The Mockingboard.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hey! I like Jason. We don't see eye to eye very often, but I respect his reasons for thinking the way he does.

Of course, he is now condemned to a life of unrivaled confusion, followed by an eternity of self-inflicted pain in the depths of hell, with the rest of the people I respect. But hey! We'll never eat green jello again.

Sorry, Jason. You're now officially toast.

No GREEEN JELLO, ever!!! I just hate jello.

[_Mercury]

I believe it is.

And thus we see where you derive truth from: Belief

[_beastie]

But you mock, nonetheless.

Please share an example of my mockery.

What's the use? You define the term away.

See

Sun Dec 24, 2006 10:26 am

Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:26 am

I think you meant to say "what's the use when I can't find a post of yours that contains real mockery, only posts that criticize".

Mockery has a clear meaning. If you are going to change that meaning to simply "criticizing" then it is you who "defines the term away".

For those who didn't take the time to look back at my posts that Plutarch believes are examples of "mocking", here they are:

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.

And here's an additional problem to consider regarding how some believers are not able to differentiate between criticism and mockery:

Some beliefs are simply so ludicrous that when one states a criticism of those beliefs, it sounds like mockery. In reality, it's just restating the belief in a skeptical manner.

Like I said, if these constitute mockery, then modern LDS are thin-skinned babies, who simply want none of their claims to be criticized or analyzed.

Again, from Colin McGinn: tolerance does not mean protection from criticism.

[_beastie]

No I wouldn't...and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise. I may suggest that when EV's converse with me and other members of the CoJCoLDS, there is little value in making those associations. But, I wouldn't consider it bigotry--let alone "scream" it at the top of my longs or otherwise. I don't even scream when I detect actual bigotry.

Oh, that's right, you just "hint" that the person is a bigot without saying it outright. That way you can deny, deny, deny. You only fool yourself.

You, as well as Plutarch, do not seem to be able to differentiate between criticism and mockery. I've referred to Colin McGinn's statement several times, now let's look at a dictionary:

bigotry is the unwillingness to TOLERATE any belief different than one's own.

What is tolerance? Does "tolerating" mean "refusing to criticize"?

You seem to have the same problem that some MAD believers do: they believe when other criticze their religion's truth claims or actions, those people are "telling people what to believe". What you, and these other folks are really demanding is that your religion's truth claims and behavior not be analyzed and criticized. You want to live in a bubble.

Sorry. The world is never going to give you that, nor should it. But go ahead and pretend that this constitutes bigotry. It will help you to protect yourself from knowing what it is that you really want.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Criticizing the brethren, especially those living, anonymously, is the height of hypocrisy.
...

My posts on this board tend to gravitate to the hypocrites. Those who claim to be LDS in good standing but criticize the brethren.

You've illustrated perfectly one of my pet peeves about Mormon culture and tradition, i.e., that any perceived "criticism" of the Brethren is wrong, hypocritical, and perhaps temple covenant-breaking. I completely disagree with this pharisaic mindset. This type of attitude, prevelant throughout the Church, has led to many of the woes we witness within the Church today, in my opinion. Your constant refrain that members should never question, nor offer alternative ideas, nor disagree, because to do so is "criticizing the Brethren," is a load of garbage. As GBH himself recently said, this very church came about due to dissent; Joseph Smith dared to go against the Establishment. And Jesus rocked the boat more than anyone.

In contrast, today's members are expected to go around and blindly follow (when is the last time anyone witnessed a dissenting sustaining vote? It's been over 30 years for me). This is absurd -- disagreeing with, criticizing, or questioning the Brethren or any Church leader is NOT speaking evil of the Lord's anointed. I firmly believe the Lord expects us to thoughtfully consider anything the Brethren say or do, and question or disagree when our conscience tells us they are wrong or mistaken. It is high time to chop down the proverbial pedestal on which the members have unwittingly placed the Brethren, and/or for the Brethren to jump down from that pedestal and listen and consider criticism of their policies, decisions, words and actions. They are men, just as mortal and weak as us all. The rank-and-file members are just as much a part of the Church, and just as important, as the Brethren and other leaders. There is no (or should not be) any class system in the Church. So telling one group to shut up while a much smaller group decides everything, and then expecting the masses to obediently follow (for, to do otherwise, would be "criticizing the Brethren"), seems contrary to everything that is good and right about God.

[_harmony]

It is high time to chop down the proverbial pedestal on which the members have unwittingly placed the Brethren, and/or for the Brethren to jump down from that pedestal and listen and consider criticism of their policies, decisions, words and actions. They are men, just as mortal and weak as us all. The rank-and-file members are just as much a part of the Church, and just as important, as the Brethren and other leaders. There is no (or should not be) any class system in the Church. So telling one group to shut up while a much smaller group decides everything, and then expecting the masses to obediently follow (for, to do otherwise, would be "criticizing the Brethren"), seems contrary to everything that is good and right about God.

One word, Rollo: pride. Our leaders as a general rule are too proud to take correction from anyone, especially from the rank and file. Too arrogant, too proud, too much hubris. Can you honestly see Packer or Oaks sitting still and really listening to an ordinary member telling them they're mistaken? No way.

[_wenglund]

No I wouldn't...and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise. I may suggest that when EV's converse with me and other members of the CoJCoLDS, there is little value in making those associations. But, I wouldn't consider it bigotry--let alone "scream" it at the top of my longs or otherwise. I don't even scream when I detect actual bigotry.

Oh, that's right, you just "hint" that the person is a bigot without saying it outright. That way you can deny, deny, deny. You only fool yourself.

I only hint at it when I don't have sufficient evidence to confirm my suspicions. Now that you and others have, in the last day or so, provided clear evidence of bigotry, I have explicitly called it that.

You, as well as Plutarch, do not seem to be able to differentiate between criticism and mockery. I've referred to Colin McGinn's statement several times, now let's look at a dictionary:

bigotry is the unwillingness to TOLERATE any belief different than one's own.

What is tolerance? Does "tolerating" mean "refusing to criticize"?

You falsely accuse my of confusing criticism with mockery, and instead of demonstrating where I had supposedly confused them (because you can't), you launch into a definition of bigotry. Unless you are equating bigotry with either criticism or mockery, your point doesn't make sense (as expected). And, unless you can back up your accusation with specific and legitimate examples (which I know you can't--at least in my case), your accusation is baseless, if not demonstrably wrong.

Can intolerance/bigotry manifest itself in the form of mockery? Of course. Is every instance of mockery a manifestation of intolerance/bigotry? Of course not.

Can intolerance/bigotry also manifest itself in certain types of "criticism" as well as the extent of "criticism"? Of course. Is any type or extent of criticism necessarily a manifestation of intolerance/bigotry? Of course not.

Nothing I have said could reasonably be interpreted to suggest otherwise. But, I understand your need to prop up those straw men (see above and below).

You seem to have the same problem that some MAD believers do: they believe when other criticze their religion's truth claims or actions, those people are "telling people what to believe". What you, and these other folks are really demanding is that your religion's truth claims and behavior not be analyzed and criticized. You want to live in a bubble.

I defy you to provide even a single example where I have said anything of the sort. (I won't hold my breath because I know you can't. You are just firing blanks as a way of unsuccessfully deflecting attention away from yourself and your fellow naysayers)

Sorry. The world is never going to give you that, nor should it. But go ahead and pretend that this constitutes bigotry. It will help you to protect yourself from knowing what it is that you really want.

When you are finished sahdow-boxing that straw man you constructed, and are ready to engage what I have actually said, let me know. I won't hold my breath.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

You seem to have the same problem that some MAD believers do: they believe when other criticze their religion's truth claims or actions, those people are "telling people what to believe". What you, and these other folks are really demanding is that your religion's truth claims and behavior not be analyzed and criticized. You want to live in a bubble.

I defy you to provide even a single example where I have said anything of the sort. (I won't hold my breath because I know you can't. You are just firing blanks as a way of unsuccessfully deflecting attention away from yourself and your fellow naysayers)

You said (perhaps implicitly, and probably inadvertently), in another thread or two, that you get angry in a manner akin to "road rage" when anyone criticizes the Church, which, to you, is the "most precious and dear" thing in the whole universe.

[_beastie]

I'm curious. According to some of you, are human beings required to show respect for all human beliefs, or only those attached to religious beliefs?

Do I have to show respect for, among many other things, the idea that:

1) Not all races of human beings descended from Adam and Eve. People of color, for example, descended from "mud people", not Adam and Eve.

2) The human race descended from aliens who were placed in volcanoes and then blown up by hydrogen bombs.

3) Human beings can become more pure by engaging in voluntary castration.

And does my simply reciting these facts in a skeptical manner constitute "mockery"?

[_MormonMendacity]

No GREEEN JELLO, ever!!! I just hate jello.

Substitute half the water with vodka and green Jello can be quite wonderful!

On to Plutarch...

My screen name "MormonMendacity" can be construed as mocking but so can calling anyone a liar who claims to have had golden plates but won't show them to me. That is asking them to put up or shut up.

I find myself more interested in challenging, questioning and understanding than mocking. I don't know what recovery from many of my experiences would amount to but I find this discourse helpful to me in getting a grip on what I believed and how I now can move away from it...having established conclusively that it does not measure up to what I was taught.

I actually love the principal that everyone has the right to believe what they want and hope it will always be accepted by humanity. But if you put your ideas out into the public arena and then expect others to respect those ideas then you just don't get the notion of rights.

If you don't want people criticizing (mocking) what you hold dear, then don't drag it out in front of them and expect them to respect it. Keep it in your heart and shut the hell up.