Re: Mormons arguing that “Mormon” is as derogatory as the N-word
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 10:41 pm
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ground-glass-deadly/
Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ground-glass-deadly/
Marry a lot of ugly (otherwise unmarriageable) woman. Mark Twain said so in Roughing It
Since bringing up the subject of books, many do not have a problem with the N-word if said in a movie or reading it in a book; others do. Lots of discussion from people who are black and white for pulling Huckelberry Finn from different libraries. Some black people are for it but others want it to remain for different reasons. Some white people want it pulled from libraries while others want it to remain. Mormons don't seem to find the word Mormon on the cover of the Book of Mormon offensive. The N-word is not on the cover of Huckleberry Finn. Writer Joseph Conrad wrote books about traveling on rivers in Africa. He wrote Hearts of Darkness and also the N-word of Narcisisss. That's on the cover. Should you be walking down an aisle in the library, heads turned sideways so you can read the titles of the book and see that one may cause concern. I'd likely pull it and scan through it, and put it back, but mentioning it as I checked out with Hearts of Darkness likely wouldn't occur. It's the library boards call.
That same leader supported the extensive PR campaigns “I’m a Mormon” and “Meet the Mormons”. If he truly felt the term “Mormon” was a slur he’d have vetoed those campaigns or resigned from his position. Cannot be considered a slur when the origination itself has extensively promoted the term?Pyreaux wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 6:25 pmIf a leader representing the whole religion has requested not to use the term "Mormons" to refer to Latter-day Saints, persons, news and online media proceeding to do so makes it officially a slur, like other slurs, racial or religious. In addition to the history of the word in which it was intended to be derogatory.
If I were still a Mormonite, I would side with ole Hinckley:I Have Questions wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 4:03 pmThat same leader supported official the extensive PR campaigns “I’m a Mormon” and “Meet the Mormons”. If he truly felt the term “Mormon” was a slur he’d have vetoed those campaigns or resigned from his position. Cannot be considered a slur when the origination itself has extensively promoted the term?Pyreaux wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 6:25 pmIf a leader representing the whole religion has requested not to use the term "Mormons" to refer to Latter-day Saints, persons, news and online media proceeding to do so makes it officially a slur, like other slurs, racial or religious. In addition to the history of the word in which it was intended to be derogatory.
I guess the rest of the post went over your head, a bit. It's okay to waffle. Would you argue the N-word "Cannot be considered a slur when the [race] itself has extensively promoted the term" like in music? I will assume, "no". If the church feels the tone, time and landscape changed, that "Mormon" is now an insult, or some other purpose, like outing all the deceptively titled channels like "Mormon Stories", it can if it wants, times change. It's not a democracy. You have no say. I have no say. It's still a religious slur, if you know they don't want to be called something, but you proceed to call them that, in your media outlet, you are intentionally disrespecting them. Even if we use it, it's our word... Kind of like the N-word, in that sense.I Have Questions wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 4:03 pmThat same leader supported the extensive PR campaigns “I’m a Mormon” and “Meet the Mormons”. If he truly felt the term “Mormon” was a slur he’d have vetoed those campaigns or resigned from his position. Cannot be considered a slur when the origination itself has extensively promoted the term?Pyreaux wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 6:25 pmIf a leader representing the whole religion has requested not to use the term "Mormons" to refer to Latter-day Saints, persons, news and online media proceeding to do so makes it officially a slur, like other slurs, racial or religious. In addition to the history of the word in which it was intended to be derogatory.
It’s not a Church initiative, it’s one man’s personal opinion that he is forcing on the rest of the membership and organisation. I did not vote to sustain that person, and I do not accept his personal opinions. It’s not a doctrinal church position so members don’t have to accept it.