not an atheist, by the way. An inconvenient fact, but anyone who watches his show regularly would be aware of this fact. He detests organized religion, but adamantly denies being an atheist.
veritasvocat
So what? He stated that, based on evidence he has looked into, that he thought Smith was a con man. I say the same thing. How is that disgusting? Then he goes on to say that he follows the same methods when thinking about ALL religion. He is critical of religion as a WHOLE. How is it offensive or disgusting? He is right!
Indeed. Again, look at the choices Joseph Fielding Smith presented. Is he a bigot to suggest such choices?
Our Pal Pahoran of course attacks and calls veritas a bigot:
Pahoran:
QUOTE(veritasvocat @ Feb 21 2007, 12:01 PM)
So what? He stated that, based on evidence he has looked into, that he thought Smith was a con man. I say the same thing.
Do you?
Then I say that you are a bigot. And I say it based upon something that you don't have: evidence.
QUOTE(veritasvocat @ Feb 21 2007, 12:01 PM)
How is that disgusting?
In the same way that bigotry is always disgusting.
QUOTE(veritasvocat @ Feb 21 2007, 12:01 PM)
Then he goes on to say that he follows the same methods when thinking about ALL religion. He is critical of religion as a WHOLE. How is it offensive or disgusting? He is right!
It is not surprising that one bigot would agree with another.
Note that not one believer who called other posters bigots was censored.
Now, is anyone justified in saying Joseph Smith was a conman?
Look at this piece of evidence from Joseph Smith’ trial:
http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/da ... endixa.htm
Josiah Stowel sworn, says that, prisoner had been at his house, something like 5 months, had been employed by him to work on farm part of time—that he pretended to have skill of telling where hidden treasures in the earth were by means of looking through a certain stone—that Prisoner had looked for him some times once to tell him about money buried on Bend Mountain in Pennsylvania, once for gold on Monument Hill, and once for Salt Spring 4 and that [p.328] he positively knew that the Prisoner could tell and possessed the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone—that he found the digging part at Ben and Monument Hill, as prisoner represented it—that prisoner had looked through said stone for Deacon Attlton [Attleton or Attelon] 5—for a mine did not exactly find it but got a (piece) of oar which resembled gold, he thinks; that Prisoner had told by means of this stone where, a Mr. Bacon 6 had buried money, that he and prisoner had been in search of it; that prisoner said that it was on a certain Root of a stump 5 feet from surface of the earth, and with it would be found a tail feather that said Stowel and prisoner thereupon commenced digging, found a fail feather, but money was gone, that he supposed that money moved down—that prisoner did not offer his services; that he never deceived him,—that Prisoner looked through stone and described Josiah Stowels house and out houses, while at Palmyra at Simpson Stowels 7 correctly, that he had told about a painted tree with a man's hand painted upon it by means of said stone; that he had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in Prisoners skill. 8
Either believers are going to have to accept that God helped Joseph Smith see disappearing treasures near a feather with a peep stone, or they are going to have to accept that Joseph Smith engaged in a con, because if God didn’t show Joseph Smith the treasure with a stone, then “someone” buried a strategic feather to help others believe his claims.