Jason Bourne wrote: Nobody is obliged to offer the actual identity in an open public forum such as this one. It is foolish to do so for various reasons. It is a dangerous world out there. Why put ones name out for all to see? And while many may know who you are you currently use an alias as well. Get over your fixation on this issue. For a bright fellow it is a dumb, dumb argument. Courage has nothing to do with it.
No, no one is obliged to offer their real identity. But we all know who Daniel C. Peterson is, Juliann Reynolds, and anyone who does a search of Plutarch's history can find out who he is in minutes. He has not been coy about this. Maybe Jason Bourne is your real name, I don't know. I admire those who have the guts to put their real names to their comments, or their real identities are easily traceable. And we have them on both sides. Tal Bachman, for example. Steve Benson. I don't know who could be exposed to more danger than these people, yet they post under their real names. (I hear that Benson may have been posting under a pseudonym lately, however. I don't know if this is true.) Perhaps there are real dangers in this, but think of the above people who risk this. Dan Peterson didn't always post under his real name, he posted as "Truthseeker" on ZLMB, but I think everyone knew that. I picked it just by his writing style - it's unmistakable. There's another reason I picked it, he's really a very generous and benign person, and the humour is clear. I attacked "Truthseeker" on Z a lot, yet he never retaliated with nastiness. To me it was a sign of a benevolent soul, behind the uncompromising beliefs. He, in fact, transcends all of the name calling directed at him. I really wish it would stop. It's all so very petty and small minded, and mostly done by posters hiding behind pseudonyms.
Jersey Girl wrote:Can you give me say, 3 examples of the type of mocking you're thinking of? Maybe you could do it by issue or topic? Whatever you think works...or if you'd like to name names...go ahead.
I'll be back in a few minutes to see if you've posted.
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 276
Location: Fear and loathing
MERRY SMITHMAS!!!!
OK folks, just wanted to count the many things Joseph Smith has done for us all. Feel free to add to the list.
Warning: Assinine claims made by smith himself do not count, as you cannot trust a convicted moneydigger/bigamist. Expect much frivolity if you claim assinine things
* Rationalization for child rape
* A system of living that thoroughly messes you up
* Social dysfunction under the guise of emotion over rational thought
* The kirtland "anti-bank", a.k.a. the first pump and dump scam
* Stolen masonic ceremony and hokey handshakes believed to get you into heaven
There has to be more.
What are you thankful for this smithmas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author Message
Dr. Shades
Founder
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 258
Location: Utah
Well, the stake roadshows are back
Anyone remember the old Stake Roadshows? If not, it was a program wherein the youth of each ward would create a short play and then, on the designated day, travel around the various ward buildings in the stake to perform for the members.
A couple of years back, Gordon B. Hinckley came out and had them discontinued. I might have a faulty memory, but I don't think he even came up with a justification--just a blanket ban.
So imagine my surprise when, several weeks ago, I received a notice taped to my door inviting me to attend the upcoming roadshow. Did "my" Stake President go maverick, or did he just not get the memo? It was explained at the roadshow itself that they'd been reinstated as a way to increase the cameraderie between the membership (or something to that effect). Since we all know the church is run by revelation, I wonder: Did the inspired decision occur when they banned roadshows, or did the inspired decision occur when they reinstated roadshows? But I digress.
I was in a stake roadshow once myself, way back in 8th Grade, and combined with my natural interest in the dramatic arts I was a bit curious, so I decided to attend.
OMG, I was APPALLED. So much so that I was continually thanking my lucky stars that none of my family members accompanied me. How would I explain it to them?
You see, back when I was in my roadshow, we took it SERIOUSLY. There were actual auditions. If you sucked, you were given a non-speaking part or no part at all. There were songs which we had to practice. Choreographed numbers. A script. Conflict and resolution. A specific theme. Distinct beginning, middle, and end.
Not only this, but there were era-specific costumes and a set which took time to build. We even had stage managers and functioning--if crude--special effects.
We had a director and an accompanist. We practiced over and over for somewhere near a MONTH to hone our performances and produce the best product. We were in a competition with the other wards, and we took it seriously.
But what did I witness at this recent thing? The most amateurish, piss-poor excuses for performances that I've ever seen in my life. I was actually embarrassed for the participants. Rather than have it be a youth activity, they apparently threw in anyone who wanted to be involved, no matter what their age. When necessary, they wrote parts for them. Rather than actually practice for their performance, it looked like they'd thrown something together on Thursday night, had a lame attempt at a practice or two on Friday night, and then ran through it haphazardly for us on Saturday night.
First off, the whole concept of a "roadshow" had been scrapped, since the wards only performed in their own buildings (they didn't go anywhere). So wards A, B, and C used their building, wards D, E, and F used their own building, etc. If you happened to be in, say, ward A, you simply wouldn't get to see the acts put on by wards D, E, and F. Lame, huh?
I know that by now you're looking for specifics, so here they are (HIGHLY ABBREVIATED):
The first show was about the importance of having your 72 hour kit. People walked around in various different occupational uniforms or recreational wear, with placards saying "golfer" or "cell phone user" or whatever. After milling around for a while, you next saw them huddled around in despair, obviously after the apocalpyse. Then the bishop came out and said, "I hope we can learn from this the importance of having your 72 hour kit!" Curtain!
The second show was a "Deal or No Deal" rip-off. A game show host would offer a guy different choices at various periods of his life (childhood, youth, adulthood, "elderly-hood," etc.--obviously played by different actors). While thinking over his choice, women would sing popular primary songs, muse-fashion, after which he'd be inspired to CTR. After making all the right choices, his life became a model for all.
One part that I found totally unrealistic is when, in teenager phase, he was given the choice to have his girlfriend stay overnight while his parents are away or not. He muddled this over, while the muses sang, "I have two little hands." He finally decided against this, justifying his decision by saying, "What if she marries another guy who winds up being my Bishop? That would be akward!" Tell me: What hormone-addled young man thinks of that when contemplating some alone time with his girlfriend?
The third show was a travesty. Two elderly puppets contemplated the time they first met, then the curtain opened to see a random collection of ward members with instruments, some real, most improvised, playing various hymns and primary songs which may or may not have had something to do with love, I don't know. The "mystery prop" that was supposed to be used in all these acts was a beach ball, and in their case the beach ball kept getting hit into and among the members of the "band" (and that's the most generous use of the word "band" in the history of the English language). This show was so bad that I can't even remember the ending--I'd probably hurriedly developed MPD so I could disassociate.
The fourth show wasn't quite as bad as the first and third. It was something about "Celestial Shampoo" and whether you'd rather have your hair styled by angels or devils. It featured Rapunzel trying to work out this cosmic dilemma.
Some of the people made an effort, I could tell, but they were given precious little to work with. There was one redeeming moment in the entire fiasco, though: During the down-time in between the performances, most shows have an MC or somebody doing something to entertain the crowd, and this was no exception. During one such mini-act there were two women singing a song about Jonah and the whale, but from the whale's point of view. The lyrics went to the tune of a certain controversial Primary song we've all heard:
"Swallow the prophet, swallow the prophet, swallow the prophet,
He'll go away!"
At least someone has a sense of humor.
But, after all was said and done, I wanted my two hours back. Thank goodness there were punch and cookies afterward.
Does anyone else have any comments or stories about roadshows?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile • Private Messages • Join Chat • Search • Memberlist • Log out [ Jersey Girl ] • Blogs • Blog CP • My Blog • Weblogs News
You have no new messages
Mormon Discussions Forum Index » The Terrestrial Forum » LDS Church: Sexist?
The time now is Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:06 pm View previous topic | View next topic
Page 1 of 8
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
LDS Church: Sexist?
Author Message
truth dancer
Valiant B
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 183
Lets discuss "male privilege" (a term we often discuss in group therapy for abusers), for a sec...
Men having rights, privileges, opportunities, and power, not afforded to women.
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 409
Location: Third moon of Kolob
Not wearing garmies while exercising makes no sense
Most garmie wearing TBMs have low risk, low impact lives and jobs.
The time that they are most at risk for physical injury is not plunked down on the couch shoving pie into their cake holes, or while reading email from their boss at work.
Given that physical injury is more likely to occur when they are exercising. Jogging, snow sports, swimming, bicycling, hiking, etc, etc.. why would the men-who-talk-to-god counsel members to take off their magic protection panties when they are doing something that has a high likelihood to lead to physical injury?
Plus, why would they want to remove them at the public gym or pool? They will be more tempted to be walking wankers and walking pornography with the amount of skin showing... which could lead to the opportunity to do the nasty... and there are NO chastity blocking magic undies to remind and protect?
_________________
Live your life ethically, not morally. -VegasRefugee 11/28/06
Continuing without wade....bolding my own comments
Here is a copy of Vegas’s post:
VegasRefugee
Teacher
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 276
Location: Fear and loathing
MERRY SMITHMAS!!!!
OK folks, just wanted to count the many things Joseph Smith has done for us all. Feel free to add to the list.
Warning: Assinine claims made by smith himself do not count, as you cannot trust a convicted moneydigger/bigamist. Expect much frivolity if you claim assinine things
Assinity aside...was Joseph convicted of money digging? Yes, I think he was. Was he convicted of bigamy? Not to my knowledge. That part is a lie.
* Rationalization for child rape
There is no concrete evidence that Joseph Smith engaged in child rape. This is an unsubstantiated lie.
* A system of living that thoroughly messes you up
I cannot address that. I know many LDS who are not "messed up" and who are fully functional human beings. I do know that Vegas has some subjective evidence to support his above claim.
* Social dysfunction under the guise of emotion over rational thought
Can't comment on that. I don't know what he means.
* The kirtland "anti-bank", a.k.a. the first pump and dump scam
Was the Kirtland Bank a scam? I think it really was. I say this is true.
* Stolen masonic ceremony and hokey handshakes believed to get you into heaven
This, to my knowledge, is also true.
There has to be more.
What are you thankful for this smithmas?
Here are the definitions that you chose and I will continue to bold my own comments.
Prejudice: 3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
I do not think that Vegas' remarks were unreasonable. I think they are comments of passionate hostility towards the LDS Church based on his real life experiences. In his post, he mixes truth with lies.
Bias: 2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice. ( I chose this one)
Does Vegas hold bias against the LDS Church as an organization? Yes, he does. I am not entirely certain though that this applies to his above post.
Bigotry: toxic attitudes and behaviors manifest towards a group based primarily on membership in that group.
Wade, I don't know how to apply the definition you chose to Vegas' post. The way I see it, he has a basis for his attitudes towards the church. What bothers me about his post are the lies I identified, that he posts as fact.
Do I think Joseph was a bigamist? Yes, I do. However it is speculation on my part, I can't prove it.
Do I think that Joseph had sex with "underage" females? I think it's highly likely but again, I can't prove it.
Vegas' could omit the descriptors "assinine" and "hokey" from his postings but you have to take into consideration that behind his words is a passionate anger towards the LDS Church based on his experiences and perhaps the experiences of others.
Is it wrong, wade, to express feelings of anger when one feels they have been betrayed?
Here's another one:
I assume that you take offense to the thread title.
LDS Church: Sexist? Author Message
truth dancer
Valiant B
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 183
Lets discuss "male privilege" (a term we often discuss in group therapy for abusers), for a sec...
Men having rights, privileges, opportunities, and power, not afforded to women.
Do men in the LDS Church have rights, privileges, opportunites and power that are not afforded to LDS women? I think they do. I think you are offended by the implication that LDS men are abusers. When you saw this post did you question truthdancer to see if she intended to make that connection? From what context was this post born?
Ummm lets see...
;-)
Here are the definitions that you chose and I will continue to bold my own comments.
Prejudice: 3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
Bias: 2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice. ( I chose this one)
Bigotry: toxic attitudes and behaviors manifest towards a group based primarily on membership in that group.
Well, I'm staring at these definitions and I don't know quite how to address them. I would like to hear from truthdancer what she intended by her remarks. She appears to be talking about a sense of entitlement and I think that would apply to a number of LDS men...I'm uncomfortable addressing the "abuser" remark since I don't know why she used it. Unless you ask those questions of truthdancer, wade, you are engaging in presupposition of your own. TD...are you out there?
Jersey Girl wrote: Wade, I don't know how to apply the definition you chose to Vegas' post. The way I see it, he has a basis for his attitudes towards the church. What bothers me about his post are the lies I identified, that he posts as fact.
Your missing the forest for the trees. It is not the factual/unfactual nature that I find prejudiced and bigoted, but the mocking and demeaning tone and attitude towards Mormonism and its founder by "Vegas...".
Vegas' could omit the descriptors "assinine" and "hokey" from his postings but you have to take into consideration that behind his words is a passionate anger towards the LDS Church based on his experiences and perhaps the experiences of others.
Is it wrong, wade, to express feelings of anger when one feels they have been betrayed? You tell me.[/b] Jersey Girl
It depends upon whether the betrayal was real or imagined (rationally or irrationally determined) and whether the betrayer is the one claiming to be betrayed (I have openned several threads where I have attempted to rationally demonstrate that the anger and feelings of betrayal and so forth felt by "Vegas" and others, is irrational and misdirected).
Furthermore, and again, my question didn't relate to anger and feelings of betrayal, but rather to "moxkery". Even were anger in some situations justified, I don't believe that mockery is. Instead, at least in this case, it is the product of prejudice and bigotry.
(By the way, I have on not a few occasions, specifically mentioned to "Vegas" instances where he has negatively stereotyped the members of my faith. There have been other instances where his fellow antagonists have chastened him for going beyond the pale.)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Last edited by Gadianton on Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Before I muddle my way through Porter's post, I have a question about your definition of bigotry:
"toxic attitudes and behaviors manifest towards a group based primarily on membership in that group.
Toxic to whom? Based primarily on one's own membership in that group? Jersey Girl
Toxic to oneself (i.e. those manifesting the attitudes and behaviors), and/or others, and/or those towards whom the attitudes and behaviors are manifest. For example, I believe the bigotry of anti-semitism is toxic to the anti-Semites, those the anti-Semite associates with, as well as to the Jews. It is corrosive to all that is touched by it.
Yes, based primarily on membership in the group towards whom the toxic attitudes and behaviors are manifest and directed. For example, the bigotry of anti-Semitism is based primarily on people's membership in the Jewish race.