MSP Exclusive: Russell M. Nelson disses atheists
http://newsroom.lds.org/blog/2010/06/apostle-talks-religious-freedom-to-boston-youth.html
Note to Andrew S. et alia explaining this post: It looked as if the Newsroom Blog link to Nelson’s comments re atheists had gone dead and so I posted a screen grab of the post here. Since the link is live again, I’ve taken that down and left the link in its place. As far as the discussion below, it’s regarding a series of posts at Times & Seasons by BYU professor Ralph Hancock, who seems keen to become the new Mormon David Blankenhorn:
In voir dire, Boies noted that none of Blankenhorns marriage writing was peer reviewed. Nor has he taught courses about marriage, fatherhood, family structure or anything else. Blankenhorns examinations of the results of same-sex marriage are limited to discussions with colleagues and reading articles. His only peer-reviewed work was on cabinet makers and black fathers. Judge Walker indicated that were this a jury trial Blankenhorn might not be qualified to testify as an expert but that he can testify.
Of course, Blankenhorn then went on to testify and prove that he was eminently unqualified.
I do not so much mind dissing atheists, but that all things secular get lumped together with the atheists and particularly New Atheism.
Perhaps that’s a topic to discuss around the water cooler with your colleague Ralph.
Next time, before you undertake to play junkyard dog for a homophobe, try remembering that us secular liberals are next in line.
Gay or straight, we’re all conscientious and educated adults here, and we don’t appreciate the kind of Laurel and Hardy drama you and Ralph have brought during this past week.
And since you probably won’t be back, Chris H., I’m going to speak freely.
If it was my church, I wouldn’t want someone like Ralph running around presenting himself as the academic face of my institution. In any capacity. Because you’ll never know what he’s going to come up with next.
And mostly because whatever “next” might happen to be, the odds are that it’s going to be insulting, demeaning, or … take your pick, you know what I’m saying.
Not that he wasn’t a spectacular prof. He was. He probably still is. But his petulance disqualifies him from any role on the front lines of PR.
And you’re smart enough to know this but still you haven’t done a damn thing to rein him in. If anything, you’re encouraging his antics.
Chino Blanco, you sound a bit up tight, either you were in AZ recently and looking illegal, or have a personal grief with the church. Either way I say give it up and move on.
Hey DC,
Awesome. Arriba “Los Suns”!!!
It’s so strange how same-sex marriage gets tied to atheism. Do Mormon leaders not know any religious gay people, or religious people who are okay with gayness? Don’t Mormons leaders have meetings with leaders of other faiths, AKA interfaith dialogue? This linking of same-sex marriage to atheism is just plain naive in 2010. It’s reductionism.
“Perhaps thats a topic to discuss around the water cooler with your colleague Ralph.”
Been done many times.
“…the kind of Laurel and Hardy drama you and Ralph have brought during this past week.”
Between that and being a “junkyard dog,” I didn’t know I could inspire such poetry.
As for reining Ralph in, I am a visiting instructor on my way out of the institution. Taking my friend down in public is of little interest to me. He knows what I think.
Well, you now feel about me the same way that many Glen Beck fans and John Birchers do. Not sure about the need for such anger, but to each their own.
Chris, it’s not poetry, you simply haven’t watched enough Harrison Ford/Jack Ryan/Tom Clancy movies to know where my allusions are coming from.
That you confuse speaking one’s mind with anger is an issue you’ll hopefully sort out after you’ve left the institution.
What was up with your treatment of “ExMoHoMoDon” ?? He had plenty to say, but it was ignored until the man had a right to become fairly apoplectic. It’s not as if Ralph spent more than one comment addressing first order issues raised by his initial post, and that was mostly a “Yeah. And?”
Been there. Dealt with it. But I was just a kid. Not sure what your excuse is.
What I saw in comments was a case study in “Kiss up, Kick down” … terminology ring a bell?
And Alan’s right to be pissed. How many prejudices can one person conflate in one post?
But, hey, it’s all good, because Gadamer never thought to expound on “true prejudice” vs. “false prejudice” … no, never, because the main thing for Gadamer was always to invoke an illustrious predecessor and then proceed to blow smoke up his contemporary colleague’s ass, even when that colleague happened to be making, well, an ass of himself (Hi, Nate!).
Got the Clancy allusions.
The anger I am talking about is the anger of you expressed in comments #2 and #3 above.
Many people have plenty to say. Not sure if they have a right to a response.
“Not sure what your excuse is.”
Ever read any of Foucault’s writings about power.
Well, Chino, I hope your friends stick with you when other people think you are being an ass…not that you would ever be perceived that way.
If I was next door to Ralph, I’d be brushing up on my Strauss. Honest question: Are you suggesting that Ralph has actually read and understood Foucault?
…and you didn’t think I would be back.
I have no idea…I was talking about my power within the institution. I do not teach as some ideal, but to feed my family.
Strauss…yuck…avoid it like the plague.
To Russell M. Nelson:
Shut your pie-hole, old man.
I can’t believe I left the “M.” in there. I guess old habits die hard.
See, I disagree with a lot in the points above, but I struggle in that discussion because many (falsely, of course) assume that I am aligning myself with comments like those of Stephanie. Both sides have issues.
So he’s implying that atheists don’t voluntarily obey the law or have consciences? Those two things are in no way connected to “fear[ing] the righteous judgments of a loving God”.
It sounds like he, as a religious professional, has no relationships with any actual atheists.
To your own self be true, Chris. One thing that drives me bonkers about Mormon commenters is their alpha male fetish. Let it go. This ain’t Kansas. Nobody cares. Say your piece.
Even if it meant not being able to feed your family?
I always assumed that was the only reason anyone ever bothered to read Strauss in the first place.
You go Chris! It’s hard to stand for something it seems cause when it becomes to hard for you, you just turn into a dude named chico. Must have wanted to be eq pres
So bad and when he never was decieded to take up mockery. Just seems like a really bad case of small man syndrome with higher hopes to be accepted. Keep up the good work Chris.
But, hey, it’s all good, because Gadamer never thought to expound on “true prejudice” vs. “false prejudice” … no, never, because the main thing for Gadamer was always to invoke an illustrious predecessor and then proceed to blow smoke up his contemporary colleague’s ass, even when that colleague happened to be making, well, an ass of himself (Hi, Nate!).
+1
” One thing that drives me bonkers about Mormon commenters is their alpha male fetish.”
I have no idea what the means.
“Even if it meant not being able to feed your family?”
Nothing I have said, have I said to save my job. If that was my motivation, I would just keep quiet.
I am very comfortable being a liberal egalitarian at BYU and within the Church. This is not to say that I am in the minority. I like being in the minority in almost all the spheres of my life.
#21: I have no idea who Chico is. I take it you’re a big fan of Chris H.? Awesome.
Chris H. – One last thing:
No, I don’t feel that way about you. I’m nothing like a Glenn Beck fan or John Bircher, and you know it. Mine is not some dumb rage. I’ve posted writing by Margaret Young and others in places where Mormons generally fear to tread for the express purpose of driving home the point that Mormons are not of one mind. I happen to think that we ought to be working toward something like felicitous pluralistic accommodation.
By contrast, as far as I can tell, Ralph seems to be all about selling all-out war. Am I wrong? Have I misread the man? Please, go ahead and calibrate me if I’ve got this one wrong.
I am done dealing with Ralph. He is a big boy.
My reference to the Beck/Bircher types is that they tend to dislike me because I am abrasive and rude. I think this is about my style. I run over and abuse those who I take on. It is what I do.
I am sure that we will get past this. Peace.
I am not sure who DC is.
Re DC, I figured as much, but he’s so damn enthusiastic, how to ignore him?
DC, fwiw, I hope *you* make Elder’s Quorum Prez real soon. Good luck!
I don’t even know what just went on here
@29 lol, me neither. I suspect that we missed some earlier conversation that took place somewhere. 😉