The Mockingboard.

[_Jersey Girl]

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...".

I understand what you're saying. Do you want to know what it looks like to an outsider? It looks juvenile. It could be that Vegas uses this kind of board as an outlet for his anger. If he wanted to be taken seriously and actually change someone's mind about the church, he would drop the "spitting". No one will listen to someone who can't seem to control themselves.

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).

I haven't read those threads, wade. Do you know why Vegas' might feel betrayed, assuming that he does? Did he answer your questions?

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.

Do you think it possible, from a psychological perspective, that Vegas is acting out in a sense...against himself? I ask that because there were many times when I first started posting on ZLMB when I would read remarks by Christians that reminded me of how I used to comment and I almost always attacked them. The LDS posters almost always remarked in favor of my strident posting...boy, analyze that one!

(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-

[_Ray A]

I understand what you're saying. Do you want to know what it looks like to an outsider? It looks juvenile. It could be that Vegas uses this kind of board as an outlet for his anger. If he wanted to be taken seriously and actually change someone's mind about the church, he would drop the "spitting". No one will listen to someone who can't seem to control themselves.

No truer words have ever been written.

[_Jersey Girl]

I understand what you're saying. Do you want to know what it looks like to an outsider? It looks juvenile. It could be that Vegas uses this kind of board as an outlet for his anger. If he wanted to be taken seriously and actually change someone's mind about the church, he would drop the "spitting". No one will listen to someone who can't seem to control themselves.

No truer words have ever been written.

In the mind of a TBM, as soon as someone starts to spit on the Prophet and/or the Church, the automatic assumption is that the critic has been consumed by the Adversary and from that point on....time of day is officially withdrawn.

Lessons learned in the trenches...better to have your tantrums in private!

Jersey Girl

[_Ray A]

In the mind of a TBM, as soon as someone starts to spit on the Prophet and/or the Church, the automatic assumption is that the critic has been consumed by the Adversary and from that point on....time of day is officially withdrawn.

Lessons learned in the trenches...better to have your tantrums in private!

Jersey Girl

There needs to be rational, well-thought out discussion. All I am seeing is twisted bitterness from some. And let me say, I'm sick of the lame excuses for anger.

[_beastie]

Does mocking certain behaviors, statements, or beliefs automatically mean one is a bigot or prejudiced toward the individual who demonstrate the behavior, statement, or belief?

I don't think so. This seems to demand that all behaviors, statements, or beliefs be automatically granted a baseline of respect. In practice, this demand is normally made in our society in regards to behaviors, statements, or beliefs associated with religion.

Some behaviors, statements, or beliefs do not merit respect, and demanding respect for them nonetheless seems to provide a back-door approach to putting behaviors, statements, or beliefs in a sacrosanct "black box" that protects them from the criticism of others.

Certainly one does not have to mock to criticize. But often adherents of the model being criticized seem not to have the ability to distinguish between the two. TD's comments, for example, were obviously criticism and not mockery. Vegas' comments included a significant amount of mockery. I agree that if one's intent is to have a genuine dialogue between believers and nonbelievers, it is counterproductive to mock. However, I remain unconvinced that mockery, in and of itself, constitutes evidence of bigotry and prejudice.

Are church leaders bigoted against apostates when the engage in regular, serious, criticism of apostates and associate their behavior with Satanic inspiration?

I bolded the direct questions that I hope Wade will directly answer.

[_beastie]

I'm not convinced mocking is always rooted in anger, either. Let me give an example from my own life:

I find some EV beliefs to be ridiculous and insulting, particularly the idea that if one does not "accept JC" as one's "personal Savior", in the method described by EVs, then one is condemned by a loving God to spend an eternity in hell. I have no anger towards people who adhere to this belief, likely because none of my family members or friends adhere to such an ideology which would compel them to proselytize me. But I do live in a society in which this belief is popular enough that I am surrounded by reminders I can't avoid in navigating my daily life: it is proudly displayed on billboards, large church signs I drive by daily, and offhand comments made by people I wouldn't describe as "friends" but acquaintances. I'm not angry towards people who embrace this belief - it is too idiotic to even incur anger. The people who embrace this belief often seem to really enjoy it, as well. They often seem to relish the idea that the people who find their beliefs ridiculous today will spend eternity in incomprehensible physical and emotional agony. If this were some odd belief held by people in a distant part of the world, with whom I never had contact, and I just happened to read about it in a book, I would not mock the belief, only view it as one more evidence of the tribal nature of mankind.

But since I live in a society where this is a mainstream, respected belief, I mock it in private. It's like being surrounded by a bunch of Cartmans who demand "YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITY" *

Look, be honest. If you were surrounded by a bunch of patently ridiculous Cartmans parading around in police uniforms, bopping people on the head with his police baton while demanding respect for his authority, wouldn't you mock them now and then?

Some behaviors, statements, or beliefs are patently ridiculous, even if they appear reasonable to the source. And being asked to show "respect" to patently ridiculous things results in the desire to mock those same things. If one lives in a society in which a significant number of people, including those with whom you want to maintain functioning relationships for some reason, openly embrace the ridiculous behavior, statement, or belief, then you are probably going to mock it in private or anonymously. I don't mock the ridiculous EV belief in hellfire openly in front of EVs. I see no reason to do so. It would only create hostile feelings (although why they think they can proudly advertise this belief and NOT engender hostile feelings in others is another subject). But damn straight I'm going to privately mock those beliefs with my family members who also believe it to be ridiculous. Damn straight I'm going to laugh my arse off at the EV televangelist who almost seems to be excited at the idea of scoffers having their flesh peeled off for all eternity.

Really. If I'm supposed to pretend that all beliefs demand respect for no reason other than they're clothed in the police uniform of religion, then that is also patently ridiculous and deserving of mockery.

Obviously if you mock something you don't expect or intend to have genuine dialogue with those who adhere to the belief or demonstrate the behavior. I don't want or intend to have "genuine dialogue" with the people in my neighborhood who think I'm going to hell for not going to church and accepting Jesus. There is no point. But living in a society where one is forced to hear and see this nonsense on a regular basis is like living with a bunch of cartmans who actually DO have influence and sometimes power. Cartman is begging to be mocked, and so are some patently ridiculous beliefs.

Are people who mock Cartman bigots? Am I a bigot because I mock the EVs who prance around on stage delighting in the idea of nonbelievers or believers in the 'wrong' thing burning in hell for eternity?

I don't live in an area surrounded by LDS in power. But if I did, I may be more tempted to engage in some mockery of certain beliefs which are, frankly, ridiculous. I don't care if you attach the word "religious" in front of it or not.






*http://www.copyblogger.com/you-must-respect-my-authority/
link to a brief explanation of the phrase for those not familiar with South Park or Cartman, embedded in an analysis of "respecting authority". Great read.

[_rcrocket]

I'm not convinced mocking is always rooted in anger, either. Let me give an example from my own life:

If I respond with an example from my own life, who wins the anecdotal war?

Nobody seemed to really answer my question as to whether it would be reasonable to mock living persons and the liturgy of local Jews -- anonymous hit pieces against your local synogogue. What they wear to service, their devotion, their holy days, what the wear on ordinary days?

P

[_Mercury]

I'm not convinced mocking is always rooted in anger, either. Let me give an example from my own life:

If I respond with an example from my own life, who wins the anecdotal war?

Nobody seemed to really answer my question as to whether it would be reasonable to mock living persons and the liturgy of local Jews -- anonymous hit pieces against your local synogogue. What they wear to service, their devotion, their holy days, what the wear on ordinary days?

P

This would be true if we were in actuality mocking jews. Since we are discussing Mormonism your argument is flawed.

[_Mercury]

There needs to be rational, well-thought out discussion. All I am seeing is twisted bitterness from some. And let me say, I'm sick of the lame excuses for anger.

There is well thought out rational discourse but the Mormons will not participate.

Instead its like trying to interview Bill Clinton. We spend most of the time going over and over the definition of "is".

[_Mercury]

I'm not convinced mocking is always rooted in anger, either. Let me give an example from my own life:

If I respond with an example from my own life, who wins the anecdotal war?
P

The person with the most examples that are true to reality.