If you have to ban somebody over religious differences, it is probably a good idea to wait until the debate about what constitutes a bad religion is over.
When you argue that religion provides a special path to the truth, you are not helping yourself by prohibiting your rhetorical opponent’s speech. You see, people who have a measure of truth can defend their position on the merit of the argument.
So when you shut them up with prohibitions, you demonstrate your ignorance more conclusively than any advocate ever could.
I appreciate your frustration. When Ronan dangled the carrot of “reasonable” religious “truth” in front of you, you got all excited at the prospect of an intellectual justification of religious truth claims. It is unfortunate this expectation had to be disappointed because Ronan misinterpreted the work of Peter Vardy, which rests on Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. I was the proverbial bearer of bad news who assumed that his Christian friends were tougher.
I regret that you banned me because I like those of you that I know and it pains me that you would embarrass yourselves and our community in that way.
It is doubly unfortunate since I found out about your ban when I posted the following comment that now languishes in your moderation cue:
The Book of Mormon is actually a lot stronger than the Vardy of this post.
One can reasonably argue that something like the light of Christ empowers our imagination to capture the noumenon but that is something quite different from experience.
The light of Christ would be a rational asset that makes properly sense of our observations.
Mormonism has considerable resources to be a force for good. We don’t need to misread Peter Vardis to find them.
For my part, I will continue to consider you friends, although I must admit that that would be easier if your actions would not contradict your words quite so obviously.
Comment #52 was below the belt. It also represents a classic diversion fallacy. Owning up to not fully understanding Kant would have been the more mature stance.
Thanks, Dave. Ronan thought he had something special. His audience was celebrating him and then it turned out that it was a profound misreading of Kant and, probably, Peter Vardis as well.
That hurts. So you have to make it personal because there is nothing that you can say on the merits.
It’s somewhat disappointing because I expected Ronan to be capable of a rational exchange. But his desire to dominate got the better of him in this case.
Wow.
I’m gobsmacked.
Based on Ronan’s discussion of Vardy I have no desire to read V, but I”m shocked that he’d feel so threatened and intimidated by your comments. OK, you showed that he didn’t grasp certain elements of his argument. But you weren’t uncivil or belligerent. And yeah, David J is right: comment 52 is really below the belt.
More importantly, Hellmut, you are right about this: “So when you shut them up with prohibitions, you demonstrate your ignorance more conclusively than any advocate ever could.”
It’s especially nasty that they’d do that right now, when MSP as a collective has been bending over backwards to be nice to the faithful Mormon community.
I guess the question now is:
Which MSP regulars remain not banned at BCC?
I’m out, you’re out, Hellmut has just joined the club. Is there anyone left who could pop over and leave a comment on that thread?
I can haz comments? No u Kant!
Good question, Andrew. Back in the day, my motivation for MSP was to provide a DAMU venue that was at least as open as BCC so that we could return their hospitality. LOL
Of course, they weren’t really interested in our hospitality but over the years, no thanks to me, MSP has attracted its own audience, which now exceeds BCC’s readership substantially.
Hellmut,
wait, did BCC used to be open? I find that possible history QUITE humorous.
I’ve been reading a few things about bloggernacle history (esp. with the history of the Mormon Archipelago) and it seems like they’ve been playing the same game for a while…
Far as I know, I’m not banned yet. But do I really want to get myself mired in that? Man, I hate it when they decide to discuss amongst themselves about atheists while refusing to let live atheists have a say.
No. Or if you do, it’s better just to write a blog post elsewhere than to try to comment there.
BCC used to be open? As long as I’ve known it, it hasn’t been an open discussion forum. It’s been a semi-private club where insiders discuss how clever they are and dismiss anyone who challenges them.
You are right, Andrew. BCC has always been playing Boyd Packer but compared to the DAMU message boards, which were reserved exclusively for disaffected Mormons, BCC is pretty open.
Since the purpose of the DAMU was providing a refuge for people who had to recover from Mormonism, discussions with testifying believers would have been counterproductive. While that was necessary, it also created a contradiction with our values about openness and free speech.
From my perspective, the purpose of Main Street Plaza to have a DAMU space that would be able to welcome Mormons who disagreed with us about religion.
At the beginning, we bent over backwards to be non-threatening and welcoming. We could not sustain that but I am proud that Main Street Plaza is a free speech. As long as people are civil, they can say here what they want even if it were to embarrass us.
Thanks, Chanson. I agree with you and Andrew that it is not worth it. We can say what needs to be said here and elsewhere.
I haven’t bothered discussing much there so haven’t had the opportunity to be banned. Aside from one comment actually attempting to contribute to the discussion, I also added a note about banning Hellmut because I don’t particularly care if have commenting privileges. The result…
I don’t completely agree with this. It was just RfM that actively censored TBM opinions, citing “refuge” and “recovery” as the reasoning for it. For a few years RfM seemed like the only exmo presence on the Internet — hence they set the tone in a lot of ways. As for other DAMU forums, I don’t know that they actively censored civil TBM points-of-view. But it’s the nature of a forum to be more of a private social club for members, so even if they didn’t actively exclude TBM posters, they couldn’t really integrate them into the discussion, either. Like you, Hellmut, I switched my focus to blogging for that very reason, as I explained in My friend, the Internet.
The thing is this: There are people who feel threatened my the mere existence of people who disagree with them. There is nothing we can do to make those people feel welcome (short of moaning that our lives are miserable wrecks and killing ourselves…). However, I’m committed to keeping this place welcoming to those who want to have a reasonable discussion despite disagreeing on various issues.
I wonder if they haven’t just sent everything into moderation? Or just all of us?
Here’s what I tried posting over there:
I wonder if the comment will show up at some point?
The bloggernacle is a mini-Church on a smaller time scale: it goes through periods of assimilation and retrenchment, in which opposing views are quashed but then are allowed to reemerge when people start to feel like they’re in an echo chamber or out of touch with reality.
To BCC’s credit, they’ve now provided a link out of the echo chamber.
Sounds like the inauguration of a new 100% DAMU-free policy over at BCC.
Reason #769 why Mormons are often not entirely forthcoming about what they believe.
Hellmut, Ronan responded to you at BCC and noted that he wasn’t interpreting Kant or making any truth claims but rather was summarizing Vardy. Is it possible that you’ve misunderstood Ronan’s post? If so, oops, right?
OK, but if you want to make that statement a little more credible, you might consider giving the [alleged] real reason why he was banned. And why was my comment sent to the garbage heap? It had nothing to do with, Hellmut, banning, Kant, or any of that — it was relevant to a completely different part of the discussion.
Lovely. I would like to be friendly and civil with them with them and see them do the right thing. I don’t like to be in a position of whining about shitty treatment, I’d rather be saying positive things about positive things.
The funny thing is that just the other day, somebody on FaceBook suggested to me that I “Like” BCC. And I did it, because I figured, “sure, I like them.” Now I feel like a complete patsy.
Hellmut said right from the beginning that he hadn’t read Vardy. Someone in this debate is clearly wrong about Kant’s definition of noumenon. Maybe it’s Vardy, maybe it’s Hellmut, and maybe it’s just that Ronan misread Vardy. If Ronan wants to have a reasonable discussion about noumenon, then it might help if he’d post some clarifying passages on the subject from Vardy’s book. Then we can look up the corresponding passages from Kant. At that point, we’ll be in a position to decide which person should be saying “oops.”
Thanks for coming by, John. I am afraid that Ronan completely misread Vardy. Ronan’s summary makes no sense. That might be Professor Vardy’s fault but it is unlikely that a philosopher and theologian would mischaracterize basic concepts such as Experience, Empirical, and Noumenon so bizarrely.
Vardy certainly knows Kant and the reading that Ronan reports is so far out of field, it is on another planet.
Be that as it may, Ronan and some of his readers were pretty excited to discover an alternative mode of experience that would give them access to the truth and validate their religious views and commitments. I am afraid that people’s enthusiasm got away with them. Instead of consulting a basic encyclopedia, they got all frustrated and took it out on the messenger when the prospect vanished under the weight of superficial inquiry.
Ronan’s remarks in #52 reflect poorly on him. A gentleman would not ridicule an opponent, much less a friend, and an intellectual would not resort to personal attacks during an academic dispute.
As you know, I am confronting my peers when they assault the dignity of other human beings. In light of Ronan’s petty behavior, you may want to determine the proper course of action for yourself.
Hellmut, Ronan’s never done anything but defend you. This reaction seems out of proportion.
If Ronan was sarcastic in his comment to you, it might have been because he did not view himself as offering an interpretation of Kant that could be corrected by you but rather saw himself as summarizing Vardy.
Now you are pointing out here in extremely strong wording that Ronan has completely misread Vardy. I’m not sure what makes you so confident about that but I see you have strongly felt beliefs on the point that what was written about Kant inaccurately reflected his philosophy on the matter. I think it’s unfortunate that this is so important that it’s caused you to come out with fists bared throwing punches at Ronan.
As for censoring you, if your comment has been held in a mod queue or deleted then I can only imagine it was because Ronan considered further discussion of the threadjack to be irrelevant to that portion of his review of Vardy. Ronan’s not in the business of censoring people’s substantive religious differences in any context. I would have thought you know that. As a result, it is curious to see this post (given my impression that you are aware of who Ronan is and that he is not someone who censors people for religious disagreement).
It is true that on that thread he asked commenters not to bash the Mormon Church and then in his snarky comment to you allowed that you might be among those who consider the Mormon Church in Vardy’s category of bad religion. Still, I think it’s a stretch to use that as evidence that Ronan is trying to censor anyone based on substantive disagreement on religious views.
chanson, the “oops” relates to this post by Hellmut dumping on his buddy Ronan, not to anyone’s misreading of Kant. Hellmut’s comments to which Ronan had responded in #52 seemed to be premised on a belief that Ronan was interpreting Kant and doing so wrongly.
If Ronan is not interpreting Kant but only summarizing Vardy (even if Ronan is somehow misreading Vardy’s use of Kant), then this post is an “oops” from the very beginning, isn’t it?
John f. — Sure, I agree we should cool it down and take it out of the realm of strong emotional reactions on all sides. We can look carefully at how Vardy defined “Experience, Empirical, and Noumenon” and see if Ronan’s definitions match Vardy’s and if Vardy’s match Kant’s.
If there’s a big discrepancy somewhere in there, it is absolutely central to Ronan’s discussion — not some sort of tangential “threadjack”.
No, frankly, it isn’t. If Vardy was summarizing Kant, and Vardy, in fact, misunderstood Kant, then it’s a relevant point to the discussion — not a threadjack. If Ronan banned Hellmut for bringing up a relevant point that he didn’t want to discuss, then it is in no way an “oops” to move the discussion somewhere else.
If Ronan is misreading Vardy then that becomes more central to the discussion. Who’s going to do the work to determine whether that’s the case? Certainly not me. I could care less about whether Ronan understands Vardy. I just like the excuse to try to work my old Bad Religion songs into blog comments, even if no Bad Religion song can make your life complete.
The “oops” does not refer to moving discussion about that point elsewhere but rather it refers to what this post is — it is not a moving of discussion of that point elsewhere but rather a “J’accuse!” piece aimed first at Ronan but more fundamentally at BCC itself, seeking to expose that blog for the reactionary, sheltered, ultra-orthodox sycophants that they are.
Please see my comments 52 and 59 on the BCC thread.
Ronan’s the one who read Vardy and wanted to discuss his ideas. I would hope he’d care whether he was paraphrasing Vardy correctly or not.
Yes, I find that incredibly regrettable as well. As I said above, I would rather not be having this discussion. I would rather see you prove us wrong by doing the right thing.
Seriously, though, you’re right that all of this meta-discussion isn’t helping — it’s just obscuring the original discussion. Let’s all take it down a notch, and let Ronan present some citations from the book so that we can analyze the matter calmly.
Why? Are they citations from Vardy’s book, backing up your reading of it?
Ronan has replaced his comment #52 with an apology to Hellmut for being snarky and has rephrased his paraphrase of Varny in #59. Not sure if that matters or clarifies how Kant is being used by Varny or not.
John F. — Of course it matters. That’s great that he was big enough to apologize!
But, now you guys have got me curious! See, I haven’t read Vardy or Kant — neither one! Can’t we perhaps see how Vardy defined those terms?
A portion of Ronan’s #59:
I never viewed anything Ronan did as retaliation against anyone for anything religious. The bad religion snark in the erstwhile comment #52 was just snark and Ronan is one snarky dude.
Thanks, that’s a big improvement on the discussion. The only part I disagree about is it’s being a thread-jack. BTW, I hope this means we’ve all been un-banned at BCC as well! 😉
I would like to thank Ronan for his apology regarding comment #52.
Whoever wrote that gay Mormon book needs poo on their head.
Hellmut,
Cool, man. So, what do you now think of my summary of Vardy?
screamingnephite — Please read our commenting policy.
I find it certainly reasonable to say that aesthetics adds value to the human experience and to the acquisition of knowledge. It is not reasonable, however,
a) to conceive of an aesthetic experience as an extra-empirical experience,
b) that an aesthetic experience somehow transcends human limitations. Aesthestics are an aspect of the human experience and are therefore subject to human limitations that apply elsewhere,
c) Aesthetics can contribute to knowledge acquisition is a number of ways but they do not justify knowledge claims in the sense of legitimizing power claims.
But initially, you said this:
My responses to Ronan focused on this narrow passage, which is, unfortunately, nonsense.
There can be no phenomenon if there is not a noumenon any more than there cannot be an image in the mirror without an object that gets reflected. The noumenon is the thing in itself, for example, the rabbit. The phenomenon is the human perception of the rabbit.
That misunderstanding has consequences for the remainder of Ronan’s summary or argument such as the peculiar juxtaposition of empirical and aesthetic experience when in reality aesthetics is inherently empirical.
It is important to get that straight because all other arguments flow from the distinction between noumenon and phenomenon. Whatever it is you want to do with Vardy, whatever benefit Vardy might provide to religious people, cannot work until we get the relationship between the thing itself and our perception of the thing, the noumenon and the phenomenon straight.
My corrections in that regard are actually an asset to you. Only fools would banish me for that. But the world is full of fools and Cassandra has never been popular.
Your new summary of Vardy makes a lot more sense, Ronan. I have not been able to obtain the book yet but your argument appears to be coherent now.
Beyond Vardy, I consider it almost self-evident that science and logic are inadequate for a human being or group to conduct their lives. Science is too expensive and too slow. Science cannot generate a world view that connects all the dots.
Others, such as Toulmin in Cosmopolis, have argued that rhetoric can extend the reach of reason when logic turns out to be indeterminate.
In that vein, I agree that imagination is essential for us to generate a map, our symbolic representation of the world in which we operate. Obviously, many religions have provided us with such maps and religions can continue to formulate world views that meet or fail to meet the practical needs of human beings who have to operate in complex environments.
Religion, however, has no monopoly on myth making, I mean that in the positive sense, and formulation of world views. Carl Sagan’s work comes to mind. He connected many dots in useful and powerful ways.
Hellmut — I think that’s quite a reasonable response, and I agree that your criticism was ultimately helpful to him.
I just have to take a little issue with your last paragraph. I was really hoping we we’d finished the meta-discussion, and it kind of looks like you’ve obliquely called Ronan a “fool.” Sorry, I just have to say that because we were hard on BCC, hence it would be good to hold ourselves up to a very high standard….
I can’t even say they need poo on their head?
Under the circumstances, I believe “poo on their head” is about as civil and constructive as one can get.
screamingnephite — this is not a place for trolling. This is your last warning.
I would not use those adjectives to describe BCC, John.
The word that best describes BCC’s behavior, whoever that may be, is self-destructive. Although it is kind of funny at some level, it pains me to see people do that to themselves. That’s why I confront them.
I think anybody who is associated with that organization ought to take responsibility and put an end to the self-destructive foolishness.
Let’s be honest here, saying someone “needs poo on their head” still falls within the bounds of civil discussion and is not violating any guidelines.
Sorry for making you feel like a patsy, chanson. FWIW, I like you and think your contributions are generally constructive. I think Hellmut’s contributions are usually polite and often constructive. I like Andrew, too.
Hi, Chino 😉
#47: lol
All right, glad we’re all friends again. I’m just going to interpret that last bit as gentle ribbing among friends. 🙂
Hi John C.,
That’s nice to hear, because I like those folks, too. I also like Alan, ProfXM, Aerin64, Daymon Smith, Chris H., Chandelle, Leah, Jonathan, UrbanKoda, Zoe, Jessica, Saganist, Cr@ig, Madame Curie, and pretty much everyone else who’s contributed to the discussion here at MSP during the past year.
In terms of the current thread, I like how David J kicked things off and Holly’s nod to MSP’s ongoing efforts to welcome (or at least accommodate) all comers and their various opinions. And as usual, I like what Kuri, Andrew S. and Jonathan Blake have brought to this conversation.
I especially like seeing john f. here, as it reminds me of how much I appreciated his commentary over at M* regarding Harry Reid’s canceled firesides.
And since Ronan’s here, I’d like to take this opportunity to apologize for the mess I made with my screed about the Indian Placement Program in a past thread over at BCC. For what it’s worth, in all my years of online shenanigans, that particular thread has so far been the only instance that resulted in my hearing from family members concerned about my penchant for self-immolation (although I suspect they mostly reached out in order to satisfy their Mormon/morbid curiosity about how much I’d imbibed before dousing myself in shame).
Which is why I really appreciate that Hellmut and chanson allow me to hang out here. If I can’t discuss Mormonism in a totally open environment, I tend to get toxic tout de suite. So, admittedly, at the end of the day, what I like most of all is MSP. When I’ve got something to say, I’m allowed to say it here and I don’t have to worry about stepping on toes or violating unwritten orders or checking in with anybody first. And that rocks.
And speaking of stuff that rocks, I think the crew over at FPR really ought to look into adding this feature* to your sidebar:
http://www.chriscarlisle.net/VH5/VH5_left.htm
Cheers!
*This Virtual High Five can be used more than once as a way to celebrate those moments of personal accomplishment because, well let’s face it, the internet has severely limited your ability and willingness to interact with real people. h/t DKL
Aw Chino, that’s so sweet!! Of course you know very well that MSP needs you at least as much as you need MSP. I think we’ve got a really great variety of different personality types and perspective here. 😀
Awww, he loves us enough to still take a jab at FPR. Warm fuzzies all around.
Chris H. — All in good fun among friends. “Only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about,” I always say. 😉
Chris H. – After observing your SOP in the ‘nacle, I’m curious as to your thoughts re the endgame.
As I mentioned at FPR, you seem to enjoy running interference for your co-religionists.
E.g., it’s apparently off-limits to openly discuss BYU prof Ralph Hancocks dark outlook over at Times & Seasons, because, well, hes a friend of yours.
And discussing editorial decisions at Patheos.com is also off-limits because, well, the gatekeepers are also your friends.
Not to mention your efforts at Clobberblog.com to characterize any discussion of Ardis Parshall’s antics as no more than unseemly dogpiling.
C’mon.
Whether it’s Ralph, Ben, Ardis, or me … we’re all grown-ups and I think we either speak for ourselves, or we don’t.
Let the chips fall and let the mantle pass to someone else. You were always already too smart and over-qualified for it anyways. Take it from a friend, chief of B.E.D. (Bloggernacle Enforcement Division) was never gonna be a good fit for you.
Not that I don’t understand why you dislike me. I’ve got a good 20+ years left in me and I intend to become the Julian Assange of Mormonism before punching out.
@ Chino – “the Julian Assange of Mormonism” ? That made me laugh while nodding my head in agreement. It occurs to me that I’ve thought of you that way for awhile now, though until this moment I didn’t have the right words for it. 🙂
Chino, if Chris H. thought that we were dog piling on Ardis, I would agree with that.
Well, snicker at my expense, but for awhile now, I’ve been hanging out at MSP hoping to find a Lisbeth Salander to join me. I guess we’ll see what happens once the 501(c)(3) is in place and the way forward becomes something to discuss offline at our undisclosed Scandinavian location.
Hellmut — Perhaps. But I also agree with Chino that Ardis is more than capable of taking care of herself and answering for her own posts. Ardis is a smart lady who has earned a huge following — not a little wilting flower, scared of the big, bad Internet.
My thanks to Chris, John C., John F., and Ronan for coming over here. The part that I don’t understand is if I am civil and usually constructive, why was I banned?
I understand that my arguments can be uncomfortable but, surely, that shouldn’t be a reason to ban someone.
Hellmut, I’m confident we’ll be in agreement once you’ve read this thread over at Ms. Jack’s place:
http://www.clobberblog.com/?p=4108
And, yeah, you’ve got every right to wonder why you were banned in the first place. That’s the nub at this point, as far as I’m concerned. Noumenal, phenomenal, empirical … whatever. The reality is that the stock in trade at both MSP and BCC is liminal.
And the point is that some folks prefer that the club house keep its back door locked.
Chino, my ‘snicker’ was one of delight (in case that wasn’t clear!). I will confess that I don’t agree with you all the time, but there are few people anywhere for whom I have more unqualified respect. 🙂
As for your Gadianton hideout, I wasn’t sure what to expect: mid-century modern? Ice hotel? Treehouse?
The place looks, er … cool. And I hope you find your Lisbeth. (Though I would hope not to see a “Salander Letter.”)
Does not a 51 comment post crapping on Ardis count as a dog pile? I am not opposed to dogpiles, I was just calling it what it was.
Chris H. — Perhaps so. The point is that you’re not a mod at clobberblog. There are plenty of blogs and sites that have themes and policies that are (in my own personal opinion) pretty crappy. But I like the variety on the Internet. I think there’s value in having lots of different types of venues, even ones that I would never run that way myself.
p.s. I’m just trying to help clarify Chino’s comment, but perhaps I shouldn’t — Chino’s a big boy too. 😉
I have no further judgements or remarks on other people’s behavior on other people’s blogs. If Ms. Jack and/or Ardis have anything to add at this point, they’re welcome to join in the meta-discussion. 😉
SOP? Not sure what that is.
I have not endgame. You are clear what your agenda is. I am not quite so driven.
I have never said that anything is off-limits. I will just come hitting on somethings. I figure you can take it.
I know that all of those people can speak for themselves. Never said they could not. Chino, you would sell out anyone and anything to achieve your endgame. I do not think you could possibly understand what I do and why I do it. My co-bloggers at FPR seem to welcome your contribution. I defer to them. If they can tolerate me, I guess they can tolerate anyone.
All of my interactions with Hellmut and chanson have been positive. However, Chino has always seemed to be the dominant voice around here.
Hellmut, I cannot explain why BCC does what it does. They do like to keep tight control on things. While this has a downside, it also makes BCC what it is.
What?? Sure, he provides lots of great content here, but who is the one who is neurotically driven to jump in at the slightest whiff of incivility or unconstructiveness? Not Chino, I say! 😉
Ok, ok, I think with that it’s time for me to step away from the keyboard for the night. G’night folks! 😀
SLK – When push comes to shove, expect to find me here:
Chris H.: SOP = Standard Operating Procedure
And yeah, I dish it out, so it’d be pathetic if I couldn’t stand up and take it, so …
Setting your ad hominems aside, for the purposes of discussion …
Perhaps you could expound a bit more on my agenda …
Or maybe explain how your truculence somehow serves the purposes of the restored gospel.
If you’ve got something to say, you and the entire bloggernacle are welcome to post here any time at your leisure. Or if you’d just like to drop by with comments, rest assured, they’ll never be censored.
It’s not my fault that you and your friends can’t return the favor.
When I have I ever censored you? Oh…wait…you are lumping the bloggernacle together as a monolith. As I recall, this is not appreciated when done to the “DAMU.”
“Or maybe explain how your truculence somehow serves the purposes of the restored gospel.”
I am sure that it does not. Never claimed that it did.
No need to set my ad hominems aside. I stand by them.
P.S.: Good grief.
How did you arrive at this conclusion? I don’t even know you except for our online exchanges here and elsewhere.
I take that back then.
Yes, Chino, people in that thread were totally reasonable. I am just concerned about people’s personal issues.
Lets just say, some personalities thrive on criticism and it is harder for others. In that sense, I very much appreciate Chris’s point.
“A gentleman would not ridicule an opponent, much less a friend, and an intellectual would not resort to personal attacks during an academic dispute.”
Says the chap who ran full speed to Main Street Plaza to grab a placard and a megaphone and then proceeded to publicly slag off a person who has been a consistent ally, defender, and friend (and then brazenly proceeding to reassure your readers that you still consider the object of your bitch-slap to be a friend). Don’t worry, though. Because here we’re engaged in an epic battle for Truth and Reason, in which two bloggers will settle the question once and for all of which one is more egregious in his simplistic misreading of the most over-cited and under-comprehended thinker in the history of western metaphysics. Seriously, Hellmut—you’re claiming some sort of moral high ground when it comes to pettiness after trying to turn a technical debate over Kantian terminology (which you in no way attempted to press into the service of pissing on the Mormon Church…) into some sort of intramural mock duel or a Junior-Smart-Guy Philosophy 101 penis-measuring contest?
Ronan might be guilty of misreading some guy’s misreading of Immanuel effing Kant, but trust me, there are worse things a man can be guilty of.
Hellmut, maybe you need to take a step back and maybe even get on the phone with your friend.
Chris H. is a head case. Ronan, on the other hand, has always struck me as a decent fellow.
I swear, MSP is such an echols chamber lately.
🙂
I am sorry, Brad. You need to reread my post. I will be glad to take responsibility for my actions. You are responsible for your imagination.
When you are ready for an honest argument, feel free to make your point.
“Chris H. is a head case.”
True. I am clinically diagnosed as such.
Chino, Chris H. certainly has a head on his shoulders and a fine one at that. I am not sure what I am supposed to do about that.
I would just ask that we not use Kant’s name in vain.
Don’t worry, Chris. I have it on good authority that Immanuel would be delighted. I might even be able to put in a plug for a guest post on FPR.
Back away slowly, Kaimi. Hellmut didn’t deserve to get banned from BCC. I didn’t earn Chris H.’s scorn. But somehow the believers are now showing up en masse to cheer on some dnouement that I fear involves the collapse of the MSP franchise. Rosebud.
On second thought, Brad, I apologize for being short with you. I am actually grateful for your visit and your comment, which I consider an indication of courage.
I also have to say, however, that your remark is unreasonable because the meaning that you attribute to my words is not in the text. It is also uncivil because you resort to a plethora of personal attacks and gutter language instead of advancing a substantive argument that would actually address my criticism.
I will deal with your post point by point throughout the day.
Err, huh?
On issues of banning, I generally agree. And on the question of why “somehow the believers are now showing up en masse,” I suggest that you check out the MSP twitter feed: “And invites faithful Mormon fans to drop by for a cordial chat. 3 days ago”
Oh, and Chris H. ought to lay off of the wacky tobacky. “Chino, you would sell out anyone and anything to achieve your endgame”? Sheesh.
Hey Kaimi,
Thanks for following our tweets, but you’ve apparently landed on the wrong thread.
It happens.
Here’s where that particular tweet (that you mention) actually leads:
http://mainstreetplaza.com/2010/12/01/open-thread-faithful-mormons/
Enjoy!
I’m aware of that, Chino. 🙂
I’m just saying that it strikes me as a little odd to invite Mormons to drop on by for a chat, and then in a comment on the _very next posted thread_, all of three days later, to complain that there are too many damn Mormons around the place.
That’s all. Otherwise, carry on.
This post isn’t any louder or any more public than the initial discussion on BCC. In terms of publicity, we are continuing at the same level. Only the venue has changed.
BCC chose to ban me during a discussion about an essay that bears Ronan’s name. Therefore, there is, unfortunately, no way to describe the events without mentioning him.
At no point did I say that Ronan banned me. The fact that he finds himself in this position is the fault of the people who banned me. Personally, I would not allow my peers to put me into this situation and whoever did that to Ronan treated him inconsiderately and ought to apologize to him.
I also did not “slag off” Ronan. I did ridicule the editors of BCC for their self-defeating foolish abuse of power.
I don’t know who deserves the blame. My feeling is that the responsible thing to do is to dissociate oneself from abusive and foolish behavior and some of them have done so, however tepidly.
With respect to your condescending remarks about Kant, you are not doing yourself a favor. Dismissing him so arrogantly, you are only hurting yourself when you are displaying a staggering amount of arrogance and ignorance.
I suspect that you are actually smarter than that. You are probably too angry to approach this matter rationally and civilly.
Mormonism is worth an epic battle or another but figuring out what Kant meant when he used the term phenomenon is not one of them. It is actually a fairly simple matter with little ambiguity where well meaning people can achieve agreement in a matter of minutes.
I do regret that I did not find a kinder way to explain the matter. I just did not consider the matter consequential beyond the narrow matter of a book review. It does not even have much mileage regarding Mormonism.
To the best of my knowledge, this would be the first time that close reading and careful reasoning are a moral failing. People call me to task for spectacular mistakes in Internet discussions at least once a quarter. Yes, it’s embarrassing but that’s not the fault of my critiques. It’s my fault if I advance bad arguments.
It’s also my benefit when people catch me, call me out, and correct me. They are providing a service to me that is well worth the embarrassment for which only I am to blame.
O yeah, I totally agree. That’s why I did not argue that it was a personal failure, just a technical mistake that can be easily remedied, especially, when you can benefit from open and relevant discussion with your peers.
Actually, Chris H’s comment raises interesting philosophical questions, doesn’t it?
Assuming that it’s true that Chino would sell out “anyone and anything” to achieve his endgame — err, isn’t the category of “anyone and anything” sufficiently broad so as to include “Chino’s endgame”? And if that’s the case, would Chino sell out his endgame in order to achieve his endgame?
This goes with the old chestnut, “could God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?”
“Oh, and Chris H. ought to lay off of the wacky tobacky.”
Oh, and Kaimi W. should go to hell.
“Ronan, on the other hand, has always struck me as a decent fellow.”
On this, Chino and I agree. I am sure Ronan would be wise to distance himself from our endorsements.
Which explains why he’s here pissing everyone else off. Fucking genius.
It’s been fun, man. You own the URL and I’m not interested in spending time coddling basket cases (referring to Ardis and Chris H. in this instance).
For what it’s worth, you’d already won the Kantian argument well before BCC linked to MSP. The link was just icing on the apology.
And as far as my involvement is concerned, it ends when I can’t get a single co-blogger to back me up against this kind of bullshit:
“Chino, you would sell out anyone and anything to achieve your endgame.
I’ve supported every exmo project on the planet during the past two years with my time and/or money. I’ll keep on directing funds where I think they’ll do the most good, but as far as time, I have none left for MSP.
Rock on.
I don’t really have any comment concerning what’s going on between Hellmut and Ronan at BCC, nor have I paid careful attention to this thread.
Re: the “dogpile” on Ardis at my blog, I explained several times in that thread why I had started the thread (here, for example), and my explanations were never challenged by any of the people who complained about a “dogpile” or expressed discontentment with my decision to start the thread. The vibe I got from people was, “Okay, your reasons for starting this thread are valid, but I wish you hadn’t because . . . because . . . well, because Ardis is my buddy, darn it.”
When I started that thread, I couldn’t have known that it would get the reaction that it did. ClobberBlog only has a couple dozen subscribers and averages a whopping 229 hits a day. Part of the reason for the unusual interest that it got was the fact that it was linked in the sideblog at T&S—and I admit to not objecting when that happened. But it wasn’t something I anticipated when it all started. As far as I could tell at the time, the permas at T&S didn’t give a damn about what had gone down in that thread. (Several of them contacted me later to say they were sorry they hadn’t noticed what was happening on that thread and would have spoken up if they had.)
Now, I have always erred on the side of free speech in moderating my blog. I vehemently dislike closing threads, removing posts, deleting comments, editing comments, and banning people. In spite of that, I still deleted a comment (and one of Chris H.’s responding to that comment), asked people to avoid personal attacks on Ardis, and eventually closed the thread altogether after giving Ardis the chance to have the last word. Given my reasons for starting the thread and my feelings about censorship in comment moderation, I’m not sure what I could have done better, though I’m certainly open to constructive suggestions.
I have nothing to say about the exchange between Ardis & myself at T&S several weeks ago or the post she put up at her blog as a response; I think we’ve all said our peace and I consider the matter closed.
Chris H. is someone I’ve always respected, even when I don’t agree with him, and I believe he has his reasons for doing what he does.
Chino: What?? Who isn’t supporting you? That comment was so absurd and OTT, I didn’t think it justified a response. Honestly. Is this a hill you want to die on? We all love you, of course. This thread has gone right off the rails…? I think there are loads of hurt feelings and offense all over the place, it sucks. I like a Happy Christmas, I am all in the mood and loved up for the Yuletide. Join me for a warm feeling of love for all humankind… 🙂
I don’t know where the Ardis dogpile was (I miss all the interesting stuff), but I have to say, apropos of not very much, that I made an EXTREMELY similar argument and statement (as she has made in her Ms Jack-reaction post) when I was in grad school at Teh Why. And I got kudos and positive feedback and accolades for days (mostly from men, as she is). That was many years ago…
Anyhow, I can see what she’s saying, but she’s building a case for angels on heads of pins IMO. I do find it sad to see so much energy and intellect invested in shoring up loads of total. shite.
Jason,
Do not let me get to you. Even Kaimi, somebody I have met and like, thinks I am off my rocker. Maybe you are on to something.
Chino, you are the best. I am sorry that I let you down.
If Chris was serious about Chino and the agenda that would have been harsh. I assumed that it was supposed to be a joke, which is why I did not jump in but responded with what was supposed to be a joke.
I am an overly serious person and I often do not get banter, especially when I cannot observe body language.
Ms. Jack, it’s a pleasure to see you, as always. I just read your post and was appalled by how you have been treated and encouraged by the support that you have received from so many quarters. If I could have, I would have left a supportive post on your blog.
Chris: At the risk of melodrama, to quote Watchmen/Rorschach:
It’s been interesting, but I need to move on. I’m on the board of supervisors for Democrats Abroad in my country and it scares me when I get emails from HQ informing me that Merrill Oates racked up the best expat voting numbers for any country (Hungary) on the entire fucking planet.
There was a July 4th years ago when Merrill and I were the only two kids protesting Geneva Steel on the street outside the BYU stadium. Merrill has obviously continued to make an impact as an expat. What have I been doing? Arguing with people who think I’m evil? Gah. I’m done with that. I’ve got a DNC delegation to meet for lunch Monday and I’m going to move on from there. Best of luck to you and yours. I leave Mormonism and the Bloggernacle in your capable hands. It’s all good, right? FML.
By all means, Chino. Do what’s best for you.
I am just shocked by my own behavior and hope that I can make it up to you sometimes.
Chino,
I’m not an admin or anything, but I think pretty much everyone around here backs you up on this. It’s probably more that nobody thought it necessary to object to something so self-evidently false and just plain dumb. I would be disappointed if you left MSP, especially if it’s over something that was either a stupid joke or an even stupider flame.
I’m trying to figure out what kind of person would mistake my comment for either a dismissal of Kant or a critique of some argument Hellmut has made. Then I found my answer: the same kind of person who would mistake the original post here for an above-the-fringe, strictly intellectual continuation (simply at a new venue, mind you) of a civil conversation about Kantian metaphysics and vocabulary. If you think your “mentioning” of Ronan in this post was nothing more than the execution of a technical necessity that flows from his having authored the blog thread from which your participation was so capriciously and unjustly and abusively and self-defeatingly moderated, perhaps misreading is your problem after all.
Put differently, I could give a f#*@ about which of you has a better grasp of the exam study terms from a sophomore course on the German Enlightenment. For that matter, I also never (at least for the purposes of this thread) claimed to be either a gentleman or an intellectual. As far as I’m concerned, you need only think of me as someone who deeply values Ronan’s friendship, and who considers you to be a spectacularly unselfconscious ass for treating him the way you have in the past couple days. That is all.
Is this bizarro week at MSP or something?
” I leave Mormonism and the Bloggernacle in your capable hands. Its all good, right? FML.”
FML is new for me. Now I know. I now also now the stupider might actually be a real word.
Funny thing is that the respectable folks in the bloggernacle seem to think that my tactics are not effective. If you storm off from commenting on the ‘nacle and doing your MSP thing, you will have proved them wrong…and me right. I do not mind.
That said, threatening to leave certain blogging circles during a tense post is common. I have done it twice. You will be back.
Brad, you might want to reread what you said about Kant:
You want to dish it out but you can’t take it. You want to call people on the carpet but you won’t take responsibility for your actions. Mote and beam, anyone?
Your behavior is displaying the classical hallmarks of a bully. I hope that you will present yourself in a better light when your anger will no longer suppress your reasoning skills. You will find that manners will help in this regard as well.
Chris, lets give Chino some space, please.
Saying Kant is too often invoked by people who don’t comprehend him qualifies as arrogantly dismissing him? Does that kind of interpretive rigor obtain in the logical universe that led you to conclude that you were disinvited from participation at BCC because Ronan and/or his cronies were intimidated by devastating light that your mastery of Kantian categories cast upon our pitifully transparent efforts to coral the great German thinker into some kind of half-assed effort at Mormon apologetics?
“Oh no, Hellmut’s about to expose our little charade. I can’t stop him. His knowledge of Kant is just. too. powerful. Quick, BAN HIM!!!”
In all seriousness, I’m not criticizing the validity of any of your arguments about Kantian metaphysics. I really couldn’t care less what you do or don’t understand about the topic. But next time I need a lesson in manners or in not letting anger interfere with the use of pure reason, I’ll be sure to look up the author of this post.
Ms. Jack, I agree that you’ve explained yourself already. I’m sorry that it got brought up again, and I’m doubly sorry to have implied that you need to add more about it here.
So, why were his comments (and other related comments) sent to circular file? In all honestly, it kind of did look like you guys were saying “Oh, no, Hellmut made us look stupid — shut him up!!” If that’s not the case, then this is a misunderstanding, and we can work it out calmly. I agree that the drama surrounding this minor incident has been pretty out-of-proportion.
Kaimi, I appreciate your wit, and I’m glad to see you here. I have to admit that I’m little disappointed to see you come by just participate in the drama thread, and not in our friendlier discussions.
Same to any others who have come by to gloat and revel in the drama of “bizarro week at MSP” — I’ll ask you nicely not to, thanks.
No, it doesn’t, Brad. But saying that Kant is the “most over-cited and under-comprehended thinker in the history of western metaphysics” is dismissing the relevance of his work and his ability to express himself clearly.
As for my arguments about Kant and Vardy, they were narrowly focused on the meaning of the words. Any larger challenge that you are reading into my words is an imaginative leap.
>So, why were his comments (and other related comments) sent to circular file? In all honestly, it kind of did look like you guys were saying Oh, no, Hellmut made us look stupid shut him up!!
That’s a good question and deserves an answer.
None of Hellmut’s comments were deleted, so if he made us (=me) look stupid, BCC has let that stand for all eternity, or at least until al-Qaeda sets off their EMP. After an initial rash and rude response, for which I subsequently apologised, I accepted Hellmut’s correction and made another effort at summarising Vardy. I think, if you are fair, that there is no evidence here for BCC censoring Hellmut’s intelligent explication of Kant. I also expressed my dismay to Hellmut at this post here at MSP — which I think to be unfair — but did so privately.
So why has he been banned? Those who hold the bannination stick at BCC would be best placed to answer that, but I can honestly say that this spat is not the foundational cause. I imagine that it has something to do with what is believed to be both Hellmut’s stance towards Mormonism and his efforts to promote the same online. I highly doubt whether any further correspondence on this matter will be entered into, however. Such is BCC’s fascism. I have opposed our banning habits in the past, towards Hellmut among others, but now find it’s not really worth my energy. BCC doesn’t like the DAMU — that’s about the sum of it really. You are free to dislike us too. But please, leave Kant out of it. As I think I have explained, this really has nothing to do with that ol’ Koenigsberger and suggestions that it does are silly.
Brad, I appreciate your concerns for Ronan. Let me try one more time to put your concerns to rest by decoding the text carefully. You complain:
I appreciate that. I wouldn’t want to see that happen to my friend either. Lets check if that actually happened.
If you look at my text, you will see that the first three paragraphs do not mention anyone’s name. Instead, I am using the personal pronoun, second person, “you.” I mention Ronan for the first and only time in paragraph four.
Let me suggest that burying Ronan’s name in the fourth paragraph deemphasizes his prominence in this affair. There’s more evidence in support of that claim.
When I invoke Ronan, I juxtapose his name with the pronoun “you.”
If Ronan is dangling the carrot in the front of you then the pronoun must apply to somebody other than Ronan.
This becomes even more clear here:
I say that I consider you friends, which is plural, the singular would be friend. I am not talking about an individual but a group. Assuming that Ronan does not yet use the royal we and given that he is an individual, that sentence does not apply to him as an individual.
I am speaking to whoever banned me and to the people who are associated with that decision, in other words, the editors and authors of BCC. According to the rules of grammar, that affects Ronan only insofar as he is a member of that group.
If Ronan or anyone else wants to dissociate himself from the self-destructive foolishness, there are any number of ways to do that. BCC authors could speak out. They could leave BCC in protest or anything in between.
Let me point out, Brad, that is actually what I did when an individual on a message board ridiculed John F for weeks on end. The perpetrator was not even a member of my team but merely somebody I talked to.
After appealing to the offender several times privately, I left that forum with the statement that I could not be associated with people who insult my friends or human beings generally.
I am not saying that to brag but since you are repeatedly accusing me of hypocrisy, it would be nice if you could understand that I am actually trying to walk the talk.
The people who really humiliated Ronan are the individuals who interfered in his work by banning a friend who had annoyed them. I don’t allow my friends to treat me like you guys have treated Ronan. What you have done to him is worse than what you have done to me or anything that I have done. As Ronan’s friend, you should be ashamed of yourself and for your peers.
If you really want to defend him, you need to go to BCC and confront the people who are undermining the integrity of his work.
Thank you for your forthright response, Ronan, which I largely accept. Let me take exception to one point.
I am afraid there is. Because BCC banned me in the middle of a debate, I could no longer respond to other people’s replies.
As a humanist you must realize that context matters, in this particular case, in more than one way.
Let me sharpen that, Ronan. Actually, there is little evidence that I was banned for anything other than my role in the Kant debate.
I can understand that people are frustrated with me but I would be surprised to learn that I showed up at BCC more than five days in 2010.
As for the recent posts, there was my remark about fiscal disclosure and transparency. In 1984, you would have been allowed to say that in Pravda about the Soviet Union but you can’t say that on BCC? That’s just not plausible. You guys would have to have a thin skin indeed.
So the preponderance of the evidence is that somebody lost it over the Kant debate.
Hellmut,
This tendency to compare the comment policies of some tiny little Mormon blogs with 1984 or the Soviet Union is perhaps a little dramatic. Your clarification about Kant was duly noted and, once I’d cooled down, accepted. Hardly the actions of Pravda.
BCC tends to ban ardent DAMU-ites. Your reappearance on threads about “bad religion”, including a comment which quite innocently (not) took a swipe at LDS finances, simply put you back in the frame (or not, as it happens). But look, BCC vs. the DAMU is an argument we have had for years and I can’t be bothered with it this peaceful Sunday afternoon. Let’s leave it be and be happy in our own corners of the internet. BCC is a faithful Mormon blog; MSP has a banner image with Joseph Smith being visited by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just don’t think we can get along.
I’m guessing the Kant thing was just a proverbial straw, and I believe Ronan was not the instigator and was likely a defender. I think BCC would happily ban all known DAMU participants, they’ve certainly never been coy about that fact. It’s not personal, it’s who you associate with.
wry,
I’m not going to be dishonest. I was angry at what I perceived to be Hellmut’s condescending “corrections” and so had him mod-ed so I could craft my catty comment in peace. This was not very mature behaviour and I apologised, retracted, and revised. However, you are right: this then became the proverbial straw for the BCC powers-that-be to keep another ardent DAMU-ite off the blog. I can’t say that this policy makes me feel warm and fuzzy; however, I have come to realise that the bannination stick may be all that has kept BCC a relatively safe place for faithful Mormons to gather. It’s blunt and it hurts some people and I’m sorry about that. It may not be Kantian (!), but I think Bentham would understand, and I am, after all, an Englishman. Now please, there’s cricket to watch.
Ronan, it is very big of you to make this admission. As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed, unless anyone here would like to apologize for turning what might have been a simple misunderstanding into an unfortunate fight.
“As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed”
Which is not to say that the topic is banned or the comments closed. 😉
Thanks, Ronan. I don’t think there has been any misunderstanding at all.
On a different topic, notice, the Pravda comment was about the absurdity of the situation, not the identification of one medium and the other.
Wry, not at all. It’s just my personal opinion (as a semi-bystander) that all of the points in this he-said-he-said have been thoroughly covered, and no further clarification is needed (or helpful). If everybody wants to kiss and make up (and bring Chino back, dammit!!) I would be totally down with that. 😉
I apologize for only commenting on the drama thread, Chanson. I clicked over from Jason’s link on FB because with a comment like that, how can you not? But yes, I ought to participate more around here, you have some fine folks.
It is hard not to respond to my comments…though ignoring me appears not to be a difficult.
Hey there, Chris, how’s it going?
Well, thanks. I have enjoyed the thread.
Kaimi — Perfectly understandable. I look forward to seeing more of you around here! 😀
Chris — I’m glad you enjoyed the thread. I guarantee your contribution was not ignored or unnoticed.
chanson,
I was just poking at Kaimi.
Oh, OK. Sorry.
Wow, that was weird. I’m calm now, if slightly embarrassed that I let Henrichsen get under my skin. Sorry for the sideshow.
If it makes you feel better… Millennial Star has banned me as of today. Maybe you and Geoff B. can work together on the issue of dealing with me.
Love,
Christopher Todd Henrichsen
I can say thus far, that I have the dubious honor of having been banned about three times – but never anywhere important.
OK, that was really just a token comment to email subscribe to the thread. Carry on.
SANIMA, Seth.
Chino, I am glad that you are feeling better. It was a harsh thing and you had every right to feel hurt.
Really, Chris? Why did they ban you?
The conventional wisdom has it that the Internet is creating echo chambers of like minded people. Mormon blogs, however, have to beat other types of Mormons away with a stick.
Perhaps, it’s because we are all member missionaries.
I earned it. I more or less told Geoff B what I think of him. We have been through this before. My favorite part of getting moderated is that I can continue to make comments that only the permas will see. Uncensored in a different way.
SANIMA?
I feel bad because I’ve never been banned anywhere. I think I shall take up trolling for a few days so I can see what it feels like.
Smiling and Nodding In Mild Agreement, Seth. A mild form of LOL.
Hey, Wry! I didn’t troll anywhere. Substantive, rational, and polite contributions will do the trick. We are talking about Mormonism, after all, where people think that transparency for non-profit organizations ought to be a taboo.
It’s not too hard wry.
All you really have to do is persistently play devil’s advocate on a forum where exmormons are trying to have a “therapy session” and don’t welcome being contradicted. People who are trying to lick each other’s wounds often don’t appreciate the guy who comes in calling for people to be reasonable.
You’ll be banned eventually.
The only blog or Web site that I have been banned from in the past decade is . . . By Common Consent.
They removed the ban later the same day. Still, congratulations, BCC. You’re one of a kind.
I do think Ronan has a good point re: MSP and its “flying spaghetti monster” banner. I think we all know that I don’t believe in the First Vision or the historicity of the Book of Mormon any more than the ex-Mormons here do, but some of those headers are seriously lacking in class. If inviting friendly discussion from believing Mormons is one of your goals, that is the wrong way to go about it.
Seth — I don’t think it’s so much a Mormon/ex-Mormon thing. There are just some sites where people won’t tolerate being contradicted.
Jack — Good point. Even if we mean it as a joke, we shouldn’t necessarily be starting off on the “Hey, can’t you take a joke?!” foot if we want a reasonable discussion. I think most of the banner images are OK, but maybe we should think twice about the FSM one.
People who are trying to lick each others wounds often dont appreciate the guy who comes in calling for people to be reasonable.
I’m pretty sure that’s not why we sometimes fail to appreciate Seth R., or the role he plays.
Showing up and demanding that someone summarize a bunch of comments for you because there are just too many for you to read, for instance, or because you’d have to make a few extra mouse clicks, is not the behavior of the guy who comes in calling for people to be reasonable.
Out of curiosity, has Seth R ever been banned here? Can he really speak to what it takes to get one’s commenting privileges revoked, even temporarily, at MSP?
chanson, personally, the only ones that strike me as being in poor taste are FSM and the “no archaeological evidence” one. I think all the others are fine.
Holly, Seth wasn’t talking about MSP.
I know that my contribution has not been positive on this thread, but I think that Jack makes a good point about those two banners.
Hellmut, I would never call you a troll, you are far from it. I just figured, for me, it would be the fastest way to get banned. And really, I don’t want to invest all the years you have into building credibility, trust, rationality and friendships, only to get shut out all the sudden. Kinda sucks. 🙁
Ms. Jack — I’ve been thinking about your comment all the way home, and the funny thing is that I came up with a slightly different pair. I was going to say the FSM-first-vision and the baptism one. (Though I’d hate to give up the baptism one, because I think it’s hilarious!) But both of those are just randomly mocking moments that Mormons hold sacred, hence I could see how they could easily be interpreted as “In your face, Mormons!” — which isn’t the message we mean to send.
As far as the archaeological evidence is concerned, that’s not really a sacred point. Plenty of Mormons have sought the evidence, and most Internet Mormons are aware that the archaeological evidence is a big problem for the BoM (hence openly discuss other ways of having faith in the BoM). So on some level, it seems like it it’s not a big deal to joke about.
However, that’s just my one opinion. Anyone else out there have an opinion on this? Should we reconsider some of the more questionable banners? And, if so, which ones?
I hadn’t even seen the baptism one (I think I was always scrolled down at the wrong moment). Okay, that one is now #2 on my list.
I could weigh in further on why I disliked the archaeological evidence one, but in honesty, you should probably let your believing Mormon readers weigh in.
No, don’t get rid of any the banners. OK, they mock others’ beliefs. But they don’t say anything about the ontological or metaphysical ramifications of holding those beliefs. Not a one of them is as offensive as the insistence that you must hold certain beliefs to be acceptable to god.
the basic Mormon position that “Unless you think and act as we do, you will exist in spiritual darkness, and God will therefore deny you blessings in this life and the next,” denigrates the beliefs, choices and actions of everyone who isn’t Mormon. It is “questionable” in a way that the banners here never can be. So until TBM sites renounce that position entirely, I don’t think MSP should get rid of something that makes so many of its longtime participants smile.
Holly — That’s a valid point, and I want to be sure to emphasize the following: Our primary constituency here is the exmo community — not pandering to stray, offended believers.
That said:
True, yet I would rather hold MSP up to a higher standard. So the other guys are offensive — so what? That doesn’t mean we have to lower ourselves to that level or even close.
To me, this is just a simple little thing like ProfXM changing his name from “exmoron”. It was such an annoying distraction to have to debate it with the TBMs that came by that it was easier just to change it.
p.s. I deleted your comment where you mentioned a punctuation correction (after making the correction). I don’t think that deletion will automatically redirect your further comments to the moderation queue, but email me if it does, and I’ll fix it.
yet I would rather hold MSP up to a higher standard. So the other guys are offensive so what? That doesnt mean we have to lower ourselves to that level or even close.
That’s my point: We’re already at a much higher standard. Our basic position is: believe what you want. The universe won’t treat you any differently; you won’t be punished or rewarded for all eternity, so it’s entirely your choice. But here’s a funny drawing that explains how we see one of the fundamental myths we were taught during our stint as believing Mormons.
That is a higher standard. And I get tired of being told that our higher standard is actually a lower standard.
OK, the FSM one is probably kind of blasphemous, but I think that’s a good thing. I don’t like sacred cows. Anyway, if that’s too much for someone, I doubt that they’ll feel very comfortable here anyway. MSP is never going to be a warm fuzzy place for the more strait-laced kind of TBM.
OTOH, I think the archaeology one is clever and funny on both an ex-mo and mo level. (I.e., if those guys really existed, who knows but that they might have said something like that? 😉 )
The baptism one is probably no worse than the stuff Matsby does. Besides, it’s making fun of the picture, not of baptism. (Remember, a picture of Jesus isn’t Jesus.)
Holly — True, it already is a higher standard.
To me, a couple of them look like they might possibly be laughing at Mormons (not with them) and then saying “What? Can’t you take a joke?” And I hate it when people do that. But maybe I’m misinterpreting.
Kuri — That is an excellent point that it’s making fun of the picture — which is actually a pretty dang funny painting (that is not central to anyone’s faith).
I could just as well argue that the people at BCC are already living a higher standard because they don’t have banners making fun of ex-Mormons. Who cares if they ban a few of you just for the hell of it?
Anyways, this is a site for an intended audience other than me (story of my life) and I realize that my opinion only counts for so much, so do what you like. I just know that if an ex-Christian site had a banner of Raptor Jesus or LOLs photoshopped onto famous Protestant artwork, you wouldn’t get me to touch it with a ten-foot pole.
I could just as well argue that the people at BCC are already living a higher standard because they dont have banners making fun of ex-Mormons.
You could, but you’d be missing the basic fact that thinking that God approves of the way you believe and act more than he approves of others is inherently more contemptuous than simply thinking other people are silly.
this is one reason that proselytizing christianity will ultimately fail in its stated goal of creating compassion and love: because believing that you need to convert others to your way of thinking and acting in order for them to be saved is inimical to empathy, compassion and love. The problem of the LDS church’s involvement in fighting LGBT rights is a pretty clear example of that.
Well, I think banning people is worse.
However, Ms. Jack makes a good point about the futility of deciding whose action is “worse” as a way of choosing your own behavior.
Personally, it drives me nuts when Mormons say “It’s OK for us to do XYZ because our enemies are doing so much worse!” It’s not just that it’s false. It’s just that it should be irrelevant that the bad guys are worse. If it’s wrong to do XYZ, then don’t do it, period.
If some of our banners really are laughing at Mormons (not with them) and then expecting them to be good sports about it, then, for me, that’s a problem.
That said, I’m not sure you can directly compare “famous Protestant artwork” with Arnold Friberg. Seriously, even faithful Mormons find them funny. 😉
p.s. I want to spell this out: I’m not saying that all forms of christianity will fail in the goal of creating compassion–just the ones who feel they must proselytize so that others won’t be damned.
Holly, I guess the question is whether MSP wants to have any discussion with “active” or whatever we call them Mormons or if it is just a medium for mocking us. Some things create a similar echo chamber effect to the banning of other blogs. MSP can do what it wants, but the images and the claimed message does not match.
chanson and jack,
thanks for being classy. the issue of scope, audience, tone, and perceived conversation partners is a part of defining any form of media. i personally value those who seek to speak to broader audiences, who dialogue rather than just debate, and who establish conditions for mutual learning and critique. we all fall short of this, but to the extent that you two (and some others on this blog and beyond) share these values, I appreciate it.
Some things create a similar echo chamber effect to the banning of other blogs.
Bullshit. Saying “You absolutely cannot speak here” and enforcing it is not the same as saying, “We think this idea is silly, but you’re welcome to speak here any time you want.”
For the record, I don’t see anything wrong with the FSM banner. I’m with Kuri: mocking sacred cows (and sacred old white guys) is good for the soul.
Okay, Holly.
Im not saying that all forms of christianity will fail in the goal of creating compassionjust the ones who feel they must proselytize so that others wont be damned.
Proselytizing is at the heart of Christianity as set up in the New Testament. And in terms of Christianity, Mormons are on the liberal side of the “damnation” issue.
Proselytizing is at the heart of Christianity as set up in the New Testament.
Yep. And yet, some forms have managed to evolve beyond it–Quakers and the UU, for instance. they’re too busy attending to the even more basic christian ethos that you have to treat people well to worry about what others believe.
The question is whether that is compatilble with Christ’s ministry and the doctrines of Christianity elucidated by the Apostles as recorded in the New Testament.
In comparison to much of Protestant Christianity, Mormons are unique in valuing James, which refers to pure religion undefiled before God as caring for the poor, the widows, etc. (As compared to Luther who dismissed James as an “epistle of straw” and toyed with the idea of not including it in the cannon because it did not seem to support his preferred interpretation of other key New Testament writings.)
The work of the Quakers and the UU is wonderful in terms of the peace and fulfillment that those movements often give their adherents, and to the extent that both of those movements are involved with charity outreach in their communities.
That is a separate question from whether their approach can be directly derived from or linked to New Testament Christianity as contained in the presently accepted cannon.
The question is whether that is compatilble with Christs ministry and the doctrines of Christianity elucidated by the Apostles as recorded in the New Testament.
That’s the question for YOU. That’s not the question for most of the world. That right there is why your creed fails to engender empathy and compassion: because it’s more concerned with compatibility to perceived orthodoxy than with learning to love people as they are.
That is a separate question from whether their approach can be directly derived from or linked to New Testament Christianity as contained in the presently accepted cannon.
I know it’s a pretty easy error, but still, I always think it’s significant when christians write “cannon” for “canon”: because what they really have in mind is a weapon.
*wee pun
p.s. It just occurred to me, John F, that maybe you were simply demonstrating the sort of pharisaical approach to religion that Jesus most despised. If so, good job.
The two goals of helping people and alleviating human suffering, on the one hand, and preaching about salvation through accepting certain exclusive religious doctrines or tenets, on the other hand are neither contradictory nor mutually exclusive.
Christianity as established in the New Testament is a radically proselytizing movement and interestingly, the message that is to be proselytized is simultaneously (1) that there is a right way to think about and worship God and that way alone provides salvation, (2) that each individual must obey God’s commandments in leading a life of righteousness according to the behaviors defined therein, (3) that part of this life of righteousness is performing the works that Jesus and the Apostles described, including significantly feeding the hunger, caring for the poor and needy, assisting the sick and afflicted, disgorging riches to lead a disciple’s life, visiting and showing compassion for the incarcerated and downtrodden, etc. and (4) that this message (containing all points) must be aggressively proselytized.
To the extent that adherents of Christian churches, groups, denominations, etc. fall short of these, and they all do, then they are not following the religion prescribed in the canon to its full extent. But hundreds of millions of people in the world are working on it on a daily basis. This includes millions of Mormons.
I’m willing to talk to just about anyone civilly as long as they aren’t acting like angry head-cases.
That said, not every faithful Mormon out there operates that way. And as long as MSP seems to be coming from a standpoint of “bemused contempt” for the rest of the Mormon world, I doubt you’re going to get a lot of friendly attention from them. I doubt the fact that you are friendly or witty about it is going to count for much with them. That’s just the way it is.
Not telling you how to run things. I’ll participate regardless. But it is what it is.
And there are times when I don’t bother with a post here just because it seems like nothing more than an excuse to engage in group ridicule. Like that recent headline over the YouTube vid of the Mormon mom abusing her kid – like this was supposed to say something symptomatic of my faith or something. I had zero desire to even read that one beyond the post title, and I did think it was pretty low class.
But, you can’t have everything…
You could, but youd be missing the basic fact that thinking that God approves of the way you believe and act more than he approves of others is inherently more contemptuous than simply thinking other people are silly.
So, in other words, Holly is tolerant of everyone except those she deems intolerant.
Makes perfect sense.
(Is anyone else having flashes to the main plot of Caprica here?)
chanson ~ I just wanted to say that I realize that my last comment may have come off as sullen and ungrateful, which wasn’t my intention. I’m sorry about that. Moderation is a thankless job and I think you’re doing a good job of listening to all sides and trying to be fair.
For my own part, I agree that banning is worse. I was just pointing out how quickly self-justification turns to cyclical silliness.
If you guys want to have the banners in question, do it because you like the banners and believe they speak for the essence of what this site is about—which is kind of what a banner is supposed to do. Don’t do it because Mormons piss you off and those bigots are just getting what they deserve.
Unless, of course, that is what this site is about, in which case I don’t think you should even bother worrying about whether or not believing Mormons will ever feel welcome.
Seth brings up an interesting distinction.
There has been an implicit (in some cases explicit) comparison in many of the comments on this thread of BCC against MSP, with BCC apparently found to be wanting.
At BCC, the authors are engaging in introspective analysis, questioning, theorizing, debating and discussing about various aspects of Mormonism. Most of the authors are faithful Mormons, meaning that they are members of the Church who regularly attend their home wards, hold callings, confess to believing some or all of the religion’s truth claims etc. The discussion about aspects of the Church comes from this perspective and commenting that aims simply at tearing down faith or that sidetracks away from an intended focus of discussion are moderated by a few of the administrators to keep things running smoothly. From an objective point of view there really is nothing sinister about the approach that is taken.
At MSP, however, it has always seemed to me, that a main focus is actually ridiculing the Church, its leaders and the devoutly held religious beliefs/faith of its members. As such, it seems curious that the invitation is made for faithful Mormons to come here and participate in discussions. What purpose would that serve for believing Mormons? Even those interested in academic debate about aspects of the Church would not naturally be expected to welcome such ridicule and derision.
None of that implies that MSP shouldn’t be doing what it does. It’s a free country, thankfully, so MSP is welcome to do this. But it doesn’t seem like it should be surprising if most Mormons aren’t particularly interested in discussing these things in the manner that is done here, and that does not necessarily reflect a weakness or closed mindedness on Mormons’ part (although it might indeed for some or many Mormons but the fact of it in itself does not show anything about Mormons generally); rather, it just shows that Mormons, like all other people, do not intentionally choose to hang out with people who are ridiculing them (sometimes aggressively so).
“thinking that God approves of the way you believe and act more than he approves of others is inherently more contemptuous than simply thinking other people are silly.”
Completely disagree with that Holly.
I’d much rather be hated than held in contempt.
At least the person who hates me is taking me seriously.
Contempt is far more damaging.
John F., that is pretty rich, considering how sincerely you can see that we’re taking this question. I’m very, very tempted to make some unfavorable comparisons with various bloggernacle blogs, but I won’t. I’ll just ask you all to re-read my comment # 152.
Now I’ve just gotten done reading my sons a chapter of Harry Potter, and I’m going to bed. And I trust I won’t find anything unpleasant on my plate here when I wake up tomorrow. 😉
So, in other words, Holly is tolerant of everyone except those she deems intolerant.
I’m perfectly willing to tolerate your thinking that god doesn’t approve of me. I claim my right, however, to think that yours in the morally inferior position. I’m just not so arrogant as to claim that any supernatural being agrees with my opinion of you. I’m not even so arrogant as to think that your eternal happiness or salvation rests on coming to see the world as I do.
Id much rather be hated than held in contempt.
And what I’m saying is that Mormonism is one of the most contemptuous religions I’ve ever seen, so I don’t know why you’d want to practice a religion that conveys contempt to so many people.
Posting a notice in your home for all who enter to see announcing that armageddon will be caused by people engaging in sexual practices you disapprove of, for instance, is something most find pretty damn contemptuous.
p.s. I want to make it clear that one reason I am perfectly willing and able to tolerate devout believers thinking god disapproves of me is because I don’t give a damn. It doesn’t make any difference in my life, since I’m not out to proselytize them. I am just surprised from time to time that they can’t see how contemptuous their basic position is, that they’re actually able to convince themselves that the attitude expresses love, and that they have to resort to telling themselves that people reject their message because said rejecters are hard-hearted and/or evil.
“… I don’t give a damn.”
Really? You sound pretty pissy about it.
“I don’t give a damn” is pretty casual speech in the world I live in. Doesn’t convey much pissiness to the audience I’m used to and feel I’m addressing here.
Wow, what a mess. Turn away from the blogs for a few weeks and this is what happens.
The suggestion that BCC won’t tolerate people who are not believing LDS is wrong, and laugh-out-loud stupid besides, given that several current and former permas are non- and/or post-LDS. When MSP has some believing Mormons as perma-bloggers I might be inclined to listen to a self-righteous lecture about openness but until then, I think it is time for some piehole-shutting. The only thing more insufferable than a smug TBM is a smug DAMU-ite.
Here is a clue for the slow learners around here: You don’t get banned from BCC for being pro or anti LDS, or even for being right or wrong about some arcane point. You get banned at BCC for being an ass.
“You get banned at BCC for being an ass.”
Which in practice means “disagreeing with a perma.”
That is often true kuri. Ultimately we all have better things to do than engage in 300 comments with arrogant pricks with whom we share no common ground. But going back to the thread in question, there were several other commenters who disagreed vigorously but remain unbanned, so I think you are oversimplifying.
In this case, when Hellmut made an apology from Ronan a matter of personal honor (in blog comments!!! Srsly!!!) I think he crossed over into public assification. Lord knows I’ve done it, and been banned for it, too.
I’m not very interested in the thread in question, actually. That conflict has been resolved and I see no point in bringing it up again.
That BCC has some contributing never-mos and ex-mos is to its credit. I’m pretty sure, though, that MSP would welcome TBM contributors. The question, as several people have mentioned, is why they would (or should) want to contribute anything.
But I think your comment also illustrates what we’ve been saying about a big difference between BCC and MSP: how long would an outsider last at BCC if he came in and told you all to shut your pie-holes?
how long would an outsider last at BCC if he came in and told you all to shut your pie-holes?
No kidding.
Mark Brown clearly knows far more than anyone here about being an ass. I’m going to play chanson for a moment, since she went to bed, and tell MB to read MSP’s comment policy.
Holly ~ I claim my right, however, to think that yours in the morally inferior position. I’m just not so arrogant as to claim that any supernatural being agrees with my opinion of you.
So, you’re arrogant enough to claim that your position is morally superior to mine, but this is somehow a superior form of arrogant superiority because it isn’t attached to belief in deity?
Again, makes perfect sense.
I want to make it clear that one reason I am perfectly willing and able to tolerate devout believers thinking god disapproves of me is because I dont give a damn.
Likewise, I would like to make it clear that I am perfectly willing and able to tolerate Holly because I find the pretzel-like logic she uses to prop up her own worldview as morally superior psychologically fascinating.
Mark Brown ~ You get banned at BCC for being an ass.
Oh, come on, Mark. If that were true, Jettboy would have been off the party list years ago.
“Mark Brown clearly knows far more than anyone here about being an ass. Im going to play chanson for a moment, since she went to bed, and tell MB to read MSPs comment policy.”
The irony of this advice coming from Holly, not to mention the particular way it was delivered, is so thick that it is hard to tell if it was said seriously.
So, youre arrogant enough to claim that your position is morally superior to mine, but this is somehow a superior form of arrogant superiority because it isnt attached to belief in deity?
People tend to adopt positions they believe are superior–in fact, they adopt them because those opinions seem superior. So there’s nothing at all remarkable about that.
I’m not arrogant enough to claim that my position is morally superior to yours; I’m honest enough to admit that I hold my position because I think it’s morally superior–but also honest enough to see that my own assessment of my opinion is not, in and of itself, likely to persuade you to accept it, because you’re entitled to hold an opinion you also feel is morally superior–even if it contradicts mine.
Whereas the whole point of testimony bearing, for instance, is that people think that their assessment of their opinion–“I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that everything I believe is true“–will somehow convince someone else to accept that opinion as well. That’s what you do, you know: you bear testimony. Or witness. It’s supposed to work, because you’re sharing with others what you KNOW to God’s opinion of things too, and people need to see this. They need to change. It matters to them, to you, to god.
The second you add in a god who you claim will reward you for your opinions, and will also judge and punish people for failing to believe as you do, you’ve entered a realm of arrogance that’s all its own. You’ve created a god in your own image.
It’s pretty simple logic, Ms. Jack. No pretzels necessary. Or at least, far fewer pretzels than are necessary to believe all that stuff about how the torture and execution of one guy in Israel 2000 years ago somehow makes up for the sins the rest of us commit, or that a god who requires such horrid barbarity is in any way loving or just.
Whereas Holly, you merely skipped a step and left out the “image,” and just made yourself god of your own world – period.
Rather efficient of you.
I agree with Chris. You sound pretty pissy to me too.
And it’s not just because you used the word “damn.”
Holly ~ People tend to adopt positions they believe are superior–in fact, they adopt them because those opinions seem superior. So there’s nothing at all remarkable about that.
I completely agree. What is remarkable is your emotional need to isolate factors in my way of thinking—in this case, belief in deity—that will render my claims of being right morally inferior to yours. Considering that something like 90% of the human population believes in deity and most of those hold that their deity tells them they are right in some way or another, that’s a might large chunk of humanity you’re setting yourself up as superior to. Nope, no arrogance there.
Furthermore, in case you didn’t notice, you are the one who began challenging my beliefs and insisting that I must drop certain aspects of them in order to win your respect and tolerance. I did not approach you to talk about faith in Jesus Christ. What you’re doing is just another form of proselyting. At least when I evangelize, I have the integrity to admit that’s what I’m doing and don’t claim methodological superiority to others who proselyte their cause.
Or at least, far fewer pretzels than are necessary to believe all that stuff about how the torture and execution of one guy in Israel 2000 years ago somehow makes up for the sins the rest of us commit, or that a god who requires such horrid barbarity is in any way loving or just.
Oh, now stop that. I said you were psychologically fascinating, but plain ol’ bigotry against Christianity got old at least nineteen centuries ago. You can do better than that.
you are the one who began challenging my beliefs and insisting that I must drop certain aspects of them in order to win your respect and tolerance.
No, Ms.Jack–I didn’t ask you to give up a single thing. And the issue of my respect and tolerance wasn’t the issue. the issue was MSP banners. I wrote:
How is noting certain elements of TBM belief an insistence or even a request that YOU, Ms. Jack, drop certain aspects of your beliefs for any reason at all?
You yourself offered justification for keeping the banners that I endorse:
If you guys want to have the banners in question, do it because you like the banners and believe they speak for the essence of what this site is aboutwhich is kind of what a banner is supposed to do.
I like the banners. I think they say something important about this site, which is that the people who typically post and comment here are interested in finding humor in the beliefs they used to hold, not because it pisses others off, but because it helps us come to terms with those beliefs and why we abandoned them.
Nonetheless, you’re willing to be offended by them, even though they don’t say anything about YOU.
but plain ol bigotry against Christianity got old at least nineteen centuries ago.
OK, now you’re just funnin’. Pointing out that aspects of christianity are illogical is no more bigotry than is your claim that my logic is unsound is bigotry.
Or are you admitting to being a bigot?
Seth R: Holly, you merely skipped a step and left out the image, and just made yourself god of your own world period.
Ah, yes. THAT explains my new-found ability to travel through time and bend events to my will.
Boy am I glad I unsubbed from this thread! Carry on.
If our banners are driving away thoughtful commenters, I’d rather see that fixed than allowed to fester. For example, here’s a possible replacement for the googly first vision banner:
I hope we can all agree it’s a great look.
Holly ~ You acknowledged that the banners mock LDS beliefs. See here:
OK, [the banners] mock others beliefs
Then you said in defense of the banners:
the basic Mormon position that Unless you think and act as we do, you will exist in spiritual darkness, and God will therefore deny you blessings in this life and the next, denigrates the beliefs, choices and actions of everyone who isnt Mormon.
Which is a Mormon distinctive and, to a lesser extent, the distinctive of any exclusivistic religion. Finally you said:
So until TBM sites renounce that position entirely, I dont think MSP should get rid of [the banners that mock Mormon beliefs]
You are insisting that Mormons must give up something that is a part of their religion or else they are worthy of being mocked, i. e. not deserving of respect and tolerance.
So respect and tolerance—and the fact that those banners you defend are neither respectful nor tolerant—is, in fact, the issue.
You then went on to add that your opinion applies to anyone who appeals to God as their basis for morals and attempts to proselyte their beliefs on others, addressing me and my religion directly:
this is one reason that proselytizing christianity will ultimately fail in its stated goal of creating compassion and love: because believing that you need to convert others to your way of thinking and acting in order for them to be saved is inimical to empathy, compassion and love.
And:
Im perfectly willing to tolerate your thinking that god doesnt approve of me. I claim my right, however, to think that yours in the morally inferior position. Im just not so arrogant as to claim that any supernatural being agrees with my opinion of you. Im not even so arrogant as to think that your eternal happiness or salvation rests on coming to see the world as I do.
So yes, you did drag me and my personal beliefs into it.
However, given that your arguments up to this point have been abortions of logic, I don’t blame you for trying to backpedal now.
You yourself offered justification for keeping the banners that I endorse:
Yes, but that justification only came with the recommendation that the crew at MSP stop insisting that they want this to be an inclusive place where TBMs feel welcome. And if you agree that the people at MSP shouldn’t care if TBMs feel welcome here, then Ronan is right. MSP and BCC should just go their own way.
Nonetheless, youre willing to be offended by them, even though they dont say anything about YOU.
Incorrect. I am not personally offended by the banners. I simply think they are classless and in poor taste.
Pointing out that aspects of christianity are illogical . . .
It was your crude and uncharitable portrayal of what my religion teaches that was bigoted. I don’t think I’ve seen a lick of “logic” from you yet.
Or are you admitting to being a bigot?
Oh, I don’t know . . . why don’t you send an e-mail to my complaints manager and ask her about my bigotry problem?
Chino Blanco ~ here’s a possible replacement banner:
Now that is a banner I could endorse. 🙂
Thanks, Ms. Jack. As a further peace offering, I also worked up a banner for BCC, but they didn’t like it so much:
Actually, that graphic was originally designed for KSL and had the intended effect (they finally turned off comments over there after failing at moderating their site … this place is a picnic compared to the 24/7 hate-fest KSL used to sponsor).
they are worthy of being mocked, i. e. not deserving of respect and tolerance.
I do not think there is anything in the world–not god, not suffering, not politics, not motherhood, not apple pie–that is off-limits for mocking. I think that mocking and respect can co-exist. I think Jon Stewart displays that pretty well.
it’s true that I discussed a few of your beliefs, and acknowledged a reason why I find them morally inferior. That’s not to say that I asked you to change them, which is what you asserted earlier. Being clear on what I said is not backpedaling.
Just to make sure you know I’m not backpedaling: I think one of the most uncharitable, unkind, illogical, arrogant, classless, tasteless and awful beliefs a human being can hold is to believe that an all-powerful god will punish and/or condemn others for eternity failing to believe as you do, and reward those who believe as you do.
If you feel attacked by that statement, well, I guess it’s useful to know what your basic opinion of the rest of humanity is.
Ms. Jack–clicked on your “complaint manager” and noticed your email address. I had forgotten that you actually claim the moniker “bible thumping bigot.” It was so shocking to discover, as I did this summer, that you actually use the email address biblethumpingbigot@etc, not just for personal but professional correspondence.
I guess at least I don’t have to wonder any more if you admit that you’re a bigot. Nor do I have to wonder any more why you think it’s OK for you to be a bigot but not for others: your bigotry is endorsed by god.
That’s pretty much what I mean about how thinking god is on your side is morally inferior to not assuming any such thing.
Call that an abortion of logic all you want, but spare me the abortions of logic that make it OK for you to have an email address so classless and in poor taste, and condemn the banners here for the same fault.
After all, at least the banners don’t show up in people’s inboxes.
“I think that mocking and respect can co-exist.”
Respectfully, I mock this statement.
I’ve attached this disclaimer elsewhere, but since Seth R. has mentioned that YouTube clip again …
This same concern trolling logic could also be directed at the official “…and I’m a Mormon” ad campaign. The whole point of that campaign has been to showcase a bunch of positive personal characteristics that have zero to do with being Mormon. But then slap a big ol’ MORMON in the title of the clip and call it advertising. Does that bother you, too? Or only when I do it?
In other words, my intent was not to mock the LDS faith per se, but rather the “I’m a Mormon” ad campaign.
You know, I haven’t watched any of those “I’m a Mormon” ads yet.
You’re missing out. This one’s probably my favorite ad so far:
Sorry, Wry, I know that you would never call me a troll. I just wanted to make sure that readers wouldn’t think that this might apply to me.
I haven’t yet finished catching up with the comments but this is a great discussion because so many different view points are so competently represented by the debaters. It is impressive how forthrightly and directly people are able to present their points of view without talking past each other.
I am conflicted about the banners. I have always agreed with Ms. Jack that some of the banners were disrespectful and would probably drive faithful Mormons off. But after Proposition 8, which denied the humanity of our children and neighbors and where well meaning people spend their life’s savings to discriminate against my friends, these people needed to be shamed.
You can believe what you want and that deserves tolerance and respect. But when a religious group wants to legislate its beliefs in spite of all the evidence, then that religion needs to be knocked off its pedestal.
That is doubly true if the imposition of religion hurts people. No liberty authorizes an infringement on other people’s liberty.
Eventually, Mormons will be ashamed for our role in anti-gay discrimination just like most of us are ashamed of our racist past.
The sooner we come to terms with that, the better for everyone involved.
“But after Proposition 8, which denied the humanity of our children and neighbors and where well meaning people spend their life’s savings to discriminate against my friends, these people needed to be shamed.”
What…the…fuck? Mocking Joseph Smith and my scripture are justified by Prop. 8 … WHICH I OPPOSED.
Dude, BCC was on to something.
Obviously, Chris, I am not speaking about you and anyone else who opposed Prop. 8. I am talking about the people who felt that it was their divine duty to support Prop. 8 because they had to follow the prophet.
But you have a point, even though the share of believing Mormons who opposed Prop. 8 was small, it still consisted of thousands of people who deserve respect.
So I am conceding that my position does not work or if it does work, it imposes a price on people who are doing harder work than me.
I will have to think about that some more.
You are coming across as all over the place. I need to step back. Peace.
Whatthefuck? Mocking Joseph Smith and my scripture are justified by Prop. 8 WHICH I OPPOSED.
The church can’t be mocked for its Prop 8 actions because you disagreed with them? I have to WTF right back atcha. I mean, good on you for being one of the good guys, but so what? The church still did what it did.
I remember catching Monty Python at a midnight movie as a BYU student. Oddly enough, I don’t recall any outrage among the Mormons in attendance as The Pythons mocked, mocked, and mocked some more.
Wow, do Mormons really have such little respect for Christianity? Otherwise, they should’ve been picketing, not applauding, right?
Sheesh.
“He knows, as all the cleverest ones do, that no human being is so interesting that he can’t make himself more interesting still by acting retarded at random intervals.” Walter Kirn, 2009 X-Mormon of the Year
The Church does not give a crap about MSP, Hellmut, or Chino. The only ones being mocked are the stupid ones like me who come by this rathole. My fault.
I love BCC.
And BCC loves Matsby.
What’s your point?
To me, the most important argument of John F. is that proselytizing is a burden. That principle can become a linkage to the problems that Holly identifies.
If you tell people to live like yourself, you better have something better to offer.
When Dietrich Bonhoeffer taught Sunday school at Abyssinian Baptist Church, his students report that he did not lecture but listened.
Likewise, every organizer learns that an organizing conversation, for example with the goal for a worker to sign a pledge card, begins with listening to find out what the potential recruit needs.
Listening would improve the commitment pattern a lot. Instead, we skip listening and begin with establishing a relationship of trust. Because in Mormonism, we already know what people need and that’s all they are going to get.
It’s a system where good intentions are writ large but empathy plays only a minor role, just like correlation.
If we felt a burden to actually investigate who has what to offer to whom instead of simply assuming that we are superior, paradoxically, the missionary program might then be revitalized.
Oh please. Seriously, you’re being mocked? You personally?
And BCC never mocks other religions?
Wow.
OK, first of all, Kuri is right that MSP would be happy to welcome a TBM perma who is interested in furthering civil discussion. The thing is that we’ve had some difficulty attracting and keeping any kind of permas. For several years, MSP was a bit of a lonely backwater, and it’s only recently that had a big growth spurt, and apparently we’re having some growing pains.
I’m glad we’re having a dialog (sort of) with more of the ‘nacclers, but I’d just as soon it didn’t include so much flame-throwing.
If the FSM-first-vision banner is provoking fights, then let’s stop worrying about it and take it down (along with possibly the two Friburg lol-cats). They’re funny, but we’ve all seen them plenty of times and had our chuckle, so let’s just say they’ve run their course.
Good luck finding a TBM, or hell, a liberal Mormon who can tolerate Chino or Kuri. Kaimi sounds like he might be open.
Chino is back, this means I should exit. Good luck to you all.
Hey, in all seriousness, if my stepping away would result in a real TBM perma stepping up, I’d do it, Chris H.
At the same time, in all seriousness, BCC hosts images that are just as blasphemous as anything on MSP, so pls stop feigning outrage. Or have you not seen this?
But none of that matters now. I second chanson’s motion to pull the FSM and Friburg banners.
I am afraid that this statement is merely declaratory and therefore not particularly meaningful. If the problem is that somebody is mean spirited then you have been given a considerable rhetorical advantage that ought to be exploited in the debate.
Banning an opponent in that situation surrenders this advantage and is therefore not particularly smart, which brings us back to the topic of this thread.
I will admit that my corrections were not kind but figuring out how to read a text is not a particularly personal issue. If I had known that people would have been so sensitive, I might have been nicer about it. Perhaps, I overestimated your intellectual fortitude but even that would have been a compliment that people might be able to recognize in hindsight.
Intellectuals ought to be able to deal with rigorous criticism, which is a free gift, and assimilate counter-arguments insofar as they are valid and improve the quality of their own argument.
Thanks, Chino. I find that the rumors of your supposed dificultness to be greatly exaggerated.
As far as the rest of the flame war is concerned, I don’t think it would be useful for me to go back and comment on individual posts. However, I’d like to remind everyone of this part of our welcome:
I hope I can doubly count on the folks on the less-believing side of the aisle — who care about the community — to help keep this true. The last thing I want is to see us “making our opponents’ case” (so to speak). No matter what the believers come here and accuse us of, let’s try to keep our collective cool (me included), and steer the discussion in a rational, constructive direction.
I appreciate your self-critical conclusion, Mark.
I am not quite sure what you are referring to because I cannot figure out how your complaint can possibly fit the time line.
I am also not quite sure why you would complain about publicity, which is perhaps a function of my disorientation. Principally, public insults require public apologies.
It’s called commensurability, which is an essential aspect of honor.
Hellmut, let me summarize your point in #196:
“The LDS Church acted like a bunch of dicks, so that makes it okey-dokey for us to act like dicks too on an unrelated issue.”
Incidentally, I don’t think throwing Chino under the bus, or pulling your banner ads are going to automatically result in a TBM perma (heck even I wouldn’t sign on if I thought I was going to be referred to as “the TBM perma”). Desirous as a token TBM might be, I don’t think you should do these things for that reason.
No, you should pull the banners and throw Chino under the bus because it’s the right thing to do.
(I’m totally kidding, BTW… about the bus…)
Seth @213, As I said above, I don’t want to pick through all the details of the above thread, but this is exactly the attitude that I want to turn around. “The other guys did X (or worse)” is simply not a valid excuse. When you do that, you get a shouting match where the only difference between the two teams is the color of their shirts.
So, if you don’t like “TBM Perma”, what title would you like?
Seth,
As long as we’re summarizing, how’s about I summarize your #213 as equating making fun of a couple of cheesy pictures with depriving thousands of people of a fundamental human right? Sound fair?
Anyway, I don’t think making fun of religions is necessarily dickish. I think all ideas and institutions should be made fun of. The more seriously they take themselves, the more they should be made fun of. There’s no reason religions should get a free pass. Especially since a) they tend to take themselves very seriously and b) their ideas are a lot sillier than many.
Very true. I think the humor is one of the best parts of the exmo community (and non-believing community in general). I don’t want mocking religion to be off-limits here — quite the opposite. I’m just saying that the banner kind of sets the tone of the whole discussion, and a lot of our other banners fit the tone of MSP better than the handful that got complaints.
Personally, I would rather be a servant to this community rather than a dictator, which is why I opened Ronan and Jack’s question to public discussion rather than just emailing the other permas about it (which now I kind of regret). But a couple of banners are a small thing, and you can see how it makes it more difficult for me to answer angry Mormons who swing by.
I’ll settle for “the Dark Lord” or “he who must not be named” Chanson.
Sure Kuri – if anyone in California actually had lost a fundamental human right.
Which no one did.
Prop 8 was fundamentally unfair, but you guys are waaay over-dramatizing what it actually did.
But I imagine I’m going to get flamed for saying this – since the Prop 8 issue seems to be one of “those” issues that makes everyone inexplicably chuck their brains in the food processor.
This is an extremely complicated question that I doubt we’ll make any reasonable progress on if we try to discuss it on the tail-end of the thread of flame.
Dear Members,
Let’s give a hearty welcome to renowned culture warrior, the Most Rev. Timothy M. Dolan, who’s agreed to lead our ragtag rightwing cadre:
http://www.usccb.org/defenseofmarriage/shared-commitment.shtml
Sincerely,
Bishop H. David Burton
Presiding Bishop
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
P.S. The Archbishop promises to spend your tithing wisely.
Sorry for the tangent, but srsly, follow that link and notice that LDS Presiding Bishop Burton (who sits on the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes) has placed his name side-by-side that of Bishop Harry Jackson.
Here’s a little backgrounder on Bishop Harry Jackson courtesy of the SPLC.
The Mormon leadership continues to work together with groups that are not only anti-marriage equality but unequivocally anti-gay. And I suspect the rank and file haven’t a clue.
I just want you all to know that the God I believe in will one day thrust you all down to Hell. There you shall endure the purifying flames that will cleanse you of your sins. For some of you, the post-inferno outcome isn’t likely to be pretty, since you consist of nothing but sin. Perdition awaits, bitches. Read your Bruce R McConkie.
Cut it out, Kaimi.
My last comment here and then I’m determined to leave this thread for good:
Another By Common Consent blogger ponders why Mormons are leaving their church behind.
Seems like a brave post and maybe a chance to let folks finish an earlier discussion that was abruptly cut short.
Seth #213, I have already conceded that my argument about the banners is not sustainable. However, I did not advocate a tit-for-tat argument.
RatherRegardless, my argument fails because the ridicule also affects innocent people, most of whom who are bearing a greater burden than me in the civil rights struggle.For what it is worth, I neither designed nor approved the banners but I am responsible as a team member, of course, and for failing to recognize the injustice to Mormon supporters of gay rights.
I still agree with Holly that religiously motivated abuse requires rigorous and incisive criticism of religion. In light of what we know about the nature of sexuality, the position of the First Presidency and NOM is absurd, which is unfortunate because it puts their prestige on the line and requires that we investigate and criticize claims of inspiration.
Thanks for your support, Seth. If you put yourself into the place ofa gay Mormon teenager who loves the church and his family, who wants to be good and who wants to serve the Lord, it would be very difficult to over-dramatize the effects of Prop 8.
Those kids are devastated.
I give the First Presidency credit for trying to address that issue but, ultimately, their attitudes about sexuality remain poorly informed and continue to put those of our children who believe them into harm’s way. Faith should not be dangerous to children.
This could be easily remedied if the brethren had the humility to submit their opinions to logic and evidence in accordance with D&C 9 and acquired a more realistic view of sexuality.
I still agree with Holly that religiously motivated abuse requires rigorous and incisive criticism of religion.
I don’t think I’ve said that here, Hellmut, but it is indeed a position I hold.
Kuri@216: Anyway, I dont think making fun of religions is necessarily dickish. I think all ideas and institutions should be made fun of. The more seriously they take themselves, the more they should be made fun of. Theres no reason religions should get a free pass. Especially since a) they tend to take themselves very seriously and b) their ideas are a lot sillier than many.
I completely agree with this. I was involved with the Sugar Beet, a website of Mormon satire, back when it was active, around 2002-2003. I was the only person on the staff who wasn’t active, though at least one other writer still attended church though he had completely lost his faith (and is now active on ex-Mo sites) and another doesn’t have much faith to speak of, though he still goes to church…. And one somehow went from being an ultra-conservative, ultra-orthodox hard-liner to being a nudist who has nothing to do with the church. But several remain hard-core, faithful, testimony-having, temple-recommend-holding, celestial-kingdom-seeking Latter-day Saints. And I don’t think they’d have one single problem asserting or admitting that mocking and respect–or even veneration–can co-exist.
We mocked all sorts of things. There was an ad for a men’s cologne called “Patriarchy,” with a picture of a jowly, sweaty, fat old man in a suit and a tag line something like “because you love the smell of power” or some such thing. Somebody wrote a piece about Terry Tempest Williams having “erotic” experiences with deserts other than the ones in Utah.
You can find limited archives here. http://sugar-beet.blogspot.com/
One piece you won’t find archived is the one below one by me, because when it was published, a couple of people couldn’t see why I had such a problem with the church’s stance on gay people (“I’m not homophobic,” one guy said to me, “because I don’t actually fear homosexuals. I just don’t see why we should pretend that what they’re doing isn’t evil”) and others (including the guy who now runs around naked and writes about illicit sex) freaked out that I dared to mention the Proclamation on the Family in anything but a flattering light. But if ever an LDS document deserved ridicule, it’s that one.
Church Condemns Homophobia on National Coming Out Day
(Salt Lake City, UT) October 11 was “National Coming Out” day, a day on which gays and lesbians admit their sexual identity to themselves and others. In a show of support for the day, the Church issued a statement condemning homophobia. “Homophobia is un-Christlike,” a spokesperson for the Church said. “We can’t tolerate or condone violence against so-called gays and lesbians, even when they do something so heinous and disgusting as to insist that their perverse desires are actual parts of their eternal, god-given identities.”
The spokesperson went on to say, “Remember, these people are sons and daughters of God, and are welcome as members of the church, as long as they do not imagine that they have any right to find happiness and companionship in a relationship with someone of their same sex, as God finds that utterly repugnant. We must do all we can to help these unfortunate people see that they are violating their divine natures, as well as the divine decrees of God, by ever imagining that there is nothing grotesque, obscene and evil about same-sex relationships. And pistol-whipping them and leaving them to die by the side of the road doesn’t really help in that mission.”
The mention of pistol-whipping was a reference to Matthew Wayne Shepard, a 21-year-old openly gay student at the University of Wyoming. On the night of October 6,1998, Shepard was beaten, tied to a fence on a remote highway in Wyoming, and left to die by several young people, one of whom, Russell Henderson, was LDS. Shepard died of his injuries on October 12, 1998. Henderson did not deny that he kidnapped, robbed and beat Shepard, or that he pretended to be gay in order to lure Shepard into leaving with him; his defense was that he intended only to kidnap, rob and beat Shepard, not to kill him. Henderson eventually pleaded guilty to kidnapping and murder and was convicted. He received visits from home teachers up until the conviction.
Many members of the Church responded with support for the statement. “We shouldn’t kill those ‘so-called gays and lesbians,’ to use a phrase you hear at Church, even though it would do the world a lot of good to get rid of them once and for all,” said Marjorie Kimball, 34, of Walnut Creek, California. “Have you ever walked down Castro Street in San Francisco? It’s disgusting. But taking a gun and cleaning out the whole area really isn’t what God intends, since he can just wait until they all die of AIDS and then send them straight to hell.”
Mark Jefferson, 42, of Madison, Wisconsin, stated, “In a really liberal place like Madison, where you can end up being friends with people who are gay or lesbian and kind of grow to care about them before you even know certain things about them, it can be hard to keep in mind how wrong homosexuality really is. It’s a good thing we have the Proclamation on the Family up in our house, to remind me ‘that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.’ It’s kind of weird to realize that all the terrorist attacks and the impending war in Iraq are a result of efforts in Hawaii and California and Vermont to legalize gay marriage. But even though these people are bringing about Armageddon, we have to try to forgive them anyway and hope they go straight before it’s too late.”
Absolutely right. I would only add that parents, siblings, and those co-religionists who are close to the affected family can also be devastated or at least wounded. (I speak from personal experience here, as well as from attentive observation of the ‘bigger picture.’)
Hellmut ~ Chris H. and Seth have beat me to it. I would say that if you want to get back at the LDS church for its role in Prop 8, maybe banners mocking its role in Prop 8 would be the best way to do that, rather than mocking the general beliefs of Mormons?
Chino Blanco ~ That letter sort of reminds me of the Manhattan Declaration. Gotta love how, out of 28 signatures, only one of them is a woman. /eyeroll
FSM/First Vision and Friberg banners have been removed.
FWIW, I liked them, but I can see the rationale in letting them go.
profxm, Hellmut, chanson ~ Thanks for listening.
Thank you for contributing, Ms. Jack. It was an excellent discussion that makes all of us better.
I’m well aware that Prop 8 became the focal point of just about every resentment or injustice the gay community feels about society in general – whether they are related to each other, or related to Prop 8 or not. It’s a rallying cry issue.
And like most rallying-cries – it paints with far too broad a brush, and oversimplifies the issues.
The idea that your typical gay LDS teenager is more likely to be suicidal than any other gay teenager is not something I’ve ever seen actually backed up – only asserted. And the notion that such a teenager is likely to be more suicidal because of a boring political campaign several states away than he otherwise would have been is something I find unlikely.
Prop 8 is a focal point for a lot of unrelated resentments. And the issue has been blown out of proportion I think.
Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if half the online resentment out there over Prop 8 is more due to the high unemployment rate and uncertain national future, than anything the LDS Church did. People get angry and irrational when times are economically bad.
I agree with you that there is a better way to go about it, Ms. Jack. I have gone to great lengths to argue against the discrimination of gays using Mormon principles and values.
The problem is that Prop. 8 has little to go for it except for tradition and faith. There is no rational justification for excluding gays from marriage.
The proponents of discrimination have been dislodged from the field of reason and are entrenching behind tradition, definition, and their religion. That is unfortunate.
Unless we were willing to submit to discrimination, we have to hash out the religious arguments. Things would be a lot easier if believers and their leaders were taking seriously what the life and social sciences have to say about sexuality.
Then people could privately believe what they want and all of us could go about our lives unharmed.
OK. Things are getting a little too personal here. We have not posted one comment and I will delete another one.
I will talk to the authors off-line. Disagree with each other but, please, be civil.
John F., for example, does it very well. He asserts his opinion clearly and without hedges but sticks to the substance of the argument.
I’ll drop the Prop 8 issue Hellmut because I doubt it will go anywhere useful from this point, and it’s only tangentially related to the original post anyway. People can leave whatever responses they want, I won’t respond on the issue further.
Thanks, Seth. You are very gracious.
I was not talking about you. We talked to the people directly but wanted to let
peoplethe audience know why two posts vanished.Folks, earlier in this thread I saw some people commenting on how much they like MSP’s policy of not banning/censoring people. Well, I have done everything in my power to keep it that way, but this policy requires a good faith effort to keep things constructive in order not the have flame wars turning this into the scorched Earth blog.
I’m sorry. I posted a snitty/angry comment last night and then wandered off even though I knew there was a problem. Well, what the hell did I think was going to happen??! This is clearly on-the-job training for all of us, and I apologize for losing my cool and setting the wrong tone.
That said, there are plenty of people (not pointing fingers at anyone here) who would love to see MSP go up in flames. Absolutely love it. So I am going to repeat my request from earlier today:
People — especially those who care about this community — make a double effort to keep it civil!! If someone picks a fight with you, don’t rise to the bait, and for heaven’s sake don’t go out of your way to pick fights here!!! If you ignore this and go on flaming, then you are saying that you don’t care about this community, and you will have me to answer to.
I’m a perma and no one ever emails *me* about anything, nor do I get to wield the bossy mod stick. /gratuitously pouty
I’m guessing, however, that this is due to my self-awarded emeritus status…and lack of ever posting anything except non-value-add comments. Such as this one.
I like this thread though. And I’m glad Chino reconsidered. And I don’t want our humorous banners to get trashed just because believers won’t be amused by them. Personally, I think changing who you are to try and accommodate others is just a path to losing your identity entirely…and pleasing no one anyhow.
And I FULLY don’t care if we EVER have a believing perma here. Why would we need that? We don’t have to justify our existence by whether/how many believers dig MSP (or not). They regularly dismiss us all as DAMU trolls and anti-mormons and ban us for saying anything even remotely provocative. They don’t WANT to be friends with us or talk to us, and us bending over backward to try and change that is not ever going to work.
And finally, why is it that “believers” always get their eff-word on when they venture outside the ‘nacle? I am obviously not offended…merely amused, bemused, and confused.
What??? I emailed you hours ago for advice on the situation, and I’ve been waiting for your reply.
Technology foiled us! Chanson really did email me (ME!!!?) for advice, but her email never went through. It’s probably for the best, I’d likely recommend something that would be inflammatory. 😉
But srsly, I think this thread is great. The discussion has been awesome and interesting and occasionally blood-pressure-spiking. THAT IS GOOD BLOGGING, MY FRIENDS!!
Just a quick note that the Prudence comment was not me. I don’t comment under that handle.
I am glad to hear it, Kaimi.
Kaimi — Just a quick clarification: When Chino made comment #223, I assumed that it was obvious to everyone that he was joking (and that Prudence was not you — the comment was clearly not your style). I didn’t add a mod comment because I assumed you’d find the joke funny. If it had been directed at someone who I thought would take it badly, I would have said something.
My apologies if I misjudged the appropriateness of the joke. And thanks for clarifying, in case anyone had thought Chino’s remark was serious (based on IP addresses, etc.).
It’s totally my fault for not making it clear that I was kidding around in my 223 – sincere apologies, Kaimi. Sorry!