I dunno, maybe people just decided not to even broach the subject here. Maybe in deference to OSC.
But after the Tony Awards were handed out, it seemed like this isn't a topic that can really be ignored.
I should start by saying that I never liked South Park. I've heard funny things about it, but every time I've watched it I just felt uncomfortable, not entertained. Same goes for Team America. I didn't bother to watch all the way through. Both of these shows have strong followings, so I tended to assume that everyone praising The Book of Mormon is part of the same crowd.
But now I keep hearing really positive things about the play, and frankly, I haven't heard anything really negative. And I've got to assume that it's a topic that is being discussed among the LDS.
So with that, I open the topic. Does anyone here have anything to say?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
What happened at the Tony awards? I'm confused, maybe some links? I'm totally unappriased of popular culture and I imagine there are at least a couple of other people who aren't sure what's going on...
Hobbes Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't intent to see it, but that's mostly a function of my not living in New York. I imagine I'd see many more plays and musicals if I did.
I listened to some of the soundtrack on itunes and I laughed, but nothing has lead me to believe that it won't be an extremly dirty sacreligious romp in Mormon Missionary Land, with a feel good message tacked on the end along the lines of,
1: "Religion is good, so long as you keep it to yourself."
or
2: Religion has lots of truth, but no facts."
Those are my thoughts.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Hobbes: Book of Mormon won a truck load of awards at the Tonys, including Best Musical.
Pretty much expected.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I haven't seen it, but I'd love to. I've listened to the soundtrack a few times and it's really a lot of fun.
It's got a lot of really course language, so that obviously turns people off. Some of the characters (not Mormon ones) are blasphemous, though I wouldn't say the musical itself is blasphemous. I agree with what most of the critics are saying - it's a great show, with some raunchy lyrics, that ultimately paints a fairly endearing picture of its Mormon protagonists. That's just going off of the music though.
I definitely wouldn't put it in the same class as South Park or Team America. I appreciate both as base satire, but Mormon really is a traditional Broadway musical in most ways.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And I've got to assume that it's a topic that is being discussed among the LDS.
Not as much as you'd think.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
BB: The impression I got was not that there are no facts, but that the facts are sort of irrelevant.
The overall message as I understand it is that the motivation to do good that is brought about by belief is more important than the truth of those beliefs.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I certainly can't say you're wrong. I haven't seen it, nor read a synopsis of the plot outside of Mormon missionaries go to Africa, culture/religion clashes happen, it's funny.
edit: Oh and let me just say my experience mirrors what Porter is implying. I haven't heard any Mormons talking about it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
IME, books/movies/TV shows about religious groups written by outsiders get far less discussion by members of said group than by other outsiders.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I have heard people complain that it actually is far more disturbing in the portrayal of Africans, but I have not seen the play or heard the music.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Some of the characters (not Mormon ones) are blasphemous...
I would say that one of the Mormon characters is very blasphemous, but out of good intentions. Which may make it worse, from a certain perspective.
The overarching message of the musical is, as Glenn stated, that working to do good is good, even if your desire to do good is based on absolute poppycock. It's a fairly solid musical, even if -- as you might expect from something written by the South Park guys -- it goes for the cheap laugh too often, and some of the song parodies are quite well done. It also treats the LDS church fairly gently, once you get past the hurdle that it basically posits that, yeah, pretty much all Mormon doctrine is absurdly silly. (If you don't believe that sacred things can also be laughable, this is not the musical for you.)
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I saw this excerpt from the Tony Awards show. It was shared by my old Hatrack friend, AKA, who is LDS. She was very pleased with it, saying basically that, yes, the song does invite us to giggle at Elder Price's naivete but that she felt there was still power in such an unabashed statement of belief:
I think we kind of expect irreverence and Tourette levels of foul language from the South Park guys, but there is also (in this song at least) quite a bit of endearing sincerity.
So I shared the video on Facebook with the statement that I'd like to see the show (though my chances are slim to none of even being in NYC in the next... ever).
And then some of my other Mormon friends on Facebook shared this link:
Not written by a Mormon, it more or less compares the show to horrible racist caricatures of past eras in entertainment. So I felt really badly that maybe people were hurt by my interest in the show. I would never have caused them pain intentionally, of course, but...
Well, there are a lot of people I care about a great deal who believe things I find ridiculous, things I can't reconcile logically with what I know of their intelligence. I mean, I'm married to an extremely intelligent man who doesn't believe in God, global warming or taxing the super rich, and I love him with all that I am.
So, it's not a huge leap for me to simply not talk about the specifics of my friends' belief systems. Recently, I had to repeatedly tell a very well-meaning Catholic friend to respect my boundaries about the unnaturalness of some types of marital relations, but that was the first time anything of that sort has happened to me since I've lived in New Orleans. (I'm still not entirely comfortable around her.)
I just really don't want to be that guy. My impression is that some Mormons find sincerity and the truth shining through the play, for all that it is obviously satire, and some feel they're turning young LDS missionaries into Step'n'Fetchits or Shylocks (though, I think the case could easily be made that Shakespeare wrote Shylock rather sympathetically, for his time, but I digress).
I don't think there is an LDS "party line" on the show. I'd frankly be surprised if there was.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I think we kind of expect irreverence and Tourette levels of foul language from the South Park guys, but there is also (in this song at least) quite a bit of endearing sincerity.
I think the "but" in that sentence should be an "and". South Park has endured for 15 years precisely because of the endearing sincerity that is regularly in their show.
I'd be interested to see the play, but seems like it'll be sold out for years.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
The creators have said that this play is an "Athiest's love letter to religion". The play portrays Mormons in a positive light, but warns how organized religion can sometimes cause harm when it is used the wrong way. It also goes on to say that, if used correctly, religion can do wonderful things.
I agree with their overall message, because it is historically true. But I don't know if it was such a good idea for Athiests to make a play about religion like this. I can see how some might be offended by that.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Amanecer - You're right, of course. That is how they do it. They slather foul, offensive bravado around a soft, nougat-y center of sincerity. It works.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:it more or less compares the show to horrible racist caricatures of past eras in entertainment
Similar comparisons have come to my mind as well. I didn't see any value in speaking up, partly because I don't know enough to know if it's an appropriate comparison or not, but also because I didn't see any good coming out of me saying such a thing.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
This kind of stuff happens all the time when you get modern art commenting on religion.
San Antonio just had a bunch of protests of the musical "Corpus Christi".
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here is a review, written by someone "born and raised in Utah" (whom I assume is, or at least was at one point, Mormon).
quote:Ultimately it’s disappointing that Trey Parker and Matt Stone—two of the best satirists around—should have chosen such soft religious targets: missionaries from Utah. The finale to season 14 of South Park (the censured episode about the propriety of depicting Mohammed in a bear costume) was gutsier by far. By comparison, poking fun at clueless Mormon teenagers is a cop-out. It’s a waste of theatrical talent. (Andrew Rannells, who plays Elder Price, is particularly good.)
The play’s take-home message—that all religions and scriptures are preposterous yet potentially useful and uplifting—is hardly a revelation. To call The Book of Mormon a daring piece of religious satire is like calling Jesus Christ Superstar a great opera. With low-budget animation, South Park manages to do more with less. The 2003 episode about Joseph Smith (“All About Mormons”) is funnier, smarter, and spikier than The Book of Mormon—and you can watch it online for free.
This was posted on my Facebook feed by a (fairly liberal) LDS friend. Other than that, I have one other (fairly liberal) LDS friend who has said he wants to go see the show. And that's about it. I've heard more talk on NPR about the show than in church.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Looks funny, from the video Olivet shared it doesnt seem like they avoid just how crazy religion really sounds to an atheist but somehow came off polite enough to get by a theist audience member. I wouldnt mind watching a recorded performance.
quote: But I don't know if it was such a good idea for Athiests to make a play about religion like this
Well, if it were not an atheist making it then wouldnt it just turn into a recruitment piece? Theist's have been making thier own performances about thier own religions forever, and also been making performances about how the other ones are bad and wrong. Atheist's are an outside party, and unfortunatly for any sensitive believers every religion comes off as silly when you dont sugar coat it.
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
Don't be fooled by the "born and raised in Utah" bit.
It might impress non-Mormons, but it carries no water with other born-and-raised-in-Utah Mormons and quite frequently garners inner sneers (and sometimes even outward sneers) from Mormons who were not born and raised in Utah.
(full disclosure: DSH was born in UT but raised in Kansas... thankfully)
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
AchillesHeel - I have seen a lot of atheist-produced media about religion, and from what I've seen of it, this show seems about as kind as it gets. It reminds me a bit of Kevin Smith's Dogma, which I rather enjoyed but my Beloved found "too sincere." Since Kevin Smith is at least nominally Catholic, I'm not sure it's a fair comparison.
It does, at least, seem to celebrate the humanity of the individual while, yes, utterly mocking the perceived illogic of the belief system. So, it hits the sweet spot in which outsiders perceive it as fair (because it is nominally kind) and insiders are perfectly within their bounds to be offended while others acknowledge that it could have been worse.
I can't help but wonder whether they would have been that gentle with Catholics or Muslims. In choosing LDS, they did pick a religion which has done very little harm to the world by comparison (no long histories of torture and holy wars, etc.). I don't see a "love letter" to other religions seeming quite so loving, especially from atheists. (It is possible that, in only having heard the songs, I have missed some crucial bit of LDS bashing in the play itself.)
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
They havent been so polite with catholisism but I dont know if they have ever targeted islam before aside from mocking the whole Mohammad thing. As far as a religion that doesnt have a history book of wrong doings, they went after scientology pretty bad.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:As far as a religion that doesnt have a history book of wrong doings, they went after scientology pretty bad.
The Church of Scientology has actually done some pretty nasty stuff, but it's been in the form of mistreatment of individual members and harassment of critics. Not exactly the Crusades, but still a group I'd be afraid to criticize in any high-profile way.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I have to admit that the Church of Scientology is where my policy of respect for religious differences begins to break down. It's new enough that its origins as an open-eyed money/power-grab are pretty well documented. Yet, some individuals have used it as a means to self-actualization and I can appreciate that.
I suppose I tend to follow the idea that groups of people tend to be stupid and evil while individuals within those groups can still be brilliant and enlightened. That's an enormous oversimplification, but pretty much everything is.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:As far as a religion that doesnt have a history book of wrong doings, they went after scientology pretty bad.
The Church of Scientology has actually done some pretty nasty stuff, but it's been in the form of mistreatment of individual members and harassment of critics.
Everything else they do is pretty nasty and exploitative too. They're just pretty much every possible negative tendency and modus of religion, amped up to 11 like a cartoon super-villain.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Scientology isn't a religion. It forces people to pay money in order to rank up in the "church" so that they can learn more about the religon. No real religion does this. In fact, most religions might ask you to donate money, but most do not force you to.
Scientology, by definition, is a mix between two different things: a really sucessful science fiction club and a cult. Seriously, think about it.
1. You pay dues 2. There are aliens 3. It was started by a scifi writer
Here's where the cult aspects come in...
4. Psychology is evil 5. The "Disconnection policy", where members are told to cut off all ties with friends and family (this ultimately forces them to rely on the church for all social contact)
This has to be the only religion I've ever see in modern day society that I actually have a problem with. I don't mind Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Deists, Athiests, or even Satanists. But I can't stand Scientology.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No real religion does this.
This is only true if you define "religion" in a way that excludes the possibility. No true Scotsman would do this.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Even by that logic, Sam, it's still not something that any major religion does. I stand by what I said.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Scientology isn't a religion. It forces people to pay money in order to rank up in the "church" so that they can learn more about the religon. No real religion does this.
Some "real" religions require you to pay a tithe to remain in good standing with the church.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, trying to say that scientology isn't a "real" religion is pretty much flat-out pulling a no true scotsman on it.
Scientology is absolutely a religion.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Scientology isn't a religion. It forces people to pay money in order to rank up in the "church" so that they can learn more about the religon. No real religion does this.
Some "real" religions require you to pay a tithe to remain in good standing with the church.
Well since your response was extremely vague, I don't really know what to say except that I disagree. If you're talking about christianity, you never have to pay a tithe. It's encouraged, but there's no law in the religion that says you won't receive help or knowledge unless you pay money. There's also no rule that says you have to pay money in order to be a Christian (i.e. a member of the faith). Or a Jew. Or a Muslim. Or Deist. Or anything else that I know of. I know plenty of people who go to church and never put money into it.
Scientology is completely different.
And Sam, I'm sorry but I just don't agree.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Well since your response was extremely vague, I don't really know what to say except that I disagree.
Tithing is a condition for obtaining a temple recommend in the Mormon church. A temple recommend is required for access to the temple and the ordinances that can only be performed there. You can certainly attend Sunday services at the regular meeting houses without paying a tithe, but to "rank up" as you put it (be married for eternity, sealed to your children, etc.), you must go to the temple. A temple recommend is also required for holding many church offices.
[ June 19, 2011, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
They're making fun of Mormons. The New York crowd is lapping up mockery of Mormons.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I didn't realize that this play was out yet, I knew they were doing it at some point but it wasn't until this thread (and then one at Nauvoo) that I realized not only was it out, it was out long enough to win awards! Most people I hear talk about this play, or anything like it all basically take the: "the world is evil and will mock us but in doing so I bet more people will find and join the Church" approach. Which I'm not 100% disconnected from. My very limited exposure to South Park and limited knowledge of the creators makes me think they really liked their religion, even if they've gone in a different direction. I don't find the idea that the LDS Church is packed full of crazy beliefs but basically does things to be a message I'm happy to have spread but on the other hand I don't really care. And I agree with my fellow parishioners that this is more likely to increase conversions than it is to reduce them though I doubt it would impact the numbers much I feel like the Church is still obscure enough that it falls under the 'any publicity is good publicity' banner.
Hobbes Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: They're making fun of Mormons. The New York crowd is lapping up mockery of Mormons.
That is a oversimplification of both the play and the audiences response to it.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
1. You pay dues 2. There are aliens 3. It was started by a scifi writer
Except for the dues part you just described Hatrack River.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
1. You pay dues 2. There are aliens 3. It was started by a scifi writer
Except for the dues part you just described Hatrack River.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Heh. True. There was a time when George Lucas, for example, could have started his own religion and people would have joined it like mad. It's quite possible that most religions/religious sects started as cults of personality, though with the older, more established religions to say so is speculation. With Scientology, it's recent enough for us to be able to connect the dots. Yet, despite the willingness of people to point out the man behind the curtain, it doesn't seem to impact some people's adherence to faith.
I'm not sure whether that is scariest or most awesome thing about religion in general. It may well be both at the same time.
By the way, I found another YouTube of the Tony Awards performance of "I Believe" that has the intro and stuff:
I can't get that frelling song out of my head. It's so darn catchy. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: And Sam, I'm sorry but I just don't agree.
There's nothing to it. There's no compelling reason why Scientology can't be classified as a system of religious belief, even if one is of the personal belief that you can make a compelling argument that it was founded by delusion or intentional deception, or that it holds an 'invalidating' level of interest in political aspirations, business ventures, cultural productions, pseudo-medical practices, pseudo-psychiatric claims, or any other criteria. Scientology could just move outright into, say, forceful military acquisition of land, and this doesn't move it out of the field of things that religions have done throughout history.
It's the same for other religions. You could even use Mormonism as an example. Someone could say that the shady and questionable origins of the religion, or Mormonism's economic practices, show that it's really not a 'real' religion, but it's based on the same scotsman criteria. They're all religions, full stop. You would have to show a defining trait of Scientology which is not just incomparable, but incompatible with what we define as religions.
Note that I also think that Scientology was likely born of a cult scam, and that it's all hilariously bonkers, and that the organization is evil and dangerous.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Heh. True. There was a time when George Lucas, for example, could have started his own religion and people would have joined it like mad.
I'm not terribly sure I believe you.
I mean, it's not like any of Lucas' creations are at all similar to a religion...
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Hee! I know that Jedi Knight is an actual religion (though I'm not sure how seriously its adherents take it), but George Lucas foreswore becoming a prophet of the Force back in the late 70's when people were already quite close to worshiping him. He was reputedly aware of the opportunity. I'm just sayin' Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
From a pure arts standpoint, I found the humor kinda superficial, the same way most cartoons on the Cartoon Network come across to me. Maybe seeing the musical itself would tie it all together more?
As far as its content, it is set solidly within the strange religion that many outside the church have created to represent Mormonism.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The humor is about 90% superficial, yeah. It's the great weakness of their writing, from my POV, but it's also what makes South Park accessible rather than a niche product.
quote:As far as its content, it is set solidly within the strange religion that many outside the church have created to represent Mormonism.
Hm. I would say that this is more than a little unfair, actually; its portrayal of Mormonism is pretty fair from both a doctrinal and attitudinal standpoint, although obviously amped up for purposes of parody. (It is weakest from a procedural standpoint, since the writers clearly didn't care too much about getting the details of life in the MTC right.) Think of it as an Impressionist painting of the LDS church from the standpoint of someone with Mormon friends and you won't be far off.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Which is exactly what I mean--it's a representation of the real thing that is gaining its own life as more and more media attempts to serve up the church for the consumption of the masses. A strange religion that consists of some funky fringe doctrine whose members are batty but likable. It really is turning into its own entity and keeps getting added on to. This musical is the latest installment.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
**Language Warning: Mild**
quote:Reason: In the episode “All About Mormons,” a Mormon family moves to South Park, and one of the boys finds out that they’re pretty nice. Then they have a fight, and at the end the Mormon boy teaches him a moral lesson: “Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life and a great family and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice, and helping people, and even though people in this town might think that’s stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, Stan, but you’re so high and mighty you couldn’t look past my religion and just be my friend back. You’ve got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls.”
You’re known for lampooning religion. That clip suggests you see a lot of value in it as well. How does that balance for you?
Parker: I’ve been fascinated with the Mormons for a long time. They are the nicest people in the world. If a religion’s going to take over the world, and the one that really believes “just be super nice to everyone” takes over, that’s all right with me. Even if it’s all bullshit, that’s OK.
Reason: How were each of you raised religiously?
Stone: I was raised agnostic. There was no religion in my house.
Parker: I was pretty much the same. My father tried to raise me Buddhist, as in Alan Watts Buddhism, which is Buddhism in a way.
Reason: I have Mormon friends who are convinced you guys were raised Mormon, because of some of the references in the show.
Parker: Well, we grew up in Colorado. Colorado’s right next to Utah—you know, Mormon Central. My first girlfriend was Mormon, and I went to experience family home evening at her house for the first time. “What are you all doing?” “We’re sitting, and we’re singing songs and playing games together.” I was like, “Boy, that’s ****ed up. Families are not supposed to be doing that.”
Reason: There are also a lot of Jewish references. There’s a whole episode about going to Jewish camp, where they do silly craft projects. Did you go to a Jewish camp?
Stone: No, no. I didn’t even know I was Jewish until I was 16.
Parker: I had to teach him the dreidel song.
Stone: I’m not a very good Jew.
I think we’ve always had religion in the show because it’s just funny. I mean, there’s just a lot of funny stuff. We’ve done stuff that’s really anti-religion in some ways. But it’s such an easy joke to go, “Look how stupid that is,” and then stop right there. Religion’s just much more fascinating than that to us. So from the very beginning, we always thought it was funny just to flip it on its ear and show how screwed up it is, but also how great it is. People couldn’t tell if we were kidding.
quote:A strange religion that consists of some funky fringe doctrine whose members are batty but likable.
Isn't this exactly what the LDS church is? Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Nope. We are not one of us likable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure (after the whole Prop 8 campaign) that the LDS Church is quite so benign. It may be good in a lot of ways, but it isn't harmless.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Let me just say how nice the church is just for the sheer support network it creates. I am currently the leader of a subsection of my ward, and am in charge of, among many other things, organizing groups to help out with moves, service projects, and whatever else comes up. We help and involve members and non-members alike on a very regular basis. I think our neighborhood is the better for it--just knowing each other and knowing we can call on others to lend a hand when needed. I know there are other churches and organizations that create similar support networks, but I can't help thinking that without the church organization and the call to stand ready to assist when needed, I would know very few of my neighbors and wouldn't be in a position to lend a hand on a few hours' notice.
We have some beliefs that some find strange, and we do send out fresh-faced young men as the face of the church, but we're a bit more than how we usually get portrayed--a list of fringe doctrines and a bunch of smiling people in suits.
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
"Batty" Tom?
All of us?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm a fan of South Park...they are funny and relevant in a way that Family Guy could never touch, that is to say, each episode has a moral. They like to push the limits, and thus, sometimes they are over the line. I loved Team America, and Orgasmo and Cannibal the Musical, even Baseketball had it's moments.
Trey and Matt do a good job of making sure that everyone gets their fair share of palm to face, and I honestly believe that they have a soft place in their hearts for the goodness of the Mormons.
quote:[addressing the damned] Hell Director: Hello, newcomers and welcome. Can everybody hear me? Hello? [taps microphone] Hell Director: Can everybody... ok. Um, I am the Hell Director. Uh, it looks like we have 8,615 of you newbies today. And for those of you who were little confused: uh, you are dead; and this is Hell. So abbandon all hope and yadda-yadda-yadda. Uh, we are now going to start the orientation PROcess which will last about... Protestant: Hey, wait a minute. I shouldn't be here, I was a totally strick and devout Protestant. I thought we went to heaven. Hell Director: Yes, well, I'm afraid you are wrong. Soldier: I was a practicing Jehovah's Witness. Hell Director: Uh, you picked the wrong religion as well. Man from Crowd: Well who was right? Who gets in to Heaven? Hell Director: I'm afraid it was the MORmons. Yes, the MORmons were the correct answer. The Damned: Awwww...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The musical is a minstrel show. *shrug* Nobody ever went broke making fun of people. I'm not surprised to find people delighted at the mockery. Minstrel shows were also very popular.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I've seen a minstrel show. Have you? Because I perceive several differences.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Considering your approval of the musical's mockery, your opinion on the matter is not significant.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Honestly, if Catholics were going to get their knickers all twisted about theatre poking fun at us, we wouldn't be able to walk.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
But how many of those were written and/or produced by people who were (nominally) Catholic? My guess is most or all. That makes a difference.
I'm of no particular opinion w.r.t. the Book of Mormon musical. But being made fun of, even in a gentle way, is different than making fun of yourself.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is so much of it that it is hard to say. Plenty of both, I am sure. Are you counting Catholics that have left the Church?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There is so much of it that it is hard to say. Plenty of both, I am sure. Are you counting Catholics that have left the Church?
I'm not sure what "left the church" means w.r.t. Catholics (or Mormons, for that matter). But I'd be interested in the reaction to something written by people who were never, in any way, part of the Catholic church. That would be analogous to Parker and Stone's various LDS-themed satires.
I think it would probably be unacceptable. Certainly I can't imagine a similar satire not being pretty roundly decried if the protagonists were gay or Jewish or Muslim (when written by people not affiliated with the group being mocked). I would attribute that to the relative recentness (in some cases ongoing) real persecution of those groups. I'm less sure for other groups (like Catholics) who have been the subject of persecution in the more remote past.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by DSH: "Batty" Tom?
All of us?
That would probably depend on the definition of 'batty'.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'd be interested in the reaction to something written by people who were never, in any way, part of the Catholic church.
Speaker for the Dead
Of course, it's not satire.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Paul Rudnick, a gay Jew, wrote Sister Act. And no one on the writing team of The Sound of Music had any affiliation with the Catholic church (although of course it's based on a book written by a former nun.)
--------
quote:Considering your approval of the musical's mockery, your opinion on the matter is not significant.
This seems to me to be an insupportable argument. If the question at hand is whether the musical's mockery is gentle or excessive, it would seem that excluding the opinions and supporting arguments of people who believe it is gentle would rather unfairly prejudice your conclusion. Don't you agree?
[ June 21, 2011, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Paul Rudnick, a gay Jew, wrote Sister Act. And no one on the writing team of The Sound of Music had any affiliation with the Catholic church (although of course it's based on a book written by a former nun.)
It was also significantly changed from his original script (so much so that he requested the credit be given psuedonomously). I would hazard that was done to tone down any satirical elements that might have potentially given offense. Certainly my impression of the show* is that it didn't actually portray the Catholic faith (and particularly Catholic doctrine) as anything like the endearing but nutty LDS faith portrayed by Parker and Stone.
*I haven't seen the movie or the follow-on musical. My opinion is based off synopses and vague recollection of marketing material.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I've talked to plenty of LDS people about this play, and have heard a wide range of opinions. One of the most common, and most puzzling, is the statement that "if this were done to any other religion, there would be protests." This is a statement being made by people who consider themselves the prime target of this play's discrimination. In a country with federally protected free speech, and widely available supplies of magic markers and cardboard, why do so many people sit around idly complaining about a lack of protests?
I could understand that statement if it were made as a point of pride. As in, "most other religions would protest a play like this. But our organization and its members are beyond being bothered by some people poking harmless fun at us." That's a statement I could get behind. But when I hear members talking about a lack of protests, it's more like, "This is an outrage! Why has no one formed a picket line on my behalf?"
This isn't a response to any specific post on this thread or in this forum. Just a general observation I've made.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:In a country with federally protected free speech, and widely available supplies of magic markers and cardboard, why do so many people sit around idly complaining about a lack of protests?
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Just watched the musical. A recording, not the live show.
I'm still trying to decide how I feel about it. Personally, I wasn't all that interested in the subject material or the fame of its creators, but a show with so many Tony wins makes me stand-up and take notice. Its connection to Avenue Q is actually the biggest reason I wanted to see the show.
As a musical, its entertaining. I'd say that about half of the songs are very solid and there were three or four standouts. There were a few slow spots with some awkward pacing. And one of the main characters is a Jack Black/Zach Galifanakis type which I found more annoying than entertaining. I would have preferred fewer songs and some more dialogue, but honestly, its not that kind of musical. Its cute and fun, with bouncy dance numbers and jokes that make pre-teen boys snicker.
As for its treatment of Mormons...I feel like there are worst things than being the "religion of nice guys." And the show really does focus on the missionary aspect of the Church as opposed to the rest of life of as a Mormon. In my area, Mormons are very much in the minority. I actually have quite a few Mormon coworkers but they NEVER talk about it, even in passing. So for me, the boys in the ties on the bicycles are the face of Mormonism. And honestly? I want to shake the higher-ups in the Church and ask them if there isn't a less weird, less creepy "the clones are descending" way of introducing people to their faith.
The evil NYC, atheist, liberal members of the audience will recognize that it isn't just Mormonism's "fringe beliefs" being used for a joke. There isn't a religion in the world that wouldn't be hilarious with a few word substitutions and the right comedic tone of voice. But for the more bitter, anti-faith members of the audience its a nice reminder that religion, even for all its crazy stories about blue people and zombie messiahs, can be useful as a tool for comforting people faced with the nonsense that is life.
I found the show's ending to be very sweet and insightful, which was very unexpected since I am very anti-missionary or conversion faiths.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: So for me, the boys in the ties on the bicycles are the face of Mormonism. And honestly? I want to shake the higher-ups in the Church and ask them if there isn't a less weird, less creepy "the clones are descending" way of introducing people to their faith.
The evil NYC, atheist, liberal members of the audience will recognize that it isn't just Mormonism's "fringe beliefs" being used for a joke. There isn't a religion in the world that wouldn't be hilarious with a few word substitutions and the right comedic tone of voice. But for the more bitter, anti-faith members of the audience its a nice reminder that religion, even for all its crazy stories about blue people and zombie messiahs, can be useful as a tool for comforting people faced with the nonsense that is life.
They do look like clones, I guess. Maybe even like Stepford Wives with their smiles and prepared message. However, having been one of them, I try to keep in mind the wide variety of backgrounds they are coming from and the dedication it takes to live the monk-like lifestyle they live for 2 years--as well as get along with another guy they are thrown together with and can't be out of eyesight of for days on end. To merely look presentable in the same white shirt, tie, and trousers they've been wearing every day for the last year. Trust me, if the missionaries do show up on your doorstep, you're seeing two young men who have overcome much of the natural inclinations of 19-year-old boys and have managed to cooperate enough with each other to actually get out of their apartment and start knocking on the doors of strangers to talk about their religion. That's a miracle in itself. It might still bug the crap out of you that they're there. But you've got to appreciate the sheer unlikeliness of their existence.
I'm glad the Book of Mormon show ended with a warm feeling for you. I've heard so many opinions on it as well, and haven't personally given it much credence. The few nuggets of truth buried in the songs haven't overcome the somewhat lifeless facsimile of the church I find in them. I'll give them another listen--one of my coworkers has them on iTunes--and try to get past that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: And honestly? I want to shake the higher-ups in the Church and ask them if there isn't a less weird, less creepy "the clones are descending" way of introducing people to their faith.
It's because they look and feel (yes I'm groping them) like walking anachronisms, as if they were trained dutifully via a program/system that hasn't changed notably since before my mom was born. Children of the mst3k shorts, maybe. Lovable little scamps.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
Disclaimer: I speak with the authority of somebody who has never watched or heard the musical, apart from some youtube uploads.
The more I hear about the musical, however, the more the "positives" seem to irk me. It seems rather condescending, and that the condescention is so approved and esteemed seems worrisome. Some elements of "I believe" were perterbing. I think it was the line "Mormons just believe." As though there's no rationale at all for believing what they believe. I kept reading into it what it would mean for a broader Christian lyric, where "Christians just believe."
Argue the validity of the statement considering the sheer number of Christians to which it may apply all you want, but not *all* Christians just believe. Some of us have actually read and/or thought about our religon. Some of us actually modified our religious views too, afterwards. Mormon, Christian, whichever, I think it's unfair to make such a sweeping statement about them. I realize it's satire, but I get the feeling (In my vast ignorance) that the message of the musical is "Yup, religion makes no sense, and they're all crazy, but aren't they nice and cute? They do good things sometimes." It's not the satire that bothers me, it's the sincerity of the condenscention.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I realize it's satire, but I get the feeling (In my vast ignorance) that the message of the musical is "Yup, religion makes no sense, and they're all crazy, but aren't they nice and cute? They do good things sometimes."
That is the message of the musical. It's actually quite explicit about advocating the value of belief in something, even if that belief is ultimately false.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's what it essentially boils down to! honestly, mormonism is really, really weird. If it encourages even mormons to look at their own religion from an outsider's perspective, ('ha ha, well, i mean, yeah, that does come off as totally bizzare, yeah? the magic underwear and all the rest of that?') without missing the fact that it doesn't turn you all into horrible evil cultists and that most of you are nice people who try to do good by the world, then all the better.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In fairness, I don't think it's making a comment specific to Mormonism; the LDS church is featured here because those fresh-faced boys in uniform are instantly recognizable, iconic, and easily stereotyped in a way that, say, nuns are, without having already been done to death in other media. But part of the point of the central plot is that pretty much all religions are built on a doctrine that, at the end of the day, is pure craziness; that's the whole target of the "Brigham Young came down from the Starship Enterprise" bit, after all: the idea that from the point of view of the living, the doctrine of a church is ultimately meaningless compared to the lifestyle it inspires in its members. (That said, it wouldn't've had any teeth if he'd used a religion whose doctrine was already familiar or believed by the majority, since making the point that "magic underwear" is not appreciably sillier than "virgin birth" is harder if your audience doesn't realize "virgin birth" is a silly doctrine.)
Note, by the way, that I am not saying that I necessarily agree with this POV. I'm just pointing out that it is a POV that the musical explicitly and passionately advocates. It is also worth noting that every person who suggests that atheists like Richard Dawkins are just too confrontational and offensive is actually advocating this POV.
[ June 22, 2011, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No, it's not making a comment specific to mormonism, but it uses them because, as you say, they're perfect material to work on for the theme.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It's not the satire that bothers me, it's the sincerity of the condenscention.
Well put.
quote:It's because they look and feel (yes I'm groping them) like walking anachronisms, as if they were trained dutifully via a program/system that hasn't changed notably since before my mom was born.
:nod: That's not far off.
I hope you don't mind if I steal that. Because I totally am.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The version of Mormonism presented in this work is definitely weird. That it backs up what the masses want to think about Mormonism is not surprising. If you think “magic underwear” when you think Mormonism, then this is the musical for you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:It's not the satire that bothers me, it's the sincerity of the condescension.
So you would be happier with insincere condescension?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It is also worth noting that every person who suggests that atheists like Richard Dawkins are just too confrontational and offensive is actually advocating this POV.
Certainly not. Some may be, but there are many reasons to object to confrontational atheism that have nothing to do with advocating this POV. Dawkins is preaching to the choir. If you are concerned about irrational behavior among the devoutly religious, confrontational atheism is counter productive.
When people feel that what they hold sacred is under attack, they become more recalcitrant in their views, retreating to the most conservative, fundamentalist positions. Confrontational atheism doesn't provoke introspection among the devout. Just the opposite. It provokes the worst kind of irrational violent fundamentalist fervor.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I meant sincerity in the fact that the condescension was not parody or satire. It was what was presented as truth, as a message to take away from the play, as something important.
There are many bits in the play where, judging by what I'm hearing (Again, let me emphasize how much second-hand knowledge there is for me), people walk away with thoughts like "It was all in good fun. Of course that's not what they really believe. South Park people were just being crazy." They acknowledge it's humor and not truth. I would likely laugh too, were it funny and well-written (I'm not saying the play is or isn't. There's no intentional implication there.)
The bits that bothered me did not further humor. Instead, they were the parts where the writers seemed to believe they had touched on a universal facet of life - That religons are ridiculous, but their people do good things, and are likable if you can divorce their actions from their beliefs. More audience members, I believe, walk away with this thinking about how the writers included an amelioration of their representation of faith; how they weren't vicious. How they, overall, seemed to like those crazies. They think about the message. This isn't parody, this is a presentation of an idea.
And it's an idea that goes against much I believe (Which wouldn't be a big deal ordinarily),with a presentation that actually bothers me. This is a "message" I wouldn't care about half so much in a play or musical that actually explored these issues. Instead, we're presented with a satire that presents an idea with a wink and the assumption that any idiot knows that it's true, without actually examining it. Perhaps the other bits are enough to make me enjoy the show and watch it. And it is a matter of personal preference; people holding beliefs that are more compatible with the ideas presented will, of course, not be as bothered, as will people who, regardless of their paradigm compatability, aren't as bothered by the presentation as I am. But, at the same time, I wonder how many people come into the play steeling themselves to not believe everything they hear, because the play is a parody, but leave believing the parody-free message unquestioningly.
In response to the actualy inquiry about insincere condescention, Insincere condescension for me, within this particular context, would have been a parody as well. Where the audience laughs at themselves for judging a religon they don't know that much about. Or laughs at how they're comparing a carnival-mirror representation of a tradition to their world views and how presumptuous that is.
I don't know if I'd care to see a show with it, but overall I think I'd find it preferable to sincere condescention as I've presented it.
<EFG>
[ June 22, 2011, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Emreecheek ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: The version of Mormonism presented in this work is definitely weird. That it backs up what the masses want to think about Mormonism is not surprising. If you think “magic underwear” when you think Mormonism, then this is the musical for you.
The version of Mormonism presented in this work is playing up the weirdness of Mormonism for satirical purposes. I don't think magic underwear when I think Mormonism, but the Mormon faith still has magic underwear.
I also think it's fine (and usually pretty useful) to acknowledge when something you do/believe in is extremely bizarre. I'm pretty forward about that on my end. I do some pretty weird stuff.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Emreecheek, thank you for your thoughtful reply.
quote:That religons are ridiculous, but their people do good things, and are likable if you can divorce their actions from their beliefs.
I'd have to disagree about one small mater in the above quote. I'm sure that you are very close to what they (and I) believe, except for one small but crucial detail. Here is how I would say it:
That religons are ridiculous, but their people can do good things, and can be likable, although some do terrible things and are terrible people no matter what their beliefs are, but Mormons are some of the nicest people in the world.
I personally believe that it is the search for truth that is the key, not actually having one set truth. There have been a lot of atrocities brought on by the idea that "you must believe as we do", and it can be quite dangerous, and in the end, pretty much every religion that I know of has very strange and particular truths they hold sacred. But not all religions generate so many kind and moral, family oriented people who are genuinely interested in helping their fellow man as does the LDS church.
For those of us who believe that all organized religion is bunk, we judge by outcome, not by doctrine. Part of what I have always gotten from Parker and Stone (and share personally) is the sense of appreciation of the fact that Mormons are good people.
Is it a backhanded compliment...yes, but a compliment none the less.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And a rather naive compliment.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How is it naive boots?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:For those of us who believe that all organized religion is bunk, we judge by outcome, not by doctrine.
This may be true for you, but it's hardly generalizable to all of us who think that organized religion is bunk.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Apologies Amanecer, I should only speak for myself.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: How is it naive boots?
While they may be "nicer" I don't think that the LDS church (is that right?) is necessarily any more innocuous or benign than most religions are.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not sure (after the whole Prop 8 campaign) that the LDS Church is quite so benign. It may be good in a lot of ways, but it isn't harmless.
The Catholic Church was as involved as the LDS Church in that. Catholics who want to talk about the negative impact of organized religion ought to think more than twice before pointing a finger at anyone else.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rabbit, when have I failed to acknowledge the sins of my own Church? Do you get the impression that I refrain from criticizing the Catholic Church?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: How is it naive boots?
While they may be "nicer" I don't think that the LDS church (is that right?) is necessarily any more innocuous or benign than most religions are.
That's the point I'm trying to illustrate. It isn't about the church itself, it's about the people, and in my (admittedly limited) experience with Mormons, they are just super nice people.
So, I don't think it is naive, as I wasn't saying what you thought I was.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I haven't found them to be kinder or better as individuals or as a group than people in general.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I have.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ok. Perhaps we have different definitions of kind and better and nice. Or you may have run into different Mormons than I have.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Entirely possible on both counts.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That religons are ridiculous, but their people can do good things, and can be likable, although some do terrible things and are terrible people no matter what their beliefs are...
Agreed. I almost added that caveat, but when I'm getting confused by my own commas, I figure it's time to take a break for a while. <Grin>
<ETA> That was a critique of my own comma-related eccentricities. That wasn't directed at you. You write well (I think. I haven't really paid attention. In any case, I always understand what you're saying, and don't have to read anything twice.) I'm rambling. In short, there's an implication there, but it wasn't intentional. There was only a face value meaning.
[ June 22, 2011, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Emreecheek ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: The version of Mormonism presented in this work is definitely weird. That it backs up what the masses want to think about Mormonism is not surprising. If you think “magic underwear” when you think Mormonism, then this is the musical for you.
The version of Mormonism presented in this work is playing up the weirdness of Mormonism for satirical purposes. I don't think magic underwear when I think Mormonism, but the Mormon faith still has magic underwear.
I also think it's fine (and usually pretty useful) to acknowledge when something you do/believe in is extremely bizarre. I'm pretty forward about that on my end. I do some pretty weird stuff.
Do you?
As a Mormon, I do some things that I guess atheists find fundamentally bizarre--like pray to God, sing hymns, go to church on Sunday, and believe in an afterlife. And many others.
I'm part of a religion that has bumps and protrusions that get encrusted with the bizarre notions of others. Magic underwear, for instance. Joe Smith's golden bible. Boys in suits. After enough satire accumulates, it starts looking really weird from the outside. When I look at it from that perspective, yeah, it's a weird church. (And even from inside the Christian world it's a weird church.) If that were the only context I had to think about the Mormons, I'd think they were pretty whacked out.
There are definitely some uncomfortable moments in the songs in this musical--"do we really do that?"--especially relating to vanilla-grade Utah Mormon and mission field culture. Some brilliant parody of Saturday's Warrior as well. Most of all, however, I found it pretty superficial. I actually thought the warm-hearted ending was a bit of a cop-out considering what Mormon missionaries actually teach is the end benefit of joining the church.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
No worries my friend, I understood you, and thank you for the compliment.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What I keep seeing pop up in this discussion are two separate thoughts...and both sides seems to talk past the other.
Apple: These are our sacred beliefs and shouldn't be made lightly of, nor should we all be lumped into a "crazy but nice" category.
Orange: All religious are crazy, but Mormons are awful nice people.
I don't have a solution...just pointing it out.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: ... As a Mormon, I do some things that I guess atheists find fundamentally bizarre--like pray to God, sing hymns, go to church on Sunday, and believe in an afterlife ...
Personally, as an atheist, I wouldn't really find those things fundamentally bizarre (at least not more so than more mainstream Christians). The things that make it more bizarre for me would be things like the account of ancient events taking place in the Americas (and another visit by Jesus), the posthumous baptism thing, that we are close enough (in time) to the founding of the religion to have a good idea of how things came about, etc.
This isn't to invite debate on whether these things are actually more bizarre than other religious practices, but just to explain what I find more fundamentally bizarre than a number of other religions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Can my side be cherry, please? I like cherries and I am not on either of those sides.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I give the floor to the delegate from the cherry party...
...tap tap...testing testing one two three...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: If that were the only context I had to think about the Mormons, I'd think they were pretty whacked out.
In addition, when you sit someone with no prior estimations or specific knowledge of mormonism down and describe for them what mormonism is, what its history is, and what mormons believe and how they're supposed to live, right down to the funny little details about how the garden of eden turns out to have been in jackson county, MO, you get the same thing. You could do the same for a lot of other frankly bizarre movements. Like the ultra-orthodox jews. Or the pentecostal glossolaliacs. Or La Iglesia de la Santa Muerte. Or Freezone. Or the Unification Church.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Surely not the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster though, right Samp?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Pastafarianism skips the whole inevitable parody thing by starting out as a parody, one designed from the start to illustrate the ridiculousness of intelligent design proposals by christians trying to wedge religious teachings back into schools.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: If that were the only context I had to think about the Mormons, I'd think they were pretty whacked out.
In addition, when you sit someone with no prior estimations or specific knowledge of mormonism down and describe for them what mormonism is, what its history is, and what mormons believe and how they're supposed to live, right down to the funny little details about how the garden of eden turns out to have been in jackson county, MO, you get the same thing. You could do the same for a lot of other frankly bizarre movements. Like the ultra-orthodox jews. Or the pentecostal glossolaliacs. Or La Iglesia de la Santa Muerte. Or Freezone. Or the Unification Church.
Depends on who's doing the explaining, obviously.
Given those conditions, I might be able to make Mormonism seem not so bizarre.
I must say I'm interested in what bizarreness you do, Samp. I do hope some of it is channeled into writing books. I'd love to read a book you write.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: ... As a Mormon, I do some things that I guess atheists find fundamentally bizarre--like pray to God, sing hymns, go to church on Sunday, and believe in an afterlife ...
Personally, as an atheist, I wouldn't really find those things fundamentally bizarre (at least not more so than more mainstream Christians). The things that make it more bizarre for me would be things like the account of ancient events taking place in the Americas (and another visit by Jesus), the posthumous baptism thing, that we are close enough (in time) to the founding of the religion to have a good idea of how things came about, etc.
This isn't to invite debate on whether these things are actually more bizarre than other religious practices, but just to explain what I find more fundamentally bizarre than a number of other religions.
That's interesting Mucus. I should think post-humous baptism would resonate with your understand of Chinese religion, where many times a year people burn money, and offer up food so as to take care of their ancestors. Not to mention the belief that a king or nobleman needed to have his wifes, servents, and other courtesans buried alive with him, so that he could retain their services. That last belief didn't completely die out until the Qing dynasty collapsed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yea, but that's a foreign religion BB, and everyone knows those are weird! Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: ... As a Mormon, I do some things that I guess atheists find fundamentally bizarre--like pray to God, sing hymns, go to church on Sunday, and believe in an afterlife ...
Personally, as an atheist, I wouldn't really find those things fundamentally bizarre (at least not more so than more mainstream Christians). The things that make it more bizarre for me would be things like the account of ancient events taking place in the Americas (and another visit by Jesus), the posthumous baptism thing, that we are close enough (in time) to the founding of the religion to have a good idea of how things came about, etc.
This isn't to invite debate on whether these things are actually more bizarre than other religious practices, but just to explain what I find more fundamentally bizarre than a number of other religions.
I gotta say I'm curious why that particular set of beliefs is stranger than those of mainstream Christianity for you. From an atheist's standpoint, doesn't the bizarre start with belief in Christ as a divine being? From that point on, I would think every other belief would be in one big bag of bizarre.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I should think post-humous baptism would resonate with your understand of Chinese religion, where many times a year people burn money, and offer up food so as to take care of their ancestors.
Short answer: However, those practices are considered to be bizarre and "mock"-worthy by fairly mainstream culture as reflected by, off the top of my head, a parody of the practice in a Stephen Chow film two decades ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihuMIpJ6vpA&t=12m25s
So if we were mocking a similar practice two decades ago, I think a current similar foreign practice should be fair game.
Long answer:
<snipped because I got tired>
The long answer would probably entail something about disagreeing that the former practice is a component of Chinese religion, but of Chinese superstition (in the non-derogatory sense). Also, how the superstitions and the fall of the Qing were not related. Also it would probably comment on how components of the movements that brought down the Qing (such as May 4th, the KMT, and writers such as Lu Xun) were explicitly criticizing such "feudal" superstitions a century ago. Also, the mechanism of hell money is more similar to general process of interacting with the dead who believed as you do, whether that involves leaving flowers, leaving out bread, or prayers. The mechanism of posthumous baptism involves interaction with dead who didn't believe as you do, which I find pushes "the boundary."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I gotta say I'm curious why that particular set of beliefs is stranger than those of mainstream Christianity for you.
Just speaking for myself, I don't think "magic underwear" and the pseudo-doctrinal belief that God has a wife are any weirder than, say, driving demons into pigs and pushing them off cliffs, the avatar of God zapping a tree for not fruiting properly, or sending a bear to maul some teenagers for making fun of a bald guy.
Religion is incredibly wacky. I don't think there's any way to dispute that.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: From an atheist's standpoint, doesn't the bizarre start with belief in Christ as a divine being? From that point on, I would think every other belief would be in one big bag of bizarre.
Well, so many religions have divine beings, it wouldn't really make sense (for me anyways) to classify so many religions as bizarre.
If you think of a scale of "bizarre" as "improbability" then you might get an idea of what I'm trying to communicate here. A creator in general is improbable to us. A creator with a son named Jesus is more improbable than a creator in general. As you layer on the specific claims about specific places and dates, such as the aforementioned specific location of the Garden of Eden or two visits by Jesus rather than one, the whole thing gets more and more improbable*.
* Normally, at this juncture in a canon, you would just reboot the whole thing ala "Star Trek 2009" or maybe introduce an "Ultimate" version of it, but I digress
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Normally, at this juncture in a canon, you would just reboot the whole thing ala "Star Trek 2009" or maybe introduce an "Ultimate" version of it, but I digress.
One might observe that this is pretty much what happens. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:* Normally, at this juncture in a canon, you would just reboot the whole thing ala "Star Trek 2009" or maybe introduce an "Ultimate" version of it, but I digress
ROFL
quote:Just speaking for myself, I don't think "magic underwear" and the pseudo-doctrinal belief that God has a wife are any weirder than, say, driving demons into pigs and pushing them off cliffs, the avatar of God zapping a tree for not fruiting properly, or sending a bear to maul some teenagers for making fun of a bald guy.
Religion is incredibly wacky. I don't think there's any way to dispute that.
Everything is wacky, depending on the context.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sure everything is wacky, but not everything is holy...so holy + wacky = satire.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: But with the burning of money, I don't think I've ever heard it said either yes or no that the money one burns only benefits ancestors who believe it would. I'm sure you agree that there were probably atheists and areligious folks in China who now have decendents offering food and money to them every holiday at the local miao.
As for it being "mock"worthy, Stephen Chow is from Hong Kong, as far as I can tell in places like Hong Kong and Taiwan, doing those things is still very much the norm. But I can see how doing post homous things for those we are not related to is a step removed from all that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Depends on who's doing the explaining, obviously.
Given those conditions, I might be able to make Mormonism seem not so bizarre.
I must say I'm interested in what bizarreness you do, Samp. I do hope some of it is channeled into writing books. I'd love to read a book you write.
Ha! Funny you should mention.
But at any rate the generally worst impression you get is from ex mormons who like to gather up with other ex mormons and talk about growing up mormon and talk and talk about how it is an evil controlling cult and blah blah blaaaaaaah
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Ha! Funny you should mention.
NICE. Details?
quote:Sure everything is wacky, but not everything is holy...so holy + wacky = satire.
Holding something holy that someone might find wacky is just asking for it.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:But for the more bitter, anti-faith members of the audience its a nice reminder that religion, even for all its crazy stories about blue people and zombie messiahs, can be useful as a tool for comforting people faced with the nonsense that is life.
So I just watched a recording and while overall it was humorous, the ending left me feeling slightly angry. This isn't an ode to faith nor an ode to lack of faith- it's a tribute to deliberate ignorance. It's not just saying "religions are goofy but still do good". It's saying embrace the goofiness- knowing full well it's not real- and you'll be better off. If religion isn't real, you and your community can live any life style you choose. If it is real, it matters because it's REAL- not because of the life style it creates. This embracing the goofy suggestion is something I've encountered in real people, and while I disagree, I can respect that those people actually do it. Matt Stone and Trey Parker certainly don't.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Holding something holy that someone might find wacky is just asking for it.
You're the one who said everything is wacky.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If religion isn't real, you and your community can live any life style you choose. If it is real, it matters because it's REAL- not because of the life style it creates.
It's worth noting that I mostly but not entirely agree with you. That said, I think it can be definitively said that Matt Stone and Trey Parker have certainly "embraced the goofy," even if their personal versions of goofy aren't traditional, established religions.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I think it can be definitively said that Matt Stone and Trey Parker have certainly "embraced the goofy," even if their personal versions of goofy aren't traditional, established religions.
Ha ha, fair enough. But that's more a nitpick of my word choice. They seem to live and espouse truth as they see it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Holding something holy that someone might find wacky is just asking for it.
You're the one who said everything is wacky.
I meant that anything is ripe for satire, as long as you find someone who regards it as holy. Religion doesn't have exclusive rights to that. If you have your heart on your sleeve for something, it's fair game.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:But for the more bitter, anti-faith members of the audience its a nice reminder that religion, even for all its crazy stories about blue people and zombie messiahs, can be useful as a tool for comforting people faced with the nonsense that is life.
So I just watched a recording and while overall it was humorous, the ending left me feeling slightly angry. This isn't an ode to faith nor an ode to lack of faith- it's a tribute to deliberate ignorance. It's not just saying "religions are goofy but still do good". It's saying embrace the goofiness- knowing full well it's not real- and you'll be better off. If religion isn't real, you and your community can live any life style you choose. If it is real, it matters because it's REAL- not because of the life style it creates. This embracing the goofy suggestion is something I've encountered in real people, and while I disagree, I can respect that those people actually do it. Matt Stone and Trey Parker certainly don't.
I guess its a matter of perspective. As an atheist, I feel like if religion's purpose isn't to provide comfort to guidance, then I don't know what its useful for. Then it just becomes words on a piece of paper. For some religious people, the purpose of the gospels would be to depict the divinity and authority of Christ. But for me, the moral teachings should be the focus. A religion that doesn't inspire people will usually, and should, die.
I applaud the ending for showing the different faces of faith. The non-literalists like the Africans who believed the stories are metaphor not fact and yet still saw the value in them. Or there's Elder Price who was struggling with his belief, not unlike Mother Teresa who did good works despite her unsure faith.
The elders' superiors wanted the missionaries stop teaching a variation of the faith and return home, rather than admit that a poverty and aids stricken village could not be preached to the same way that missionaries would preach to someone in Orlando, Florida.
For anyone interested, here's some of Elder Price's realization speech. Not a particularly inspiring speech but it includes most of the musical's lessons.
"Its like you're getting the point across using modern things...You were trying to teach me something. Here I thought I could just fly in here, all on my own and change everything just by sticking to scripture. While you were trying to show me that scripture isn't that important. I was losing my faith and you went out and did something incredible. You did something incredible for people with nowhere else to go. I thought they were unreachable. But then they were happy and hopeful."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Holding something holy that someone might find wacky is just asking for it.
Would you feel comfortable laughing about Jews strapping "magic boxes" to their heads or Navahos making "magic sand paintings" or the Inuit making "magic totem poles" or Australian aborigines having "magic dreams"?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As for it being "mock"worthy, Stephen Chow is from Hong Kong, as far as I can tell in places like Hong Kong and Taiwan, doing those things is still very much the norm.
I don't know about the norm, especially with the younger generation, but its not strictly important either. Superstitions like kissing under mistletoe, avoiding 13th floors, and horoscopes are pretty popular here too although many of the people who do it fully acknowledge that it doesn't really make sense and are basically resigned to it being mocked/not taken seriously by others.
The popularity of a custom isn't necessarily reflective of how wacky it is.
quote:But I can see how doing post homous things for those we are not related to is a step removed from all that.
I agree. That is probably a more clear distinction.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Not all wacky things are equally wacky, of course. Totem poles, for example, are less wacky than underwear but more wacky than sand paintings. Magic boxes are slightly more wacky than underwear, IMO.
I also think the degree of perceived wackiness can change over time. Consider "magic underwear," which really is just another version of the traditional enchanted vestment. The reason it's perceived as wacky in the modern era is that they're also deliberately dowdy, Victorian-esque undies that have as an ancillary (or arguably primary) effect a bit of a chastity/modesty reminder, and don't appear to have any actual, measurable protective benefit. The "underwear" bit is what makes them inherently more humorous than, say, the Jewish inability to open certain refrigerators on Saturday, although obvious circumstances can sway this in either direction; while everything is funnier with monkeys, it is possible for something with a monkey to still be less funny than something else.
Consider the wackiness levels of these different vestments: 1) a red sash tied around your upper arm; 2) a red sash tied around your upper arm, worn prominently over all other clothing; 3) a red sash tied across your upper thigh; 4) a red sash tied across your genitals; 5) a red sash worn as a Rambo-style headband. Are they all equally wacky? Do they become wackier if, when wearers don the sash, they now have to loudly declare that they are girding their loins for battle with the evils of the world -- even if they're tying it around their foreheads?
[ June 23, 2011, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Holding something holy that someone might find wacky is just asking for it.
Would you feel comfortable laughing about Jews strapping "magic boxes" to their heads or Navahos making "magic sand paintings" or the Inuit making "magic totem poles" or Australian aborigines having "magic dreams"?
I was trying to be ironic there. Some people seem to feel justified in mocking things of this nature. I certainly don't feel this way. Sorry I came off sounding the opposite.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I guess its a matter of perspective. As an atheist, I feel like if religion's purpose isn't to provide comfort to guidance, then I don't know what its useful for. Then it just becomes words on a piece of paper. For some religious people, the purpose of the gospels would be to depict the divinity and authority of Christ. But for me, the moral teachings should be the focus. A religion that doesn't inspire people will usually, and should, die.
If Christ was real and divine and had an outline of how we should live- wouldn't that matter and be useful to know? I'm also an atheist, but when I wasn't, I cared about belief in things that I thought were real and were important because they were real. I think those that believe for the comfort and moral teachings are really doing so because their family/community believes. That type of belief is ultimately empty and uninspiring and I think can only exist as an auxiliary to real belief. Most people believe because they think it's real. I think trying to make the supplemental the fundamental is taking an external perspective to religion and does a disservice to those who believe in it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I was trying to be ironic there.
I got that. I was starting to wonder why so many others didn't seem to.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:I guess its a matter of perspective. As an atheist, I feel like if religion's purpose isn't to provide comfort to guidance, then I don't know what its useful for. Then it just becomes words on a piece of paper. For some religious people, the purpose of the gospels would be to depict the divinity and authority of Christ. But for me, the moral teachings should be the focus. A religion that doesn't inspire people will usually, and should, die.
If Christ was real and divine and had an outline of how we should live- wouldn't that matter and be useful to know? I'm also an atheist, but when I wasn't, I cared about belief in things that I thought were real and were important because they were real. I think those that believe for the comfort and moral teachings are really doing so because their family/community believes. That type of belief is ultimately empty and uninspiring and I think can only exist as an auxiliary to real belief. Most people believe because they think it's real. I think trying to make the supplemental the fundamental is taking an external perspective to religion and does a disservice to those who believe in it.
I agree. I was going to post, but you said everything that I thought of, and better than I likely would have expressed it. Thanks.
quote:I was trying to be ironic there.
I thought you were. So, you weren't trying to be ironic, you were ironic. Worked rather well. Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: And honestly? I want to shake the higher-ups in the Church and ask them if there isn't a less weird, less creepy "the clones are descending" way of introducing people to their faith.
It's because they look and feel (yes I'm groping them) like walking anachronisms, as if they were trained dutifully via a program/system that hasn't changed notably since before my mom was born. Children of the mst3k shorts, maybe. Lovable little scamps.
It reminds me of that commercial where the guy pulls into a full service gas station and freaks out and thinks he's being carjacked.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And honestly? I want to shake the higher-ups in the Church and ask them if there isn't a less weird, less creepy "the clones are descending" way of introducing people to their faith.
QFT.
It seems that people in the church's missionary department (I know one of them well) are completely and totally oblivious to the way the rest of the world views the missionary uniform. They don't even recognize it is a uniform let alone that people see 20 year old guys in dark suits, white shirts and ties as freaky rather than clean-cut.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't even care about the uniforms so much as the way they act. SORRY GUYS, YOUR MISSIONARIES ARE THE POD PEOPLE.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I wish. I bet my missionary president had moments of wishing that as well. Caring for 200 young adults during the best and most stressful time most of them have yet experienced would be enormously easier if it wasn't 200 individual sets of gaping needs.
But you can't please some people. If someone is looking for something to hate, they'll always, always find it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Lol, wait. Are you trying to say someone here hates the missionaries?
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I interpreted it as people here who are looking for something to hate about missionaries will find and then hate specific things about the missionaries. I don't think she was implying that anybody actually hated the missionaries themselves. (Forgive me for speaking out of turn)
I would assume that "Shaking the higher-ups" for making the missionaries wear specific clothing would constitute as implied hatred of one facet of missionary behavior. Thus, the use of "hate" doesn't seem overly radical to me in this context.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I would assume that "Shaking the higher-ups" for making the missionaries wear specific clothing would constitute as implied hatred of one facet of missionary behavior.
Hatred is way too strong a term for the way I feel about the missionary uniform. Even "dislike" doesn't accurate represent the way I feel. I think its kind of silly and misguided in that, for the majority of people on the planet, the uniform does not convey the image that the church wants it to convey.
I also think it is reflective of a particularly shallow attitude toward clothing and grooming that is common in Mormon culture. I do strongly dislike this aspect of Mormon culture.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I dislike the practice of insulting Mormon culture monothically, as if it were all bad, as if such faults were solely Mormon, and as if the insulter weren't guilty of similar or equally shallow faults. But then, teaching people to be as kind to others as they are to themselves and to practice charity in thought is part of Mormon DOCTRINE, and it wouldn't have to be included if such judgmental practices weren't common.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm a product and a part of Mormon culture not an outsider. My experience in the church is not limited to Utah Valley. I've been a member of the church in wards in 4 different countries and 6 different states. I'm not criticizing a stereotype, I'm criticizing something I have observed to be prevalent among Mormons even if its not universal. It's not a monolithic criticism that implies its all bad. Its very specific criticism about a part of the culture I find to be contrary to Gospel principles and counterproductive to the mission of the church.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If it is real, it matters because it's REAL- not because of the life style it creates.
I disagree very strongly with this.
To me it's a question of good versus real and good wins either way. If a religion is and promotes good, does it matter that it isn't real? And if a religion is real, but evil and does damage to the people who believe it and the world as a whole, again, does it matter that it is real?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:And honestly? I want to shake the higher-ups in the Church and ask them if there isn't a less weird, less creepy "the clones are descending" way of introducing people to their faith.
QFT.
It seems that people in the church's missionary department (I know one of them well) are completely and totally oblivious to the way the rest of the world views the missionary uniform. They don't even recognize it is a uniform let alone that people see 20 year old guys in dark suits, white shirts and ties as freaky rather than clean-cut.
If it makes a difference, while there is certainly that perception, I have also met quite a few folks as a missionary who indicated that they liked the uniform as they felt it look professional and sharp. TBH I can't really imagine any standard of clothing for missionaries that wouldn't have other problems.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Like I said earlier, it's a miracle that two young men are even out on the street at all talking to people about their religion. I know I would have welcomed relaxed dress standards as a missionary myself. Wearing a white shirt and tie every day of the week was one of the hardest adjustments to make. But it's not just a product of the Church's byzantine fashion sense. Wearing the tie is meant to keep a certain respect in the missionary's head for the work he's doing and remind him to stay focused. They do stand out. They're supposed to. They don't just wear the shirt and tie, but prominent nametags as well. You've got to admit they're somewhat iconic. They represent the Church and there isn't supposed to be any beating around the bush about that.
Would you really welcome the missionaries stopping to talk to you if they were dressed like anyone else--in jeans or shorts, or even office casual?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If it makes a difference, while there is certainly that perception, I have also met quite a few folks as a missionary who indicated that they liked the uniform as they felt it look professional and sharp. TBH I can't really imagine any standard of clothing for missionaries that wouldn't have other problems.
I know more than a few people who won't talk to the missionaries because they look the FBI or something. I think it would be easy enough to relax the standards a bit (say allow colored shirts and a sports coat) and still maintain a sharp professional look.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:You've got to admit they're somewhat iconic. They represent the Church and there isn't supposed to be any beating around the bush about that.
That's part of the problem. In Trinidad, when I tell people I'm Mormon, they frequently ask why I'm not wearing the uniform. The Missionaries are the face of the church and they are creating an impression that we all dress anachronistically like Hutterites or Amish or something.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm sure we were a sight sometimes when there was 8 or 10 of us standing on the quai at the train station heading to some conference. We'd get teenagers snickering at us, and all we'd have to do is have one of us act like we were speaking into the collar of our overcoat. Sobered them right up.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:You've got to admit they're somewhat iconic. They represent the Church and there isn't supposed to be any beating around the bush about that.
That's part of the problem. In Trinidad, when I tell people I'm Mormon, they frequently ask why I'm not wearing the uniform. The Missionaries are the face of the church and they are creating an impression that we all dress anachronistically like Hutterites or Amish or something.
Hey, gives you a chance to talk about the Church, right?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Hey, gives you a chance to talk about the Church, right?
Nope. The question doesn't come up unless I've already taken the opportunity to talk about the church and it means that I'm immediately forced to talk about a negative misconception rather than something positive. Its a pity that the church's Missionary dress code is, apparently unwittingly, creating a negative impression for many people.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
It's a misconception but not all that negative, IMO. I can't imagine that it would take more than a minute of explanation to dispel the notion that not all Mormons dress like missionaries.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The notion (true or not) that conformity is a hallmark of your religion might be harder to dispel.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: It's a misconception but not all that negative, IMO. I can't imagine that it would take more than a minute of explanation to dispel the notion that not all Mormons dress like missionaries.
I have no idea what experience you've had and on what basis you form your opinion. In my experience, it isn't a trivial problem. While there are those who see the Missionary uniform as positive, those people are in my experience a minority that gets smaller every year. The overwhelming majority of people I talk with are put off by it. In my experience it is a negative misconception and unlike most negative misconceptions about the church -- its caused by the church itself and not it's detractors. I think that's a problem.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The notion (true or not) that conformity is a hallmark of your religion might be harder to dispel.
Yes!!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The Church has sociologists and they take public perception polls pretty constantly. I am absolutely certain that Church HQ has a much, much better handle on how missionaries and they way they dress are percieved than anyone here.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rabbit, I have no idea how you dress, but you do an excellent job of bucking the conformity stereotype.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm a product and a part of Mormon culture not an outsider. My experience in the church is not limited to Utah Valley. I've been a member of the church in wards in 4 different countries and 6 different states. I'm not criticizing a stereotype, I'm criticizing something I have observed to be prevalent among Mormons even if its not universal. It's not a monolithic criticism that implies its all bad. Its very specific criticism about a part of the culture I find to be contrary to Gospel principles and counterproductive to the mission of the church.
I don't think you are outsider. But you act like one, because you criticise "Mormon culture" as if it were a monolithic, unique, and horrible thing. I don't know why you want to cast yourself as an outsider and I don't care, and I don't know why you regularly make such scattershot insults about Mormons in general, but about that I do care. When the GAs in General Conference talk about how we should be being less judgmental and more kind to each other, don't you think they are talking to you?
If you do find specific things irritating, can you possibly imagine that such shotgun deprecations are effective in changing anything?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Katharina, I don't know why you interpret my criticism as monolithic. I criticized one specific aspect of Mormon culture. I noted that this aspect is not universal among Mormons, but is very wide spread. I'm not sure whether you disagree that this in fact a widespread aspect of Mormon culture or you simply think it isn't negative.
I'm saddened that you think I act like an outsider to the church. I'm not and don't think you know me well enough to make such a sweeping condemnation of my behavior. When the GAs in General Conference talk about how we should be being less judgmental and more kind to each other, it seems clearly you don't think they are talking to you.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I feel like I'm missing something (which is possible, since I've been away for a while). Has The Rabbit been making a habit of criticising Mormon culture recently or something?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
When I first got to France as a missionary, one of the big French TV stations had just aired Witness (with Harrison Ford) and the translation had changed "Amish" to "Mormon" throughout. It seemed like every single person we met for the next 6 months had watched the movie. So everyone thought Mormons had beards, drove buggies, and eschewed modern technology. While I have nothing against the Amish, we did have to explain to a lot of people right off the bat that it had been a mistranslation, and the Mormons were in fact quite different from the Amish. At first I thought it was a big problem. As time went on, I realized that most people accepted our explanation fairly readily and were more inclined to talk to us further if we were gracious about it.
If investigators thought all Mormons dressed like we did, they quickly learned otherwise when they met local members of the Church. We never heard much comment on this.
It must be different on Trinidad. I shouldn't make assumptions for your situation. Perhaps dress rules for missionaries should be relaxed there.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you are talking about only "some" Mormons and not all of them, maybe you'd be better off directing your comments in general to the human race.
It isn't like a prediliction for favoring good looks is unique among Mormons, and even you can't believe that the worst consequences are rife among Mormons. The reason I think you act like an outsider is because you attribute to Mormons and Mormons only faults that not any more prevelant among Mormons than they are anywhere else. What, outside of Utah, people don't care about appearances? Are you kidding me?
That whole thing about not being nasty to groups of people you see as other applies to Mormons as well as anyone else. Even for you.
----
My biggest problem I encounted as a missionary is not because the missionaries were all dressed alike (and as a sister missionary, I wasn't anyway) but because we were white, and the people we met didn't want to go to a "white" church. Those who ventured anyway could confirm that the missionaries were the only white people in the building, but many people didn't even consider it because we were white.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I didn't get the impression that Rabbit was bothered by missionaries looking good or dressing well; I got the impression that she was talking about them dressing identically.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That seems related to the bigger phenomonon that "nice" clothes for American men is basically a business suit. There are a few rare exceptions, but basically "dressed" up for men means a shirt and tie. Short of wearing a tuxedo, anything else reads as more casual.
It isn't like they are all wearing robes or funny hats or head scarves. That would be SO WEIRD and definitely worth mockery.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Missionaries should all wear Lakers uniforms instead. I can only imagine what that would do for the Church's rep around the world.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Many religions do adopt certain outward appearances and clothing - often in order to set themselves apart from outsiders. I didn't think that this was the goal of missionaries.
And "nice" clothes for men depends on the circumstance. A man wearing a tuxedo at a backyard picnic is not better dressed than a man wearing a polo shirt and khakis.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Don't feel bad Rabbit, I didn't get what kat is saying in your words either.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Missionaries are official representatives of the Church, unlike most of the Church's membership at any given time. As such, they wear nametags and conform to certain dress and grooming standards.
They do stand out fairly often--at barbecues, inside Wal-Mart, and inside homes on a Tuesday afternoon. I really do think this is deliberate. Not to set themselves apart from outsiders per se, but to signal their role as representatives of the Church. You're supposed to know who they are.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The man in a tuxedo is more dressed up, but that's bad because he is dressed inappropriately.
Wearing a shirt in tie in the general population marks someone as both dressed up and still dressed appropriately. Having a set outfit that is appropriate and dressy is also cheaper than requiring a variety dressy clothes for multiple occasions. Missionaries are pretty poor, most of the time.
And yes, standing apart is part of the goal for missionaries, for the same reason clergy of other religions do it. Why are you so forgiving and apologetic for them but not for Mormons?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If the goal is to set themselves apart, then it is working. If you also want to counter the stereotype of conformity, then there are some drawbacks.
I don't really know which you favor. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
If the missionaries are highly recognizable anywhere in the world they are seen, then the Church has succeeded in that particular purpose.
Does this mean people everywhere think the Church is a whole bunch of conformists? I don't know. In my experience, these things don't necessarily go hand in hand.
Anytime you see someone in uniform, you expect they conform to certain standards as pertains to their company, team, or religion, I guess. Does that make everyone associated with them lockstep conformists? Not necessarily.
Does the Mormon Church want to shrug off the conformity stereotype? Not in every sense, IMO. They've got ad campaigns showcasing everyday people as Mormons. They certainly tout the international and cultural diversity of the Church's membership. But they're not going for a non-conformist label, either.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Why are you so forgiving and apologetic for them but not for Mormons?
Where did Rabbit say anything forgiving or apologetic about another religion kat?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Whenever I see a couple of young men on bikes with back packs in white shirts and ties I shout out my window "Yay Mormons!" and they tend to look around with a "huh" look on their face...I guess they don't tend to draw a lot of cheers.
I can't help it, I have a soft spot in my heart for these young fellers and their friendly ways.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Jehovah's Witnesses you holler at must be really confused.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
LoL! Really Boots, is that how they dress? That might explain the blank looks...ROFL!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The first time they came to my door during the year I lived in the south, I thought they were FBI or something. I hadn't ever seen white Jehovah's Witnesses before.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, around here the JWs who come to the door are almost always older African American women.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Rabbit, that's an interesting perspective, and one you might consider sharing (e-mailing) with the Church. Which I say because neither I nor anyone I've talked to served in an area like that. I served state-side, and though this kind of misconception did come my way on my mission, it was only a few times over the two years. Others I've talked with have had similar levels of frequency of such experiences serving all over the world. As is pointed out, any dress-requirements would have some draw-backs, if you run into 5 people in two years for whom it creates that kind of problem it's not really a problem in my mind. It sounds like for some reason that's not the case where you are, which the Church just may not realize, I bet they'd at least appreciate hearing that even if they don't change the standard.
Hobbes Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Whenever I see a couple of young men on bikes with back packs in white shirts and ties I shout out my window "Yay Mormons!" and they tend to look around with a "huh" look on their face...I guess they don't tend to draw a lot of cheers.
I thought I was the only person that did that. <grin>
Though I don't generally yell it, I usually just say it to myself. Which confuses my friends.
I will say, they probably don't think of it as a cheer though. They would probably interpret it as mocking. Which may explain their looks.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek:
I would assume that "Shaking the higher-ups" for making the missionaries wear specific clothing would constitute as implied hatred of one facet of missionary behavior. Thus, the use of "hate" doesn't seem overly radical to me in this context.
I know its the internet, but please try not to read aggression when there isn't any. I didn't say "beat some sense into them" but rather used a friendly expression like I might use for a friend who has adopted some silly ideas and may need a reality check.
As for conformity, I feel like in some areas, they may be over-conforming which makes it difficult for me to see them as genuine. I think business/business casual is great for the image they want to project of serious-minded young men. But a sense of individuality makes me feel more relaxed around a person. Even something as simple as wearing a light blue shirt would relay a sense of "I am so-and-so and I am happy to have chosen to spend my day talking to people about my faith." Two young men in matching short-sleeved white buttoned shirts with matching black ties and matching black slacks and shiny nametags...it reads like a uniform.
And to this day, I've NEVER seen a female missionary out and about in town. My female Mormon classmates in school all took their mission trips in foreign countries.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think its kind of silly and misguided in that, for the majority of people on the planet, the uniform does not convey the image that the church wants it to convey.
How did you come by this conclusion? It's fairly broad.
##
quote:If you also want to counter the stereotype of conformity, then there are some drawbacks.
How about the fact that the suit and tie encourage the perception of unity?
Anyway-- I'm much more interested in how missionaries (and members) behave than in how they dress.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:As for conformity, I feel like in some areas, they may be over-conforming which makes it difficult for me to see them as genuine. I think business/business casual is great for the image they want to project of serious-minded young men. But a sense of individuality makes me feel more relaxed around a person. Even something as simple as wearing a light blue shirt would relay a sense of "I am so-and-so and I am happy to have chosen to spend my day talking to people about my faith." Two young men in matching short-sleeved white buttoned shirts with matching black ties and matching black slacks and shiny nametags...it reads like a uniform.
And to this day, I've NEVER seen a female missionary out and about in town. My female Mormon classmates in school all took their mission trips in foreign countries.
Much to my surprise, when searching my memory of my mission, I don't recall a single missionary wearing a black tie. Conformity is a hard thing to pin down. I imagine most of us have refrained from committing murder, does that make us conformists? Of course not. We all were clothes, does wearing different ties make us non-conformists? I wore suspenders my whole mission, am I out? Clearly the 'uniform' doesn't do it for you, but at least for the States it is the image the Church wants to convey. Personally I'm OK with it, I find almost everyone I run into who finds the dress-code too conformist doesn't want to discuss reading and praying about the Book of Mormon either. So it's not like there's a huge untapped demo of potential converts that could be reached if the missionaries switched to loafers.
As to the female missionary thing, they are significantly less common than their male counterparts and a lot of them serve missions to specific landmarks (e.g. the SLC Temple) for part of their mission, making them even less common to see walking around. However, they're harder to spot since the standards of professional dress are much ... umm, larger(?) than they are for men. Which means it's likely you saw them and didn't notice. Or maybe you never have seen any, but that's more a fluke than anything else.
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hobbes, I think the word you want is "broader".
Pun intended. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Ha!
On that thought, I see a lot more women walking around in the world that meet the dress standards of female missionaries as compared to men. Sister missionaries just blend in a lot easier.
Hobbes Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Nice post, Hobbes. I'm not sure I agree with this:
quote:I find almost everyone I run into who finds the dress-code too conformist doesn't want to discuss reading and praying about the Book of Mormon either. So it's not like there's a huge untapped demo of potential converts that could be reached if the missionaries switched to loafers.
...as it doesn't quite match up with my experiences. But otherwise, yep.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Thanks Scott. And that's interesting, chalk it up to lack of exposure on my part then. I had a lot of people I talked to on the mission ask about the dress-code in such a way as to directly or indirectly imply that they felt sorry for us (side note: I like wearing a suit, I never minded that aspect of the mission, but I was very much the minority on that), but none who seemed to feel uncomfortable as a result of what we wore. Or at least no one who would talk to us for a while. Same when I got off the mission and was just a guy walking around. But my guess is you interact with a lot more people than me. And of course maybe they wouldn't talk to us for a while due to the suits but I never really thought that. I guess I figured anyone with a 'coexist' bumper sticker who refused to discuss religion with us wasn't doing it because of our appearance.
ETA: My thinking on the subject from a theoretical rather than empirical view is that when it comes to direct contacting (as opposed to members introducing friends to missionaries) the ways someone's appearance/dress could keep a person from talking to them would be heavily bias professional dress as better. Meaning that sloppy or casual dress would make people less likely to talk to a person (after all, not only are they strangers, they're 20yo strangers) rather than looking too professional. An argument could made that casual dress would make the conversation more relaxed, but on the other hand white shirt and tie certainly frame the conversation in the right way. Especially with the aforementioned ages involved. The idea is for the contactee to take the missionary seriously, and as a messenger of the Lord which is very different than a guy to riff with about religion.
Hobbes
[ June 24, 2011, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, how do you differentiate between conformity and unity? For me, unity is a broad concept that can be negative or positive depending on what we were being united about. Being united on our love for all mankind is being different than being united on how we think people should dress. Which isn't different, as far as I can tell, to conformity.
So basically, I am not sure of what you were saying.
In what behaviors do you think people should conform/be unified?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Something else to consider might be the missionaries themselves. It's very hard to keep a group of 17-25 year old men on track and saying the same thing. Even with the strictest of rulesets many missionaries push boundaries and see what they can get away with. It might not be better to then take a narrow view to clothing, but it's certainly easier and one less thing to worry about. Were missionaries given the option to say where khaki pants, I'm certain you'd see some missionaries saying that they should then get to wear polo shirts, or colored shirts, and different shoes.
There's a general mindset that missionaries need to put their God and those around them before themselves, getting hung up on clothing is just one more barrier towards that mindset.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Can I ask you, Boots, how you differ those two? I find the distinction (not your distinction, any distinction) to be superficial and arbitrary. I'd be interested if you felt there was an objective difference rather than just what we feel to be essential points of life/membership to a group versus frivolities.
Hobbes Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Conformity is a hard thing to pin down.
Obviously you've never employed Commissars.
(this is a WH40K joke, kill me)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hobbes, I am not sure. That is why I am trying to understand the distinction that Scott is making.
My first reaction was that unity was a "we are all in this together and supporting each other" kind of thing where conformity is more that there is an ideal that we should all try to be like.
I am not sure how the first is conveyed through dress but the second certainly is.
That is fine, btw. There is nothing wrong with wearing a suit. It just seems like the Church is trying to shake the "Stepford clones" rap and not doing a very good job of it. The matching outfits don't help with that.
ETA: To fix my misspelling of Hobbes's name. Sorry about that.
[ June 24, 2011, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Mormons do share a few ideals, and do try to support each other in working toward them. They don't all shop from the same rack at Penney's, however (unless there's a good sale).
I know the Church periodically gets accused of having only lockstep, smiling, brainwashed people in its ranks. It's too bad if the way missionaries dress affirms that stereotype in some people's minds. I have a feeling, however, that the benefits of having the missionaries dress in shirts and ties will outweigh the need to not look like robots.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Entirely your call. Just don't be too surprised when we tend to think of you as "lockstep, smiling, brainwashed" clones when that is what you present.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
As a complete side note (that's like the third time I've typed 'side note' today, I must be really fidgety!) my name is taken from Calvin and Hobbes (indirectly) and isn't my actual name (in the unlikely event that anyone cares, that's 'Andrew'). So there's an 'e' there.
Like I said I find any definition of conformity to be superficial or at least highly variable when it comes to pinning down specific things. I guess I have some idea of a difference between things done to be part of a group as opposed to things done to further the aims of the person or group. Like being baptized to be Catholic (just so I can drag another religion into this ) rather than to be saved. Which makes the definition entirely dependent on unknowable personal motivation and also means 'conformist' isn't necessarily negative. ::shrug::
I also don't have a problem with having a common ideal to strive for and wouldn't refer to it as conformist. In the context of the Church that ideal would be Christ. Again, we all agree some things are important to do for everyone, the Church adds some requirements (not smoking cigarettes for example gets added to societal standards like not stealing). I don't see that as conformist, just an expansion of standards. Same goes for a dress code on a mission. I don't see it as any different than requiring employees to wear shoes. Not fundamentally anyways.
And I'm not sure the Church is really actively implementing any policies to "shake the "Stepford clones" rap".
Hobbes Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Just don't be too surprised when we tend to think of you as "lockstep, smiling, brainwashed" clones when that is what you present.
Don't base your image of every Mormon member entirely on Mitt Romney.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would be delighted to be able to base them all on Sen. Reid.
Hobbes, I rather thought that what those commercials are about.
I don't know that conformity is a bad thing for everyone. Some people like it and it could be good for some people. It gives me the creeps but I am not your target audience. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Boots, I really think are definitions of conformity are different enough that at least we'll keep talking past each other on this issue. I know at least I don't understand what you mean by it. I'd say the commercials were about the benefits of Mormonism in addition to showing that it's an 'everyday' kind of religion rather than something strange or of a different place. Maybe it fits into your idea of 'non-conformist' but it doesn't mine, which is why I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with your point (and thus have trouble discussing it with you ). Same for your last point, I dislike the idea that I just fit in with a conformist attitude, I don't think I do. I'm not sure it's objectively bad to (though that's certainly the connotations of it today) but I don't think it's accurate. Any more than if I had a job that required I wear a suit and thus I wore a suit.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, Scott was the one making that distinction between unity and conformity. What the ads I have seen convey to me is, "See? All kinds of different people can be Mormon". (Of course, to my eyes, they aren't all that different. Throw in a lesbian couple and an interracial one and maybe...heck, even a middle aged spinster. )
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Entirely your call. Just don't be too surprised when we tend to think of you as "lockstep, smiling, brainwashed" clones when that is what you present.
I should think the various personalities and opinions held by Mormons on this forum and others would be more than enough to demonstrate a heterogenous culture.
In fact, considering just how different Mormons can be in other countries, and there *are* more Mormons outside the US than in, I would say the missionary uniform is an example of an exception where Mormons are similar, rather than an example that proves we are monolithic.
And just because the FBI/CIA sully the look of a white shirt, tie, and slacks doesn't mean we should surrender it to them. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Of course. I already mentioned to Rabbit that she was a good example of diversity of thought.
But not everyone is on a forum with a bunch of Mormons. Missionaries are - one would assume automatically as it is their function - the main contact with the rest of the world.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think the white shirt, black slacks, name badge, black tie look = official. Official of the US government...or official representative of the LDS church...it works (speaking the opinion of one nonreligious person).
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:What the ads I have seen convey to me is, "See? All kinds of different people can be Mormon". (Of course, to my eyes, they aren't all that different. Throw in a lesbian couple and an interracial one and maybe...heck, even a middle aged spinster. )
Well I guess this is what I meant because that's what they convey to me too, yet I disagree with your initial statement about. I guess you and I just think about this issue very differently. Here's a speech by Dallin H oaks given at BYU (in note to a concurrent thread, that means it's definitively not doctrine) in which he talks about diversity. I think the Church takes a similar view, but I I know for sure that I do. Here's a relevant part:
quote:My last illustration of the bad effects of confusing means and ends, methods and goals, concerns the word diversity. Not many labels have been productive of more confused thinking in our time than this one.
...
In the scriptures, the objectives we are taught to pursue on the way to our eternal goals are ideals like love and obedience. These ideals do not accept us as we are but require each of us to make changes. Jesus did not pray that his followers would be "diverse." He prayed that they would be "one"
...
Since diversity is a condition, a method, or a short-term objective--not an ultimate goal--whenever diversity is urged it is appropriate to ask, "What kind of diversity?" or "Diversity in what circumstance or condition?" or "Diversity in furtherance of what goal?" This is especially important in our policy debates, which should be conducted not in terms of slogans but in terms of the goals we seek and the methods or shorter-term objectives that will achieve them. Diversity for its own sake is meaningless and can clearly be shown to lead to unacceptable results. For example, if diversity is the underlying goal for a neighborhood, does this mean we should take affirmative action to assure that the neighborhood includes thieves and pedophiles, slaughterhouses and water hazards? Diversity can be a good method to achieve some long-term goal, but public policy discussions need to get beyond the slogan to identify the goal, to specify the proposed diversity, and to explain how this kind of diversity will help to achieve the agreed goal.
[Emphasis mine.]
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Now that I think about it, I am probably not a good example as I was more skeptical of the stereotype before I started coming to Hatrack.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So the message is that all kinds of different people can be Mormon as long as they don't stay different?
Hobbes, it sounds like the diversity/conformity conversation is an ongoing one in your Church as it is for so many. What is presented by missionaries who all look alike, though, is a conformity of appearance - which lends itself to the whole "clone" thing.
Again, there are advantages to that as well as disadvantages.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Of course. I already mentioned to Rabbit that she was a good example of diversity of thought.
But not everyone is on a forum with a bunch of Mormons. Missionaries are - one would assume automatically as it is their function - the main contact with the rest of the world.
You would incorrectly. I would wager that in many places most people know a Mormon, before they come in contact with missionaries.
In fact, the overwhelming concensus in the church is that members are better missionaries than the full time missionaries. The statistics I heard as a missionary is that on the average a missionary has to speak to 2,000 people before he will find a convert. This doesn't even take into account problems with retention after baptism. One in three member referrals however result in baptism.
I'm convinced that if Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work throughout their lives, there would be no need for a full time missionary force.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I served in Brazil, and was asked every once in a while if I worked for the FBI or CIA.
I think there is a common misconception that all Mormons think the exact same way. I think this forum is a good place to see that this is not true. There are members that I disagree with on this forum on a regular basis.
The same is true for doctrine. There is a lot the Church leaves up to the individual to decide. A good example would be evolution. There have been General Authorities in the church that have disagreed with each other about it. Bruce R. McConkie said it was a "false and devlish notion that religion and organic evolution could be harmonized." James E. Talmage on the other hand believed in evolution, even going so far as to say that it would make sense that God would use evolution in the creation process.
If you were to talk to the missionaries iny our area, I am sure you would find that their beliefs on certain subjects. I knew a missionary that believed that the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms were temporary, and after a certain amount of time and repentance one could move higher and higher until they reached the Celestial Kingdom.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I was going to post, but you said everything that I thought of, and better than I likely would have expressed it. Thanks.
Thank you for the wonderful compliment.
quote: To me it's a question of good versus real and good wins either way. If a religion is and promotes good, does it matter that it isn't real? And if a religion is real, but evil and does damage to the people who believe it and the world as a whole, again, does it matter that it is real?
The conversation has moved on from this, but… Matter to whom? I would say it absolutely matters to the people in the religion if it’s real regardless of the worldly affects. How many people want to knowingly embrace a falsehood? I think the vast majority of people value truth and would have troublesome cognitive dissonance from reconciling holding on to beliefs that they thought were false.
Now, what are the effects on other people not affiliated with their religion? Sure, your point stands. But what does it really matter what an outsider thinks?
Edited to Add: I'm about to head on a trip for the weekend where I won't have internet, but I'll check this on Sunday or Monday.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I'm convinced that if Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work throughout their lives, there would be no need for a full time missionary force.
Interesting thought. My only argument would be that it's the full-time missionaries' responsibility to teach investigators. If Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work, I would think the need for full-time missionaries would grow immensely.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote: To me it's a question of good versus real and good wins either way. If a religion is and promotes good, does it matter that it isn't real? And if a religion is real, but evil and does damage to the people who believe it and the world as a whole, again, does it matter that it is real?
The conversation has moved on from this, but… Matter to whom? I would say it absolutely matters to the people in the religion if it’s real regardless of the worldly affects. How many people want to knowingly embrace a falsehood? I think the vast majority of people value truth and would have troublesome cognitive dissonance from reconciling holding on to beliefs that they thought were false.
Now, what are the effects on other people not affiliated with their religion? Sure, your point stands. But what does it really matter what an outsider thinks?
Edited to Add: I'm about to head on a trip for the weekend where I won't have internet, but I'll check this on Sunday or Monday.
For me, it always comes back to this idea: "Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble." Joseph Campbell
I was making a joke the other with a coworker regarding a recent promotion and I mentioned how I felt like the tortoise who had finally beaten the hare. As a literal fable, I don't believe that one day a tortoise and a hare started a race with a cute ribbon finish line. But its still a comforting story that proved, atleast in that instance, to be symbolically true.
Even people who are religious will pick and choose what they believe to be literally true. The whole blood-into-wine part of Catholicism always makes for very humorous and uncomfortable conversations. And there are always members of certain religions who consider themselves part of the faith even if they're not believers anymore. I see this alot of "cultural religions" like Catholicism or Judaism.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
This is a side point that I want to make because a friend of mine on FB who obviously didn't know she had Mormon friends posted something anti-Mormon that used that specific phrase "magic underwear".
I'm not complaining about the musical, because they're meant to be a parody, and it wouldn't be funny if it didn't exaggerate. But for people to post supposedly factual things that refer to magic underwear does seem like a religious slur to me.
Would a Catholic priest's vestments be called a magic cape or something similar? Because that's the same as LDS garments, with the exception that ours are worn under our secular clothes instead of on the outside. Nobody I know thinks they have magical powers to stop bullets or anything, though of course there have been stories in folklore of such things that are just that: folklore.
So I think that's a pretty good indication that something you're reading or watching about Mormons is of the nature of religious slurs, if they talk about magic underwear.
This friend when I pointed out the nature of her post just said it was true so it wasn't a slur. I said it wasn't, actually, and directed her to Mormon.org for our real beliefs. I tried to be calm and respectful and kind about it. I hope I didn't sound whiny or ill-natured.
So, was I right or wrong in making that judgment? What do you guys think?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Of course it's a slur. It's a way to trivialize closely held beliefs. Most people that do so who know anything about actual LDS beliefs also seem to enjoy the fact that most LDS members are uncomfortable discussing that aspect of their religion and thus the opportunity to make them (the LDS member or their belief) look stupid is even greater as no one really wants to argue about it, they just want to stop talking about it (putting the antagonist in a position of power). You can identify the rare few who use the term without realizing the meaning of what they're saying by the fact that they will retract their comment when informed it's offensive.
Hobbes Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Speaking as a non-religious person (and therefore my opinion is rather just a side note and not actually relevant) I'd say it isn't a "slur" per say...a probably offensive simplification of a Mormon belief staple. To me at least, a slur is more like the n word or the k word which rhymes with mike...something that you call a person, not a belief or practice. I could be wrong, and even so, it's just a question of semantics to me, it seems pretty offensive either way.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
"Magic underwear" is not a simplification of anything, not even an offensive simplification. It's a slur on an important part of LDS beliefs, I guess if you think slurs can only be for a race but I'm not sure why that would be the case.
Hobbes Posted by Slavim (Member # 12546) on :
I'm sorry Tatiana, but they are "magic underware" and you can't compare them to a Catholic priest's vestments in any way. Elaborate garments are worn to show power (of the church), prestiege, status, rank. Since LDS garments are worn under your secular clothing, they can't do any of that and are only worn with the belief that they'll have magical properties to them.
So no, it's not a religious slur, it's pointing out a fact.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Setting aside the question of whether it's *true* or not, 'slur' and 'accurate' aren't mutually exclusive. A slur is, according to the dictionary, a disparaging remark. The use in this context is clearly meant to disparage, therefore it's a slur. It may be unfortunate to your point of view, Slavim, that it can be accurately called a slur, but calling it a slur is...true:)
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Slavim, they're there to remind us of our covenants, not for anyone else to see but for us to remember. They are symbols of our religious commitments, very much indeed like a Buddhist monk's robe, a Catholic priest's vestments, or perhaps an Orthodox Jewish man's yarmulke.
I repeat that nobody believes they stop bullets or freight trains or anything of the sort, outside of folklore. It's not really correct to call religion magic, though they both involve powers we don't understand. If you would refer to Catholic communion hosts as "magic cookies" then would that be a religious slur, to you?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Since LDS garments are worn under your secular clothing, they can't do any of that and are only worn with the belief that they'll have magical properties to them.
False.
Hobbes Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I keep using Catholics as an example because I was raised Catholic so I know a little bit about their practices.
I'm glad to see that 3 out 4 people who've responded so far do agree that it's an offensive usage. I don't want to be too sensitive or whiney, but I want to correct ignorance about my religion when I see it, and as a matter of politeness I also want to let people know that some members of their audience (fb friends, coworkers, etc.) do happen to be Latter-day Saints.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: "Magic underwear" is not a simplification of anything, not even an offensive simplification.
This is where I got that idea (not saying it is true, as I would have no way of knowing or not).
quote:Originally posted by wiki The undergarments are viewed as a symbolic reminder of the covenants made in temple ceremonies, and are viewed as either a symbolic or literal source of protection from the evils of the world.
(Emphasis mine)
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
That's not unreasonable based on that quote I guess, but I'll say that it would be very charitable to call that comment a simplification even ignoring the insult implied in it. Even if a LDS member believes that the garment will literally protect them against the evils (spiritual or physical) it would not be special properties of the garment itself but God acting to protect His covenant keeping child providing the protection. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who was LDS who disagreed with the idea that it was God and not the fabric or properties of the fabric that protected them. That's why I said it wasn't a simplification.
Hobbes Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm a very argumentative, stubborn person, who believes in the power of words, and tries to use them with specificity.
But...I'm trying not to be so argumentative...I mean, this issue got brought up as the question, is the phrase "magic underwear" offense or not, basically...and on that, we agree. So arguing about if it is an simplification or not seems irrelevant, so I'm going to not argue it.
It's almost painful not to, but I'm trying to not get bogged down in the tiny details which do not effect the real topic and keep my eye on the big picture...and have less arguments in general.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I'm convinced that if Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work throughout their lives, there would be no need for a full time missionary force.
Interesting thought. My only argument would be that it's the full-time missionaries' responsibility to teach investigators. If Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work, I would think the need for full-time missionaries would grow immensely.
Missionaries are also instructed to bring a member to as many meetings as they can with investigators. While missionaries are trained to help teach investigators, there's no special training that the individual member couldn't also get if they simply made a point of doing so. I think that idea runs very much abreast of the idea that we don't have a professional clergy. Any member who puts enough time in study will with the assistance of God gain all the knowledge they need to be a powerful tool for converting others.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am genuinely mystified how people who wouldn't dream of making disparaging remarks about other religions and other groups of people are downright proud of themselves for making them about Mormons.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, there are two obvious possibilities:
1) They consider Mormons to be worse than those other groups, for some reason. 2) They would dream of making disparaging remarks about other religions or groups, but either they haven't done so in your presence or you haven't noticed, not being a member of those religions or groups.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, there are two obvious possibilities:
1) They consider Mormons to be worse than those other groups, for some reason. 2) They would dream of making disparaging remarks about other religions or groups, but either they haven't done so in your presence or you haven't noticed, not being a member of those religions or groups.
There's also the possibility that there are no obvious significant repercussions for doing so.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* And if we're going for other less obvious alternatives, there's also "thinks their disparaging comments have a better chance of effecting change in Mormon behavior than in some of those other groups;" or "thinks Mormons are funnier than other groups, and derives more amusement from mocking them for superficial things than criticizing religions with serious underlying problems for those problems." And so on. Really, IMO, you're spoiled for possible choices.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Note to self: Mockery of non-Mormon groups has not been obvious enough. Now obligated to mock them more out of fairness. End note.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I'm convinced that if Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work throughout their lives, there would be no need for a full time missionary force.
Interesting thought. My only argument would be that it's the full-time missionaries' responsibility to teach investigators. If Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work, I would think the need for full-time missionaries would grow immensely.
Missionaries are also instructed to bring a member to as many meetings as they can with investigators. While missionaries are trained to help teach investigators, there's no special training that the individual member couldn't also get if they simply made a point of doing so. I think that idea runs very much abreast of the idea that we don't have a professional clergy. Any member who puts enough time in study will with the assistance of God gain all the knowledge they need to be a powerful tool for converting others.
This is an interesting idea. I agree that with the kind of shift your talking about, the degree of difference in member missionary work, there would be a vast change in the way the Church organized the missionary efforts. However I disagree with the extent of change your talking about. A few points:
Keys would be the first one. To the best of my knowledge the Mission President can authorize any Melchizedek Priesthood holder to perform the baptismal interview and then any appropriate Priesthood holder to baptize a convert, but the keys remain with those called. Admittedly the 'normal' missionaries hold no keys but there's no question the Mission President will not be going anywhere (especially when you remember their added responsibility as leaders of districts). The missionaries are called as special witnesses, the idea being they are given power to testify to the world in a powerful and unique way. Members could be called as such without being sent on full-time missions but to my mind a great deal of the power of the calling comes from a dedicated life. Not to mention the short but rigorous instruction on what exactly a convert must learn and do to join the Church. Training every member, or even several members in every ward in such a way I think would be a monumental task (the difference between all being gathered to one central school to be taught versus trying to ensure quality of teaching in wards across the world, two weeks of all-day dedication versus scheduling it in when possible, etc...)
Another point would be those areas that have little or no Church infrastructure to begin with. In such a place there is simply no substitution for missionaries as the amount of exposure of 'normal' members would be too slight and full-time mission work would be of great use. Perhaps a significant shift of missionaries from more concentrated areas to the outskirts of the Church would occur as a result, which would be most beneficial.
Finally, while I wouldn't exactly call the mission a rite of passage there's no question it plays an important role both culturally and spiritually. I never liked the idea that a person went on a mission for themselves rather than those they served but there's no question that a mission is a very important aspect of many return missionaries life. An opportunity to dedicate your time to Christ is a way not normally available otherwise, exposure to other cultures. There are numerous ways in which missions help the Church outside of leading to converts. I think removing the institution to all but a few Mission Presidents would be a blow.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Finally, while I wouldn't exactly call the mission a rite of passage...
Why wouldn't you?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Because you don't have to go on one to be considered a full-fledged adult in the community.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Because you don't have to go on one to be considered a full-fledged adult in the community.
At least not officially.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Or unofficially.
Oh no, wait - right - because Mormons are horrible people who penalize anyone who doesn't follow an exact, lock-step plan. I forgot! Right! All the evidence to contrary merely proves the rule of how much Mormons are actually horrible people and the worst of them represent the whole. Right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Whose words do you think you're filling in, Katie? Because I think you're having an argument with a boggin.
Unless of course you believe that Rabbit -- a Mormon herself -- is saying that Mormons are horrible people.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
katharina: Things are certainly much better in this regard, but wouldn't you say that for men who do not serve missions there is a significant disapproval factor when it comes to dating and other social interactions?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Or unofficially.
Oh no, wait - right - because Mormons are horrible people who penalize anyone who doesn't follow an exact, lock-step plan. I forgot! Right! All the evidence to contrary merely proves the rule of how much Mormons are actually horrible people and the worst of them represent the whole. Right.
Its ridiculous to claim that there isn't enormous social pressure for LDS young men to serve missions or to deny that there is social cost for choosing not to serve. That doesn't make Mormons horrible people who punish anyone who doesn't follow exact rules. Every subculture in the world has certain expectations of its members and there is always some social cost for failing to live up to those expectations.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Because you don't have to go on one to be considered a full-fledged adult in the community.
At least not officially.
If it were a rite of passage, it would not be possible to become a full-fledged adult in the community without going on a mission.
This is simply not the case, officially nor unofficially.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:If it were a rite of passage, it would not be possible to become a full-fledged adult in the community without going on a mission.
That isn't true. There are lots of rites of passage that are not completely observed. For instance, there was a time when a "Sweet Sixteen" party was extremely expected for young women, but not everyone had one, and not everyone was required to have one. It was still a classic example of a rite of passage. There are numerous other examples.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Unless of course you believe that Rabbit -- a Mormon herself -- is saying that Mormons are horrible people.
Kat's already indicated she thinks of me as an "outsider" among Mormons. No idea how she came to this conclusion or why she feels qualified to make that judgement. I suspect she doesn't appreciate the irony of excluding me in the same breath where she condemns me for implying Mormons exclude people who don't march in lock step.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Because you don't have to go on one to be considered a full-fledged adult in the community.
At least not officially.
If it were a rite of passage, it would not be possible to become a full-fledged adult in the community without going on a mission.
I think you are using a far narrower definition of the term than is in common usage today.
Going away to college is often referred to as a rite of passage. High school graduation is called a rite of passage. Basic training is called a rite of passage.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Kat's already indicated she thinks of me as an "outsider" among Mormons. No idea how she came to this conclusion or why she feels qualified to make that judgement. I suspect she doesn't appreciate the irony of excluding me in the same breath where she condemns me for implying Mormons exclude people who don't march in lock step.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:If it were a rite of passage, it would not be possible to become a full-fledged adult in the community without going on a mission.
That isn't true. There are lots of rites of passage that are not completely observed. For instance, there was a time when a "Sweet Sixteen" party was extremely expected for young women, but not everyone had one, and not everyone was required to have one. It was still a classic example of a rite of passage. There are numerous other examples.
I personally do think it's something of a rite of passage (although not an official one). Not everybody serves a mission, and they are not outcast by any means. But they don't have that cache of mission stories to share, and there is a "mission moments" subgenre they can't participate in. It's like having done a stint in the military or having gone to the same school--that instant bond of familiarity among the veterans. I do think a mission is hard enough that you feel like you've earned the right to tell a few stories afterward. As the years pass, however, other life experiences supersede the mission and the line between those who served a mission and those who didn't fades quite a bit.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I'm convinced that if Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work throughout their lives, there would be no need for a full time missionary force.
Interesting thought. My only argument would be that it's the full-time missionaries' responsibility to teach investigators. If Mormons cultivated a greater interest in doing missionary work, I would think the need for full-time missionaries would grow immensely.
Missionaries are also instructed to bring a member to as many meetings as they can with investigators. While missionaries are trained to help teach investigators, there's no special training that the individual member couldn't also get if they simply made a point of doing so. I think that idea runs very much abreast of the idea that we don't have a professional clergy. Any member who puts enough time in study will with the assistance of God gain all the knowledge they need to be a powerful tool for converting others.
This is an interesting idea. I agree that with the kind of shift your talking about, the degree of difference in member missionary work, there would be a vast change in the way the Church organized the missionary efforts. However I disagree with the extent of change your talking about. A few points:
Keys would be the first one. To the best of my knowledge the Mission President can authorize any Melchizedek Priesthood holder to perform the baptismal interview and then any appropriate Priesthood holder to baptize a convert, but the keys remain with those called. Admittedly the 'normal' missionaries hold no keys but there's no question the Mission President will not be going anywhere (especially when you remember their added responsibility as leaders of districts). The missionaries are called as special witnesses, the idea being they are given power to testify to the world in a powerful and unique way. Members could be called as such without being sent on full-time missions but to my mind a great deal of the power of the calling comes from a dedicated life. Not to mention the short but rigorous instruction on what exactly a convert must learn and do to join the Church. Training every member, or even several members in every ward in such a way I think would be a monumental task (the difference between all being gathered to one central school to be taught versus trying to ensure quality of teaching in wards across the world, two weeks of all-day dedication versus scheduling it in when possible, etc...)
Another point would be those areas that have little or no Church infrastructure to begin with. In such a place there is simply no substitution for missionaries as the amount of exposure of 'normal' members would be too slight and full-time mission work would be of great use. Perhaps a significant shift of missionaries from more concentrated areas to the outskirts of the Church would occur as a result, which would be most beneficial.
Finally, while I wouldn't exactly call the mission a rite of passage there's no question it plays an important role both culturally and spiritually. I never liked the idea that a person went on a mission for themselves rather than those they served but there's no question that a mission is a very important aspect of many return missionaries life. An opportunity to dedicate your time to Christ is a way not normally available otherwise, exposure to other cultures. There are numerous ways in which missions help the Church outside of leading to converts. I think removing the institution to all but a few Mission Presidents would be a blow.
Hobbes
There is definitely the possibility of shifting the responsibilities of full-time missionaries to the members, I guess. As it stands, I'm pretty sure the full-time missionaries have to be the ones who teach investigators prior to baptism. They can definitely teach in company with local members. But they are in charge of the teaching. That's why I would expect more missionaries, not fewer, if the members really got their butts in gear.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I personally do think it's something of a rite of passage (although not an official one). Not everybody serves a mission, and they are not outcast by any means. But they don't have that cache of mission stories to share, and there is a "mission moments" subgenre they can't participate in. It's like having done a stint in the military or having gone to the same school--that instant bond of familiarity among the veterans. I do think a mission is hard enough that you feel like you've earned the right to tell a few stories afterward. As the years pass, however, other life experiences supersede the mission and the line between those who served a mission and those who didn't fades quite a bit.
Yep-- my thoughts exactly.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I personally do think it's something of a rite of passage (although not an official one). Not everybody serves a mission, and they are not outcast by any means.
I think that sugar coats things a bit. Outcast is too strong of a word, but at least In Utah and other areas in the western US where the church is strong, there is enormous social pressure for young men to go on missions and a definite social penalty for not going. If you don't go, you will be continually questioned about why not. Many will assume you are not worthy to serve. A lot of girls won't date you. In fact when I was a young woman, "returned missionary" was typically near the top of the list of items one should seek in a mate. I think that's been toned down over the years but it certainly hasn't disappeared.
I have a couple friends who weren't able to serve missions for health reasons who had very difficult struggles socially for a couple of years. I had another friend who chose not to go and eventually stopped attending church for a couple of years because he got tired of being harassed about it. The stigma of having not served a mission decreases as you get a bit older and particularly after you marry. I think it also decreases the further you get from Utah and the more recently you and/or your family have joined the church. But it definitely exists and it really isn't honest to say its just about not having any missionary stories to tell.
[ June 27, 2011, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Admittedly the 'normal' missionaries hold no keys but there's no question the Mission President will not be going anywhere (especially when you remember their added responsibility as leaders of districts).
It will be interesting to see, but I would not be at all surprised if Mission Presidents disappeared or had substantially changed rolls in most areas of the church in a few decades. As the church grows, the areas with districts rather than stakes will disappear. I can easily see Missionary activities being integrated into stakes. There have been some really major changes of the past 50 years and I expect there will be even greater changes in the next 50.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I personally do think it's something of a rite of passage (although not an official one). Not everybody serves a mission, and they are not outcast by any means.
I think that sugar coats things a bit. Outcast is too strong of a word, but at least In Utah and other areas in the western US where the church is strong, there is enormous social pressure for young men to go on missions and a definite social penalty for not going. If you don't go, you will be continually questioned about why not. Many will assume you are not worthy to serve. A lot of girls won't date you. In fact when I was a young woman, "returned missionary" was typically near the top of the list of items one should seek in a mate. I think that's been toned down over the years but it certainly hasn't disappeared.
I have a couple friends who weren't able to serve missions for health reasons who had very difficult struggles socially for a couple of years. I had another friend who chose not to go and eventually stopped attending church for a couple of years because he got tired of being harassed about it. The stigma of having not served a mission decreases as you get a bit older and particularly after you marry. I think it also decreases the further you get from Utah and the more recently you and/or your family have joined the church. But it definitely exists and it really isn't honest to say its just about not having any missionary stories to tell.
I did actually mean outcast in the official sense, as in there is no censure from the Church or any other action taken against them. While a mission is strongly encouraged for every young man barring health concerns or serious problems in his past, it's also left to the young man to ultimately decide if he wants to go.
I did sugar coat it by talking about it purely in terms of a rite of passage. In fact, there's a whole spectrum of reactions from family, friends, and acquaintances when a young man for whatever reason decides not to go. There's plenty of disappointment and everybody deals with it differently. Some young women might be silly enough still to think that's all they want in a potential husband, even though having served a mission is no guarantee that a young man is going to be any good. I'm fairly certain this isn't just a problem with Utah Mormon culture. A son of a staunch military family who chooses not to join up might face similar reactions, as might a son of a true-crimson Harvard family who decides to go to Yale--and that list goes on and on.
What I've personally observed in those who didn't go on a mission and eventually drifted away, is that frequently the factors that led them not to serve a mission are also pushing them away from the Church. That is, it's rarely the stigma of not having served alone. We've had several young men decide against a mission in the past few years, and I have been privy to a fair amount of opinions about each case, and I have observed that their families and congregation in general have remained very supportive and loving, quite the opposite of pushing them away. If they have drifted away anyway, it has been through their own choices.
In any case, treating a young man who hasn't gone on a mission with anything less than the love, support, and respect he deserves regardless is poor, harmful behavior hardly becoming of a member of the Church. I'm always sorry to hear about it happening.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:What I've personally observed in those who didn't go on a mission and eventually drifted away, is that frequently the factors that led them not to serve a mission are also pushing them away from the Church. That is, it's rarely the stigma of not having served alone.
This fits with my experience of having failed to go on a mission (after getting a call, even), and then leaving the church.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:What I've personally observed in those who didn't go on a mission and eventually drifted away, is that frequently the factors that led them not to serve a mission are also pushing them away from the Church. That is, it's rarely the stigma of not having served alone.
This fits with my experience of having failed to go on a mission (after getting a call, even), and then leaving the church.
Didn't like the location?
I'm honestly not trying to marginalize what must have been a very difficult decision.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:We've had several young men decide against a mission in the past few years, and I have been privy to a fair amount of opinions about each case, and I have observed that their families and congregation in general have remained very supportive and loving, quite the opposite of pushing them away. If they have drifted away anyway, it has been through their own choices.
This matches what I have seen.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I would also agree with what Rabbit posted, though.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:What I've personally observed in those who didn't go on a mission and eventually drifted away, is that frequently the factors that led them not to serve a mission are also pushing them away from the Church. That is, it's rarely the stigma of not having served alone.
This fits with my experience of having failed to go on a mission (after getting a call, even), and then leaving the church.
Didn't like the location?
If I regret anything about the decision, actually, it's avoiding the destination. It was Vancouver, B.C. Great place, from what I hear.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:We've had several young men decide against a mission in the past few years, and I have been privy to a fair amount of opinions about each case, and I have observed that their families and congregation in general have remained very supportive and loving, quite the opposite of pushing them away. If they have drifted away anyway, it has been through their own choices.
I don't know much about this part of life in this culture. I'm glad to hear that family and congregation are supportive and loving. That's consistent with what I would hope from families and friends in general, as well as in what I know of LDS communities.
I wonder more about circumstances in which the expectation (in a very general sense) isn't support but rather is based on discrimination: where potential partners must choose amongst a field of possibilities for a mate, and where potential employers must choose amongst a field of applicants for filling just one position. I guess that is where I would see the most social pressure come to bear: not that people would necessarily say anything, but that a non-missionary might find it seems that they are just that much less likely to be the one picked out of the crowd.
I'm not thinking so much of being given the lack of a mission as a specified reason for rejection, but rather experiencing a pattern of being less likely to be chosen than one would expect. That maybe it means you don't stand out as much, you don't have the wow factor (?), and so you get passed over again and again when it comes to the circumstances of forced choices. Maybe even that having been on the mission means it is easier to make connections, too?
How much, if at all, does that come into play?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I'm not thinking so much of being given the lack of a mission as a specified reason for rejection, but rather experiencing a pattern of being less likely to be chosen than one would expect. That maybe it means you don't stand out as much, you don't have the wow factor (?), and so you get passed over again and again when it comes to the circumstances of forced choices. Maybe even that having been on the mission means it is easier to make connections, too?
How much, if at all, does that come into play?
It certainly does, but outside of the aforementioned dating scene I don't think it comes into play much. A mission is expected of every healthy (physically and mentally) male of age (in general, 19-25) if someone doesn't serve that is in that category there is a reason. It was mentioned these same reasons can lead to leaving the Church. When it doesn't it they still normally have an impact on Church attendance, testimony (lack of, or shaky faith in the Gospel as taught by the LDS Church is itself often the problem itself) and behavior. These things do make a guy less appealing to a typical LDS woman whatever their 'RM status'. As a result many women use RM status as a litmus test for men in the Church. Which I personally think is perfectly reasonable. Though there are some that would never date or marry a non-RM, I'm not convinced it's that common, rather it's just one of many things that you look at in the more-complex-than-many-really-appreciate dating world. I do the same thing in different ways (do they attend Church regularly? Do they stick around for and actually go to the meetings following Sacrament?), as I get to know someone those kind of litmus tests fade away as actual reality comes into focus. Same for most women, at least most I've met (which is a large enough sample to make me think it's true generally).
The only other way someone is likely to be discriminated against in the way your describing is in Church responsibilities. The Bishop of the congregation assigns basically every potential 'calling' or ecclesiastical job in his congregation (it's a little more complex than that, but close enough). Though he does this through inspiration from God (as we members believe ) there's still logic, reason and even personal bias involved. If a young man has not served a mission despite the opportunity he may not be chosen for larger responsibilities.
Having sat in on many discussions about this I find that this does happen for a period of time. Basically when the window for serving a mission is still open the focus for that individual is to help them serve a mission should they choose to (and thus callings to increase their activity in the Church, deepen their understanding of the Gospel, etc...) which normally means more leadership oriented callings are shied away from (though hardly taboo). After that time passes, as they move into their late 20s those thoughts are gone and really the only thing I've ever heard a Bishop consider out loud (and I think it's true internally as well though never having been a Bishop I wouldn't know) is the person themselves, not their status as a RM. Not to say that it can't happen but I'm not aware of it ever happening to any extent, I don't think it's very common.
ETA: When it comes to networking I'm sure it can help people. I know some who did get jobs or other sundry items as a result of those they met on their mission. Sadly this never helped me, nor any close friends, only acquaintances. That said if you just network (whatever that means) for two years instead of a mission I'm sure you're more likely to come out ahead on that score.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
As an addendum, I feel the need to add that I'm sure that people have done rotten things and made insulting assumptions about those who didn't serve. Some of these people were probably in positions that would hurt a young man who didn't serve. Ecclesiastical leaders, a girl he desired, or just a gossipy parent of a friend. I don't want to belittle those who went through such an experience and were hurt by the reaction of others. It's just that the vast majority of responses I've seen to this situation have been positive and loving rather than judgmental.
Hobbes Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Though there are some that would never date or marry a non-RM, I'm not convinced it's that common
The idea that a gal should only consider RMs as potential husbands is pretty common. As to how much that idea would be adhered to if the opportunity presented itself is suspect, but I think the idea itself makes it less likely to date them in the first place, which keeps their resolution on that point from being tested as much as it would otherwise.
quote:If a young man has not served a mission despite the opportunity he may not be chosen for larger responsibilities.
I'd say that he would likely not be.
Once you get past your 20s, though, its no longer an issue. In the program I have my calling in, I work pretty closely with two other guys in their 30s, and have been doing so for months. The topic came up the other day, and I just barely discovered that one of them served a mission when he was younger. I don't know if the other one did or not. It simply doesn't matter at this point.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:The idea that a gal should only consider RMs as potential husbands is pretty common. As to how much that idea would be adhered to if the opportunity presented itself is suspect, but I think the idea itself makes it less likely to date them in the first place, which keeps their resolution on that point from being tested as much as it would otherwise.
I'll defer to you on this one. I can only speak from the perspective of a young, single adult (rather someone who has any experience in the youth programs) in which I would say that I don't find it overly common as a prejudice that actually keeps anyone from dating and marrying a non-RM [as a hard rule]. Though your final point I'd say is valid, just as I'm less likely to date and thus find out more about a woman who chooses to leave Church after attending Sacrament meeting.
quote:I'd say that he would likely not be
I don't know that this is necessarily the case. Though in my experience very few are, less commonly is it due to their lack of mission experience as opposed to the fact they just wouldn't be the right person for the task. I'm not an expert but having to find people for callings and calling for people in several different venues I rarely saw someone who was the right age to go on a mission (male), didn't, and had both the faith and the personal skills necessary to have any of these responsibilities. But that may be a question of differing definitions of 'leadership callings' and such. I certainly agree with you that after a certain age (which I'd say is 27 or 28 when not married, I don't really have the experience to comment on the alternative) it really doesn't matter much to anyone. At least not when it comes to assigning callings.
quote:I work pretty closely with two other guys in their 30s, and have been doing so for months. The topic came up the other day, and I just barely discovered that one of them served a mission when he was younger. I don't know if the other one did or not. It simply doesn't matter at this point.
I just had that exact conversation with my ward clerk a few months ago (he had not served). Amusingly this happened right after he told me he was engaged. Go figure.
Hobbes Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A mission is expected of every healthy (physically and mentally) male of age (in general, 19-25) if someone doesn't serve that is in that category there is a reason.
It's this kind of thing that leads, I think, to outsiders (and even insiders) to regard it as a rite of passage. Not a set-in-stone stigma-if-you-don't-forever kind of rite, but a rite nonetheless. Perhaps in the ideal situation it's more a case of lots of carrot rather than any stick, but that still meets the definition at least to ways I've heard it used.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I am in my 30s and at church as a youth, I was repeatedly told that I should only date a RM. My husband was not a RM. At 33, it does come up- despite being a father and all that. The default conversation among men seems to be missionary stories. It is a common bond amongst people with different jobs, tastes, etc so it comes up a lot. As a convert, there is no question of sin or expectation for him to have gone- no judgement or anything. It is just a conversation starter that ends quickly with him.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:It's this kind of thing that leads, I think, to outsiders (and even insiders) to regard it as a rite of passage. Not a set-in-stone stigma-if-you-don't-forever kind of rite, but a rite nonetheless. Perhaps in the ideal situation it's more a case of lots of carrot rather than any stick, but that still meets the definition at least to ways I've heard it used.
Fair enough. That's not the way I use the phrase so I didn't think it counted, but under your definition, as I understand it, I'd agree.
quote:The default conversation among men seems to be missionary stories. It is a common bond amongst people with different jobs, tastes, etc so it comes up a lot. As a convert, there is no question of sin or expectation for him to have gone- no judgement or anything. It is just a conversation starter that ends quickly with him.
That sounds right to me. I guess that wouldn't fit under what I would think of as discriminatory, but it could be considered such in the right light I suppose. I know I certainly enjoy swapping mission stories and have done so with many different members. When my opposite number isn't a RM I'll admit I try not to go over board but I don't exactly cut it out of my discussion all together. I'm more sensitive it when it's a group of people with someone left out than just a conversation. How does your husband feel about these kind of situations?
Hobbes Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:That sounds right to me. I guess that wouldn't fit under what I would think of as discriminatory, but it could be considered such in the right light I suppose.
I don't recall anyone saying the practice was discriminatory. Its certainly no more so than its discriminatory for an employer to give preference to applicants with a high school diploma. And much like "not graduating from high school", "not serving a mission" becomes less and less of an issue as you get older and more experienced.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Thanks to all for continuing the conversation. I'm well aware that I can only approach this as an outsider looking in, and that perspective lends itself to some peculiar misapprehensions sometimes.
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I know I certainly enjoy swapping mission stories and have done so with many different members. When my opposite number isn't a RM I'll admit I try not to go over board but I don't exactly cut it out of my discussion all together.
I would expect that being reminded of a difference -- even if innocently and without malice -- even relatively frequently with one's peers might well exacerbate any of the small feelings of distance from a group that normally just come and go in the course of daily life. It's much harder to feel a part of a group when differences are highlighted.
That doesn't mean I think returned missionaries are under any obligation around anyone not to mention that portion of their lives. I doubt one could, anyway -- it is two years of time, experience, and memory, and I bet it informs your perspective on the world for the rest of your life.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I don't recall anyone saying the practice was discriminatory. Its certainly no more so than its discriminatory for an employer to give preference to applicants with a high school diploma.
I used the term "discrimination" in the technical sense when referring to situations "where potential partners must choose amongst a field of possibilities for a mate, and where potential employers must choose amongst a field of applicants for filling just one position." That is, where there is a forced choice (you cannot marry more than one person, you cannot hire more than one person to fill a given position), so that one must discriminate -- or differentiate amongst, or acknowledge distinctions between -- the possibilities in order to end up with one out of the many.
I didn't mean it in the more colloquial sense of inappropriate or unfounded prejudice. Not any more than turning a discriminating eye on the choice of curtains for a particular living room window.
Apologies if it caused confusion.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Just to clarify: I was trying to point to those sorts of situation in particular to contrast with other situations such as familial relationships, or the relationships with others in a congregation more as friends or helpmeets. In those cases I would expect (from what I know of the LDS culture) for there to be the same love and support for non-missionaries. Even, perhaps, moreso.
It's just that in the context of having to pick between people (which families do not have to do), it seemed the non-missionary status might well come into play. Not that it shouldn't, just that this is where I would first look to see if it did.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Having sat in on many discussions about this I find that this does happen for a period of time. Basically when the window for serving a mission is still open the focus for that individual is to help them serve a mission should they choose to
This is I'm sure what happened to my friend who felt he was being continually "harassed" about going on a mission. I'm sure that the people involved were never mean or nasty about it. I'm pretty confident that they were loving and kind and supportive (although not supportive of his choice). The thing is, when you are firmly resolved not to go, being continually encouraged to reconsider is eventually going to feel like harassment no matter how kindly and lovingly its done.
There is a fine line between encouraging someone to become more committed and pressuring them to make commitments they aren't ready for. I've known more than one person who's been pushed out of the church by well meaning people's efforts to pull them further in.
And just to be clear, I'm not criticizing anyone for doing this. I'm just acknowledging that it happens. There is a very delicate balance between teaching repentance and offering nonjudgemental love. It's not surprising we don't succeed at it all the time.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Oh, absolutely. And I think it's always relevant to note that there is no One True Way to Make Everything Sparkly.
All we have as imperfect creatures limited in resources, knowledge, perspective, energy, and time are our best guesses as to what is the best way to proceed in our own muddled, complex, barely-understood paths. Those best guesses may be better-informed or worse, but they are all in the end just guesses. We don't get guarantees as to how our actions will specifically turn out to every last detail.
Life is messy! And every time you get it cleaned up, someone knocks over the milk again ... a distant star implodes ... a butterfly beats its wings ... and your remember that you forgot to account for friction. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I saw this video interview on Mormons today and thought it was a pretty fair and unbiased look at the LDS church. The speaker is CNN's religion editor, and he gives a 5 minute overview of Mormon history and beliefs, including short segments on Joseph Smith, garments, Word of Wisdom, polygamy, missionaries, and race issues.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I wonder why it pointed out that Gladys Knight is a convert but not Glenn Beck.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I wonder why it pointed out that Gladys Knight is a convert but not Glenn Beck.
I'm not convinced Glenn actually understands his religion for one. Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I'm not convinced Glenn actually understands much of anything. Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
He seems to feel things pretty intensely, though.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What has convinced you that Gladys Knight understands her religion?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: What has convinced you that Gladys Knight understands her religion?
Your mom.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: What has convinced you that Gladys Knight understands her religion?
Your mom.
Oh SNAP!
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My husband finds the non-rm thing difficult. He doesn't really enjoy groups of mostly LDS men. It isn't a huge deal,but he does mention it as an annoyance.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:He doesn't really enjoy groups of mostly LDS men.
Because of the mission thing? I suppose I rarely enjoy hanging out with married couples with kids... for that (discussion topic) reason but I have to admit that I talk about my mission less than 10% of the time I talk with other LDS males.
Hobbes Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I can't remember the last time I was in a group that was sharing old mission stories. I wonder if that's a factor of age. I understand that the subject must be wearisome to anyone who didn't serve a mission, but its still miles ahead of birthing, breast feeding and potty training stories.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*nod* My anecdote on the previous page shows that it's not nearly that pervasive.
Of course, there's a lot of observation bias going on both ways here. Talking about missions doesn't bother me, so it doesn't register the way it would for him.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
In my experience, the real "rite of passage" in the LDS church is marriage. Its very difficult to achieve "adult status" in the church unless you are (or have been) married. Not impossible, but very difficult.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In my experience, the real "rite of passage" in the LDS church is marriage. Its very difficult to achieve "adult status" in the church unless you are (or have been) married. Not impossible, but very difficult.
I nominally agree, although I think that is changing to some degree (but that could just be my local perception influencing my global view).
I also think there's a gender differential, where unmarried women are treated as simply unfortunate while unmarried men are treated with active mistrust.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's pretty ingrained in our culture that if a man doesn't get married, it's his own darn fault, but not so for women.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Why is such inequality ingrained in your culture?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I nominally agree, although I think that is changing to some degree (but that could just be my local perception influencing my global view).
I also think there's a gender differential, where unmarried women are treated as simply unfortunate while unmarried men are treated with active mistrust.
There is a gender differential, but unmarried women still have a difficult time being treated like responsible adults. In my experience, a 30 year old woman who has been on her own for a decade, is less likely to be treated like a "real adult" than a 20 year old married woman who has never been independent.
I would also say that this is much more obvious in large wards in and around Utah, than in areas where the church is small and struggling. In Trinidad, any active man who holds the Priesthood is going to be given a responsible calling, regardless of his marital status or whether he served a mission.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Why is such inequality ingrained in your culture?
Its a historic thing. Mormon culture is still pretty much stuck in the 1950s when women were expected to wait for a man to ask. I think those attitudes are changing and its becoming much more recognized that a man can have as much difficulty finding a mate as a woman.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If I recall correctly, there's also a pretty skewed gender ratio. There's far fewer LDS men (at least in U.S.) than women.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The gender ratio gets more skewed when you only look at unmarried people over 30.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If I recall correctly, there's also a pretty skewed gender ratio. There's far fewer LDS men (at least in U.S.) than women.
I think the gender ratios in the LDS church are much less skewed than in most Christian churches. In North America, there are ~ 90 men for every 100 women in the LDS church. But because there is an emphasis on marriage and there are more women than men, if you look at single members over ~35, there are only 19 men for every 100 women.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Am I getting this right?...since there are so many more unmarried women then men over the age of 30 in the LDS community, the prevailing attitude is that there must be something strange about a man if he can't snag a wife by his 30s?
(italic = edit)
[ June 29, 2011, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
You're reversed. There are so few unmarried men compared to women over the age of 30 in the LDS community, therefore ...
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks, typing error...will fix.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In my experience, the real "rite of passage" in the LDS church is marriage. Its very difficult to achieve "adult status" in the church unless you are (or have been) married. Not impossible, but very difficult.
Yes. This, right behind the general treat men as less spiritual/good than women are my two biggest struggles when it comes to interacting in the Church. Which is of course because I'm an unmarried male so I'm much more sensitive to those issues. It's true though, both genders struggle to be taken seriously if they aren't married. I remember my first real introduction to it was when I went to a student ward (basically anyone, married or not who was 30 or under was welcome) and despite the fact that almost everyone in it was single, all the "important" callings were given to those who were married. It was an eye-opener.
There's also no question that men are looked down upon for not being married where as women are pitied. I'm not sure the latter is actually better but I know I don't like the former. I think Rabbit was right as to the reason, though it goes beyond just the guys asking girls on dates. The prevailing thought is that the girls want to commit, want to get married, whereas guys are afraid of commitment and marriage. Which isn't exactly a stereotype exclusive to Mormons. I resent it of course, as I really wish I was married and have dated girls who ran away from commitment, but that's not exactly proof that the stereotype isn't true in general.
Hobbes Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The prevailing thought is that the girls want to commit, want to get married, whereas guys are afraid of commitment and marriage. Which isn't exactly a stereotype exclusive to Mormons.
In my experience, that stereotype is far less accurate for Mormon men than men in general. I can understand why you resent it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I have known some people who never married but who still had some fairly influential callings.
Marriage in the full LDS style is a rite of passage. Not necessarily that it makes you any more grown up, but for all of the promised blessings.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I have known some people who never married but who still had some fairly influential callings.
Were these people men or women? What callings were these? An unmarried man can not serve as Bishop or Stake President. Unmarried men are never called to be Mission Presidents or General Authorities. Unmarried men are rarely called to serve as counselors or quorum presidents except in areas where there is a general shortage of worthy male members. Unmarried men over the age of 25 cannot serve as full time missionaries, even once they are over retirement age.
The situation is different with women. There are no callings that specifically require a woman to be married.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't think there's anything barring an unmarried man from serving as a Stake President except for the fact that virtually all Stake Presidents have previously served as bishops.
Same thing for general authorities.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I don't think there's anything barring an unmarried man from serving as a Stake President except for the fact that virtually all Stake Presidents have previously served as bishops.
Same thing for general authorities.
There is nothing that requires that a Stake President has served as a Bishop. When our stake was organized in Trinidad two years ago, no one in the stake had been a Bishop (which would be expect in any area of the Church where new stakes are made from districts) and we were told that the Stake President had to be married.
I don't know of any examples where men who were not married have been called to be 70's or Apostles. Many have become widowers while they were serving, but I don't know of any who were widowers or unmarried when they were called. If you know of exceptions, please let me know.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:no one in the stake had been a Bishop (which would be expect in any area of the Church where new stakes are made from districts
Ah. I hadn't thought of that. Makes sense.
quote:we were told that the Stake President had to be married.
Huh. That's new to me.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The unmarried women have been, for example, ward Relief Society president and stake Relief Society president. I'm also thinking of Sheri L. Dew, general Relief Society president.
It's true that I haven't seen an unmarried man be called as a bishop or stake president. I have seen many unmarried men be called as Elders Quorum president, even in family wards.
I don't know where this rule is written down. Perhaps in the Handbook Vol. 1, which I haven't read in its entirety. It could possibly have to do with becoming a High Priest, which is also something I'm not very familiar with.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I realize just how much I don't know about your religion the more you talk about it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I honestly think the married thing isn't a hard rule so much as an unwritten one. Not that this in of itself rules out single men being stake presidents, but I can't imagine being able to date very well if you were also a stake president, there's just so much to do all the time.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I realize just how much I don't know about your religion the more you talk about it.
Well see there's this book you might find interesting... Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It could possibly have to do with becoming a High Priest, which is also something I'm not very familiar with.
Nope. You don't have to be married to be a high priest. I've known a handful of Brazilians who were in bishoprics (not branch presidencies) before their missions.
quote:I honestly think the married thing isn't a hard rule so much as an unwritten one.
I'm pretty sure that bishops being married is a hard rule.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
[ETA: This was supposed to go right after BB's post, and also, sorry about the references in the quoted scripture: main problem I have copying and pasting from the Church's scripture reference]
It's a written rule (in the CHI). The scriptural reference, or at least the one I always hear referenced is 1st Timothy 3:
quote:1This is a true asaying, If a man desire the office of a bbishop, he desireth a good work.
2A bishop then must be ablameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, bsober, of good behaviour, given to chospitality, apt to dteach;
3Not given to awine, no bstriker, not greedy of cfilthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4One that aruleth well his own bhouse, having his cchildren in subjection with all gravity;
5(For if a man know not how to arule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6Not a anovice, lest being lifted up with bpride he fall into the ccondemnation of the devil.
7Moreover he must have a good areport of them which are bwithout; lest he fall into reproach and the csnare of the devil.
I was not aware of a written rule about the Stake President being married but I would be surprised if it wasn't. It's just no one who has only the CHI of instructions to reference picks a Stake President so no real reason to put it in there. Same for GAs.
And as anecdote, my first Mission President was a Stake President before he was called, but never a Bishop. Which I thought was odd but ... these things happen.
Hobbes Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I realize just how much I don't know about your religion the more you talk about it.
Well see there's this book you might find interesting...
Maybe you cold get the missionaries to hand out that book, instead of the one they keep giving me.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I realize just how much I don't know about your religion the more you talk about it.
As you can probably tell by the back-and-forth between members here, this stuff isn't exactly essential, everyday stuff in the Church. So I wouldn't worry to much if it sounds arcane or out of the ordinary to you.
Hobbes Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I realize just how much I don't know about your religion the more you talk about it.
Well see there's this book you might find interesting...
My copy of the Book of Mormon is in between my Bible and my copy of the Koran (no offense) in the fiction section of my book shelves.
Thanks Hobbes.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Maybe you cold get the missionaries to hand out that book, instead of the one they keep giving me.
I know this is a joke, but if you are interested in reading actual Church rule books you can. Or one of them. The Church Handbook of Instructions is a two volume set that contain the main rules of running the Church, focusing on day-to-day operations and talking about the functions of various leaders in the Church. The first volume is for Bishops and Stake presidents (leaders of congregations and groups of congregations respectively) as well as their councillors (and those who directly assist, the clerks and such who are supposed to have access to a copy). The second volume if for leaders within the congregation: Elders Quorum Presidents, Relief Society Presidents and others. This second volume is available online to anyone. It was recently updated and made available to the general public (before both volumes were not publicly available, as opposed to just the first one now). It's at the Church website here.
Hobbes Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I realize just how much I don't know about your religion the more you talk about it.
Well see there's this book you might find interesting...
My copy of the Book of Mormon is in between my Bible and my copy of the Koran (no offense) in the fiction section of my book shelves.
Thanks Hobbes.
You alphabatize by title not author? You monster!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yea, the war crimes comity is gathering as we speak.
Wait, the bible has a byline?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
"While not answering prayers or sending plagues, God enjoys spending time in His garden. Besides writing, He is also well known for giving voice to donkeys and creating the world."
Hobbes Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: My copy of the Book of Mormon is in between my Bible and my copy of the Koran (no offense) in the fiction section of my book shelves.
No offense to whom? I certainly don't take offense if you have a Book of Mormon next to a Koran.
ETA: Oh, you mean about the fiction section. Hey, at least you have a copy. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: "While not answering prayers or sending plagues, God enjoys spending time in His garden. Besides writing, He is also well known for giving voice to donkeys and creating the world."
Hobbes
LOL
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: My copy of the Book of Mormon is in between my Bible and my copy of the Koran (no offense) in the fiction section of my book shelves.
No offense to whom? I certainly don't take offense if you have a Book of Mormon next to a Koran.
It was that I have it in the fiction section.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
:shrug: I have the Bible and Book of Mormon on my own fiction shelf, and I believe in them.
I obviously don't care that much what what shelves my books are on
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I organize my books by color.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*twitch*
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I organize my books by size. I can pack more books in my shelves that way.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't organize my books at all.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
When I organize my books, I organize non-fiction by subject; poetry by date; plays by country, then by date. I organize fiction into genre and then "literature" (written before I was born) and contemporary (written during my lifetime) and then alphabetical by author. There is also some organization by whether the book is hardcover or paperback to squeeze in more books.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Didn't this thread used to be about the musical play "The Book of Mormon"?
I organize by fiction/nonfiction, then by genre, then by author. I have separate shelves for paperback and hardback.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's called Thread Drift. It has a long and glorious tradition.
Welcome to Hatrack.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm reminded of that Stephen Wright bit where he claims that his socks match because he goes by thickness.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Welcome to Hatrack.
Thanks? You missed welcoming me by six years with this name, and prolly fifteen or so by my first incarnation.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You haven't been fully welcomed into Hatrack until you've been patronized about thread drift.
Welcome to Hatrack.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
**Basks in the welcoming patronization glow.**
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Now you've got it!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I just listened to the soundtrack, and honestly I came away from it with a higher opinion of Mormonism (or at least unchanged) than I had beforehand.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
So... one thing I've been wondering:
I've gotten a decent sense of what Mormons think of (or don't think of) the play.
What do people who have lived extensively in Uganda think of this? (perhaps broadened to "anyone who's lived in extremely poor third world conditions")
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Organizing by color makes perfect sense. I buy a book, read it, and then put it on the shelf. When I want the book again, I picture it, and I therefore go straight to where it is shelved, because I can remember the color easier than title font or size, and it requires less maintance than organizing alphabetically by subject or author.
This only works when 1) the spine is the same color as the cover, and 2) I read all the books before shelving them, but that happens the vast majority of the time.
The exception are school books, and that's why all the classical texts and histories are on their own bookshelf.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
I don't own books.
Just kidding. I own books.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Organizing by color makes perfect sense.
To you.
To me, it makes roughly about as much sense as if you organized alphabetically by the first letter on the tenth page of each book.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Organizing by color makes perfect sense.
To you.
To me, it makes roughly about as much sense as if you organized alphabetically by the first letter on the tenth page of each book.
*shuffles off towards his bookshelf inconspicuously*
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Sure. When I want a book, I picture the book. When they are by color, they are easy to find. Also, it looks better, and I am demonstrably happier when surrounded by order and beauty instead of disorder. The best part is the low maintenance - it takes very little to keep books organized by color, while it takes a great deal more work to keep them alphabetized.
If you don't remember what books look like or have lots of time or empty shelf space to enable subject/author sorting, then another method might make books easier to find for you. (Although less pretty.)
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Chalk me up as another "by color" person. I had no idea we were so numerous! I'd love to see pictures of other people's shelves. Do others also end up frustrated by the preponderance of red and blue and the distinct lack of green (true green; teal is very popular)? Or is that just a function of the genres I buy and shelve?
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
I have a ton of blue but only a little red. I definitely have more green than red, which I am not sure why. I would imagine we buy similar genres - I don't know why I have more green then.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But what about a series that had different colour covers? Would you split them up?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
*shudder*
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: I have a ton of blue but only a little red. I definitely have more green than red, which I am not sure why. I would imagine we buy similar genres - I don't know why I have more green then.
Well, I was a Japanese Studies person back in college, and I still have a lot of Japanese history and politics books, which almost invariably have red spines. So that's part of it. Wish I knew where you were getting the green from, though!
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: But what about a series that had different colour covers? Would you split them up?
But of course.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That's...just so wrong. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: But what about a series that had different colour covers? Would you split them up?
But of course.
*head asplode*
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
One of the things I keep meaning to do on Goodreads, by the way, is to add "color--X" shelves to all the books I own, as an additional finding aid. But generally I don't have any trouble remembering where things are.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Hardback series (e.g. Harry Potter) = split up
Paperback series (e.g. Discworld) = kept together in the ugly bookcase that I'm ashamed of in my bedroom (only because there is limited room in the living room bookcases, and SOMETHING had to give)
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Oh, I do have a separate set of shelves for books that can't be sorted by color (the ones whose spines are alternating green and orange stripes or whatever), and those, lacking any better system, are alphabetized.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
My uncolorsorted are organized roughly according to original publication date. Pratchett, Card, and Christie each get his or her own shelf.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Alpha by author for me, then organized alpha by title within the the author (with series grouped together in order of publication, listed under the overarching name of the series). I've also done chronological within each author, and may do it again the next time I reorganize.
Kristy once had a shelving system that revolved around what she thought that the protagonists of the various books would think of each other. I can't imagine how that helped her find anything, but I'll bet it was fun to map out.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I really like that woman. Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I think I am going to re-organize my book shelf by the number of letters in the publishing company name, cross referenced with year of copyright. This is clearly more efficient than by genre-author-series.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
If you can do it at glance from across the room, I agree.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Okay, here is what you do, turn all your books around so the spine faces inward, and then organize them by thickness.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Right away I can tell you that Wise Man's Fear will be at the thickest end of my book shelf. Rothfuss certainly doesn't make pocket friendly books.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Do y'all genuinely not remember what color your books are? Quick - what's the color of your copy of To Kill a Mockingbird. I bet you remember.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I really don't. It is either black and white or red. I am confusing it with Catcher in the Rye, I think. Even though I loved the first and did not love the second. But I got them at the same book sale.
ETA: Anyway, they are both on the paperback-written-before-I-was-born book case in the front room closet.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
I don't believe that. Just like we read by recognizing the shape of words before we read the letters, we recognize books on the shelf by the color before we read the spines.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If I were looking at it, I would likely recognize it but I am not looking at it. I am not trying to recognize it; I am trying to recall it to memory.
And people process information differently.
And please stop calling me a liar. It gets tiresome.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I don't believe that. Just like we read by recognizing the shape of words before we read the letters, we recognize books on the shelf by the color before we read the spines.
Yeah, this varies heavily from person to person. I can't recall the color of numerous of my books, if I try to think of them. I can recall many other things about the books, but rarely the color unless the cover image was specifically striking to me (and most aren't), and not always even then.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Some people are color blind as well.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
It's the "spine is one color, front cover is a completely different color" books that get me, every time. Dear publishers: please stop doing that :-(.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I have almost no visual memory. I couldn't tell you the color of most of my books.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I am not color blind and have good visual memory yet I can't recall the color of a quarter of my books. Mainly because I pay very little attention to the spine or cover. They don't matter to me at all.
Oddly enough, nearly every book that I can remember the color of is black.
Moon is a Harsh Mistress Starship Troopers Enders Game Cosm Nightfall Neverware Forever War Pastwatch All the Twilight books (yes, I do have them. Please forgive me). All black. Hm.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Get the pitch forks and torches! Kill the monster! He owns all the Twilight books!
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Starship Troopers Enders Game
Isn't that basically two of the same thing?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I bet the movies will both be of equal caliber.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Starship Troopers Enders Game
Isn't that basically two of the same thing?
Not even close. Two entirely different books.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I bet the movies will both be of equal caliber.
Only if Jake Busey is in EG as well.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: I don't believe that. Just like we read by recognizing the shape of words before we read the letters, we recognize books on the shelf by the color before we read the spines.
You do. Not everybody's minds are wired in exactly the same way.
I can recall the colors of some of my books, but certainly not a majority of them. Plus, there are lots of books that I've had many copies of over the years. I couldn't begin to tell you what color my *current* copy of Dune is, for example.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I really like that woman.
Me too!
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
That's incredibly bizarre. It's like you're explaining how you don't remember what language the book is written in.
This does explain why so many don't seem to care that the place they live in isn't arranged/painted/designed well or don't care that their public bookcases are a mess. Maybe they don't notice.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or they have places that are arranged/painted/designed to their tastes rather than yours and have bookshelves that are beautifully ordered for them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
My mother always told me not to judge a book by its cover.
I arrange my bookshelf by type of paper used, and then by font.
I had to cut up Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow because the emails were in another font from the body of the book. It was very sad, but it had to be done!
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
I can tell the difference between taste I don't share and no effort at all.
I had just always assumed that people who clearly made no effort at all chose to do so because other things were more important. Totally fair. Now I see that it is possible it is that they can't tell the difference.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: My mother always told me not to judge a book by its cover.
I arrange my bookshelf by type of paper used, and then by font.
I had to cut up Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow because the emails were in another font from the body of the book. It was very sad, but it had to be done!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: I can tell the difference between taste I don't share and no effort at all.
I had just always assumed that people who clearly made no effort at all chose to do so because other things were more important. Totally fair. Now I see that it is possible it is that they can't tell the difference.
It seems to me that arranging books by genre, author, date of publication, and so forth would require at least as much effort as arranging them by colour.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Clearly I need to take into account other people's opinions when it comes to the convenience of carrying pepper spray, but there is only one logical way to organize books, and any who do not follow it are just lazy or don't know any better.
[ July 21, 2011, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I can tell when something is attractively arranged when I'm looking at it. I just can't picture it in my head when I'm not.
Heck, if you asked me what color my husband's hair is right now I couldn't tell you. I mean, I know it's brown, but that's an intellectual abstraction. If you asked if it has reddish tinges, or if it has much gray in it, or if it's closer to black-brown or blonde-brown I couldn't answer. (Of course now I'm going to make a mental note of that when he gets home, so I will know, intellectually. I still won't be able to "see" it in my head, though.)
On the other hand I can generally pull the correct book off the shelf without looking, because my arms know the angle and distance they extended when they put it there. I don't need to know what something looks like, because I know where it is. I have great muscle-memory. Back before cell phones with programmed numbers I could dial any of my friends without actually calling to mind the numbers because my fingers knew the motions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well I don't know about you, but when I'm feeling down I stroll over to my book case and grab a blue-covered book. If I'm frustrates, it's red. (That's also the 'feelin' randy!' section.)
---- (Is this an actual position? People who don't arrange their books by *color* do so because they lack a sense of aesthetic? That's just so strange an idea I can't help but think she's not serious.)
I'm just wondering, how does one tell the difference between a taste one doesn't share (it would be hard to tell just what that taste *was*, since you don't share it!) and no effort at all? How do you look at something someone else has done and say, "I can tell you didn't arrange that according to any kind of system."
For example, if you went by Kristy's old shelf, you might say, "I can tell no effort was used at all to arrange this." And you'd be flat-out wrong.
As for books on shelves, when I see a book before I can read the title, I think either hardcover or paperback. I neither note nor care about the color, unless it's somehow especially striking. I couldn't tell you the color of the covers of four books I got less than 13 hours ago, holding them in my hands.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I have a hard time remembering colors and shades. Usually I can't remember what color someone wore that day, or what color a house was, etc. I rarely pay attention to a book's color unless it's very striking. I couldn't tell you with much accuracy the color of my own house. That's been a problem before when I've gone to the paint store.
I rely quite a bit on visual memory, but it's more spatial. My desk at work is various levels of mess, but I can find things quickly on it because I recall where it was in relation to other things. I can find my way around in the dark pretty well and usually find lost things by calling up a memory of where I set them down or where I saw them.
Organizing books by color would drive me absolutely nuts. Not because I don't like color, but because it would be meaningless to me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I find the idea of arranging books by color utterly bizarre.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm quite sure she wasn't saying that everyone who doesn't arrange books by color lacks aesthetic sense.
I believe she was saying that this new (to her) information about how different people's brains process and store information about color sheds light on why some people might put a lower emphasis on interior decorating in general. And I think she's probably right.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Thank you, dkw. That's it exactly.
When I move into a new place or a new office, the first thing I do is put art on the walls. I spent an uncomfortable month in my treehouse not sleeping well until I got the color of the living room correct.
Being a room where color and balance and composition are not taken into account is like hearing a beeping noise just in range pinging incessantly. It is wildly uncomfortable.
My clothes are all black, gray, white, red, and shades of the blue-green spectrum so everything harmonizes together, more or less, even in my closet. I hide the orange-covered books in the bookcase with frosted glass doors because they are garish and ugly. My kitchen is all white with open shelves, black textiles, black dishes, and blue and green glasses and serving ware. It feels like home.
I'm not obsessive about it and it isn't OCD, because it isn't a sense of control and order. It's because color matters, and a place that doesn't have a deliberate color plan feels... transitional to me. It's not horrible, but it's clearly temporary, and you're not actually home and finished moving in until the colors are arranged.
I think that's why I like oil painting so much - I'm not good at drawing, but oil painting is (can be) all color and texture to create a scene or an emotion. I like beauty, and that spills out in all kinds of ways.
Including me being able to describe the appearance of a book I've read as a dominant traits. Name a book I own, and I can tell you what color the cover is, therefore, where it is shelved.
It's easier to keep organized because the target for a where a book should go is larger. It's easier to hit "green shelf, light green side" or "black and white bookcase" on the fly than it is to hit "non-fiction, historical narrative, in the correct alphabetical order". Therefore, faster and easier to reshelve means fewer books lying around waiting to be organized.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Aesthetic sense" is also very subjective. For example, it is popular now to have matching furniture - "room sets". I can see how this would look tastefully designed and "put together" to a lot of people. I, on the other hand, prefer to have furniture that "goes" (at least to me) but doesn't match. I can see how this would look thrown together with no effort to some people, but it is carefully planned to suit my particular taste. I like the way it looks. A mix of colours on my bookshelves is not only more useful to me, it is more attractive. To me.
That neither my books or my furniture are dusted can be put down to apathy or laziness.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm not obsessive about it...
Yikes! It must be a sight to behold when you are obsessive about something!
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Nonsense. I'm guessing you don't like it when a high-pitched beep never ends and you can hear it in your office, or when you are wearing an itchy sweater that gives you a rash, or when your food tastes like it was made with spoiled milk. That doesn't make you obsessive either.
---
Someone who equates a conciousness of color with "room sets" doesn't know what the former is.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm pretty sure that was a loosely related example, not an equation.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Aerin: Your like, dislike and attitudes about color are your opinion, which you are welcome to have, but in no way shape or form does it mean that your opinion on the matter is factually better then anyone's opinion on the matter.
Thinking that your opinion is the one and only true concept and anyone who disagrees is wrong or less knowledgeable is the definition of snobbery.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Who on earth are you addressing, Stone Wolf?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
dkw: My post was response to Aerin's suggestion that her consciousness with color is factual and not opinion (unlike the "room sets").
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Read it again. You've got it wrong. And you're so belligerent and insulting about it I'm not going to bother telling you how. Talking to someone so rude and defensive is not something I'm interested in.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Come on! Belligerent and insulting is my posting style, surely you wouldn't want me to give up something that close to my heart? Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Yes. Give it up. Or don't talk to me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Only if you agree to the same Miss Pot.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Quit bickering- I find the actual conversation interesting. Aerin- have you looked into your sense versus other people's before? It sounds like you perceive colors in a very different way than I do and different than I have heard described before. Is this like a variation of synthesia?
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
I don't think it is that extreme - isn't synesthesia where you percieve the information from one sense organ in ways more appropriate to information from another? (Sounds have color, etc.). I don't have that.
I am just am really in tune (more sensory metamorphical language) to color and somewhat less so to composition. If I used this power for something beyond myself I might try to make a living off of it, but I make a living in other ways and use it mostly to create a peaceful home and a wardrobe I like. And to find my books. Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: [QB] When I move into a new place or a new office, the first thing I do is put art on the walls. I spent an uncomfortable month in my treehouse not sleeping well until I got the color of the living room correct. [
Being a room where color and balance and composition are not taken into account is like hearing a beeping noise just in range pinging incessantly. It is wildly uncomfortable.
That. Is. Fascinating. I've never heard of anyone whose brain worked quite like that, and yet...I like a space that I occupy to be aesthetically appealing, and when I do get around to making it so it's as though there were a background susurrus that I hadn't been aware of until it stopped. I would imagine that this is the faintest ghost of the same thing that you experience. The "noise" is so faint with me, though, that making it cease isn't a priority.
quote:Including me being able to describe the appearance of a book I've read as a dominant traits. Name a book I own, and I can tell you what color the cover is, therefore, where it is shelved.
I wonder how common this is. It seems to me like it must be rare, but at the beginning of this discussion it seemed to you that it must be a ubiquitous human quality. I'd love to have good data about this, but I don't imagine it's been studied.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Well, to be fair, the living room started out as plain beige like the rest of the house (I HATE that color. It just looks dirty to me.), and so I painted it as quickly as possible without checking a sample. The dark teal that was so pretty in the store was hideous and shiny on the large wall, despite being a matte paint. Then it was light blue, and that made my living room look like the inside of a breath mint. Then it was gray, but too dark a gray (fortunately, with the gray I started painting samples first). Finally I settled on a light gray that's perfect with the amount of light and which complements but doesn't interupt the spectrum of blue and green the furniture and cushions are in and off-set the pale sunshine-colored dining room.
That dark teal was REALLY bad. It only stayed for about three days. My reaction against the dark teal was what brought on the Lifesaver pale blue.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Quit bickering-
Awwww mom! She started it! Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Quit bickering-
Awwww mom! She started it!
Don't make me turn this car around!
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
So neat! I love hearing the rationale behind how people arrange things/decorate things! (Not sarcasm. I'm completely engrossed in this discussion.)
I always arranged books by the following criteria, in order of importance:
Authors' books stay together always, unless there's some non-fiction they wrote.
Authors I really like get moved to very prominent locations on the shelf, author's I don't like or am ashamed for people to know I read go to the bottom or to a hidden place.
The beginning and end slots of an author's section will be filled by a hardcover that they wrote, with paperbacks being in the center insofar as that's possible. If there are more than 2 hardcovers, the others must be either at the ends of the section, interspersed tastefully in the "paperback" center, or used to bookend series.
Series by an author stay together, and in chronological order of story.
After this, I make sure, as far as it is possible, that every book is sitting next to another book of a different color. This way, every book "pops" and I can find things more easily.
*Edited to remove an apostrophe* *Edited to remove another apostrophe*
[ July 25, 2011, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: Emreecheek ]
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: Series by an author stay together, and in chronological order of story.
Huh--that's interesting to me. Not order of publication or recommended reading order? Magician's Nephew before The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe? If you read Steven Brust, how do you handle his Dragaera books?
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: *Edited to remove an apostrophe*
You missed one...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Well, to be fair, the living room started out as plain beige like the rest of the house (I HATE that color. It just looks dirty to me.), and so I painted it as quickly as possible without checking a sample. The dark teal that was so pretty in the store was hideous and shiny on the large wall, despite being a matte paint. Then it was light blue, and that made my living room look like the inside of a breath mint. Then it was gray, but too dark a gray (fortunately, with the gray I started painting samples first). Finally I settled on a light gray that's perfect with the amount of light and which complements but doesn't interupt the spectrum of blue and green the furniture and cushions are in and off-set the pale sunshine-colored dining room.
That dark teal was REALLY bad. It only stayed for about three days. My reaction against the dark teal was what brought on the Lifesaver pale blue.
...
o_________o
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: Series by an author stay together, and in chronological order of story.
Huh--that's interesting to me. Not order of publication or recommended reading order? Magician's Nephew before The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe? If you read Steven Brust, how do you handle his Dragaera books?
With chronicles of Narnia, it would depend mostly on how they were numbered on their spines. But, still, I'd very likely place them in chronological order. If somebody hadn't read them before, I'd never let them read Magician's Nephew first, but as I've read them, I would know exactly which book I wanted to start with.
But, generally, things in my bookshelf are things I have read, so I place them in an order consistent with how I conceptualize them - Which is often by the content of their world, rather than by things distinctly from the outside world (Such as publishing dates or publishing houses) Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
The chronology of the story vs. the published date is always a tough decision for me. I normally go with the first because it's how I file the stories in my mind. Sometimes that's not true though, if I get into a series before prequels (or whatever) are written: then I remember it in published order. Plus, published order appeals more to my sense of how it should be. Though if I don't know already when something was published the like 18 different copyright dates in every book can screw me up anyway and cause me to mess that up. Someone should do something about that.
I also order my movies by director which I enjoy but can cause issues. Like when a series has multiple directors, or outside cases like Judd Apatow films which I associate together but are normally directed by someone else. However, since I've finally put my full collection into an Excel list I think next time I arrange my movies I'll stick strictly to director since it should be easy to find that way (I can sort my list be genre if I want and get to what I need. Or length for that matter, something I find very useful to have on a sortable list).
Arranging by color sounds ... very disturbing to my OCD, though I see how it could just be a different manifestation.
Hobbes Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Published order is almost always more satisfying to me than chronological order. Especially when the series was written over decades, and authors conception of the characters or world changed significantly during that time.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Published order is almost always more satisfying to me than chronological order. Especially when the series was written over decades, and authors conception of the characters or world changed significantly during that time.
*me nods vigorously*
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: That's incredibly bizarre. It's like you're explaining how you don't remember what language the book is written in.
This does explain why so many don't seem to care that the place they live in isn't arranged/painted/designed well or don't care that their public bookcases are a mess. Maybe they don't notice.
This is quite true. I'm nearly 30, and my home pretty much still looks like a college dorm room. I have a mix match of things every which way, and buy almost nothing new. It drives my mother NUTS, because it isn't decorated, and it's cluttered. However, for me, as long as it's functional, it simply doesn't matter. It isn't even that I think something else is more important so I'm making a conscious decision... it simply doesn't bother me!
I mean, I can look at a room and decide whether I like the way it's decorated or not, but it doesn't actually make me feel any different, and I don't even think about it unless I'm consciously deciding "Do I find this to be aesthetically pleasing?"
I also have a horrible memory for colors and even distinct features. You could ask me about the color of a persons eyes that I've known for YEARS, and unless I've made a specific note of it, I wouldn't be able to tell you. In fact, even with my own child, if I try to focus in on anything specific (from my memory) about his appearance, it sort of blanks out. I'd make a terrible eye witness!
Strangely enough I have a relatively good verbal memory, and can often recall the way things were stated word for word. It was very useful in college as long as professors would test over what they actually lectured on. If they tested over things you had to read... well, not so great.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:This is quite true. I'm nearly 30, and my home pretty much still looks like a college dorm room.
I put enough value on the cleanliness of my environment that I actually have a maid. I also go through something like 20-30 issues of things like architectural digest when I'm trying to hammer out a new, organized color scheme for my living environment. I have careful appreciation for color going on in spades. It does not come coupled with the discomfort / emotive reactions to the suitability of color in an environment that I'm seeing described here.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Okay, in all seriousness, I really did want to know what people thought of the portrayal of third world Africans in the Book of Mormon. It seems to me like it did highlight some important issues that people in western countries would prefer to ignore... but also might have come across as kind of patronizing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
How many people / did anyone say they had gone to see the play?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
A few people had at least listened to the soundtrack (which is what I did).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
And is the soundtrack the complete audio record of the play, or is it just the songs?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I find the whole idea of the play offensive and juvenile. Parker and Stone, along with South Park, are crude and not watchable at all for me. Therefore, from the very beginning of who did the play I am offended. That it ends with some "sweet" thought that religion is full of lies, but it does well and ends up with nice people, is condescending as others have said. I would much rather be respected for what I believe than how I act as a religious person, because its my faith that makes me who I am. Doesn't matter if its gold plates, American Indians as part of a tribe of Israel, Garden of Eden in Missouri, Kolob, or my sacred Temple Garments; they all work together and are not separable from the person I have become. To say I am nice, but my beliefs are stupid or crazy doesn't impress me. Take me as a whole or don't take me at all. Do you have to believe what I do? No, but you better respect it nonetheless or I will not care how much you say you like me because disrespecting what I believe shows you don't care for me.
As an example, how many might have run into people who think your nice, but express your like of science fiction and you become an unsophisticated adolescent adult. Don't tell me you haven't run into that as science fiction or fantasy fans. True, there really are "fanboys" out there, but isn't pointing that out a simplification of what the comic-con costumed fans represent? I admit to laughing at them. Yet, I also admit that I understand why they do that without the "unsophisticated adolescents adults" label on the traditions and activities. If I sat with most of them I could (partly as a fan myself of the genre they represent) have a deep conversation about the costumes, the characters, the movies, the books, and the general meaning of life as expressed by the "strange" things they do.
It isn't because what Mormons or "fanboys" of science fiction do and believe isn't weird, strange, unusual, or even unbelievable. From outside perspectives it most certainly is. That view still misses the point of what true respect is, and its not about making fun of a culture you don't belong to or believe in yourself with potty jokes and blasphemes. True respect comes with seeking to understand, not mock or take lightly. In that respect the Book of Mormon play fails miserably.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:As an example, how many might have run into people who think your nice, but express your like of science fiction and you become an unsophisticated adolescent adult.
This comparison doesn't work, because if I expressed that I thought that a science fiction book were literally the objective guideline of all morality and understanding of creation, I'd expect to be considered more than unsophisticated.
religion is not equivalent to a genre enthusiasm.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
By the way, marriage qualification of at least a Bishop is part of the Scriptures as recorded in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 where is says among other things, "A Bishop then must be . . . the husband of one wife." I don't know if there is any other marriage requirements for other offices, but this is certainly there. Modern Scriptures don't to my knowledge have any other statements like this, although its hard to say if the one in Timothy is more than specific to the time it was given.
The problem with understanding what is Mormon doctrine is that its not a legalistic religion in the traditional sense. Much like art, a Mormon will know it when they see or hear it. Often like art the meaning and importance will be debated among those who both teach it and hear it as a participant. Some things will be emphasized while others de-emphasized, with a few getting tossed out completely over time with new developments or greater understanding. There are definitive doctrines for sure, but for the most part its an organic faith. This analogy can't be taken too far because there are authoritative Scriptures and those who hold responsibilities to keep orthodoxy. It is easier to ask "what do you believe as a Mormon" than it is "what do Mormons believe" when dealing with particulars. There is a framework of faith, but that allows greater latitude than outsiders usually understand or appreciate.
"what people thought of the portrayal of third world Africans in the Book of Mormon"
You can read here and here where the writer considers racism. I disagree with the toned down feelings they have that The Book of Mormon musical is not that bad, but overall agree that the racism has been ignored. I would argue it has been precisely because it makes fun of Mormons as the main attractions.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Samp, although I am not surprised, your missing my point. That point is that Mormons believe what they do for a reason and not just because "they believe" or they are silly or crazy. True respect is seeking to understand they whys and wherefores and not just make fun of what you don't believe because it doesn't sound credible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That point is that Mormons believe what they do for a reason and not just because "they believe" or they are silly or crazy.
What reason?
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Occasional, what could the creators have done or changed to make you feel respected?
And I'm not sure if your example works. I think what the play's creators were aiming for is exactly what you're advocating yourself...respect for a person independent from what they believe. The creators have described the show as an "atheist's love letter to religion" and the three writers (including the writer of the music) have expressed strong interest in the Mormon faith in particular. They are exactly the kind of atheists that would love to sit down with someone and talk about scripture or the mythology.
Do they think the beliefs are illogical? Most assuredly. But I don't think the conclusion is that "People of faith are unsophisticated." I think there's an admiration for people who do good things, even if they don't agree with the motivation. Just like how I may admire a comic book fan's passion, while still thinking the whole costume thing is alittle silly.
Personally, as a fellow atheist who is also very fascinated by religion, I feel like the show was a breath of fresh air. I've long been annoyed by Dawkins and the breed of atheism which thinks that just because religion is false, that it is without merit. I think its very respectful to value a story and its effect, even if I view the piece as fiction while you view it as autobiographical.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Samp, although I am not surprised, your missing my point.
I'm not missing your point. I am pointing out a bad analogy you made to try to make your point seem more credible, but which doesn't actually work.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I've long been annoyed by Dawkins and the breed of atheism which thinks that just because religion is false, that it is without merit.
I think that if you're saying these two groups -- Dawkins, and a breed of atheism that finds religion without merit because it is false -- are the same, then you haven't read or understood Dawkins. Dawkins argues that religion is dangerous, not that it is meritless.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"respect for a person independent from what they believe."
That is the totally opposite of what I am saying. A person should be respected for what they believe and what they do both. If you don't respect what I believe than that is the same to me as not respecting that person.
"What reason?"
There are several reasons. None that I care to go into here because I have a disrespect for Hatrack where I made the post I did against my better judgment.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "respect for a person independent from what they believe."
That is the totally opposite of what I am saying. A person should be respected for what they believe and what they do both. If you don't respect what I believe than that is the same to me as not respecting that person.
I respect your right to believe whatever you want.
I do not, necessarily, respect what it is you believe. That depends on the belief, and it doesn't get a pass just because you believe it.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:That is the totally opposite of what I am saying. A person should be respected for what they believe and what they do both. If you don't respect what I believe than that is the same to me as not respecting that person.
Do you respect a person's belief in astrology?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you don't respect what I believe than that is the same to me as not respecting that person.
Frankly, I think that's ridiculous. Lots of people believe lots of stupid things, and I don't need to respect the things they believe to respect them as people.
quote: There are several reasons. None that I care to go into here because I have a disrespect for Hatrack where I made the post I did against my better judgment.
Fair enough. Rest assured that you are just another person who, when asked for a reason for your belief that doesn't amount to "I choose to believe," has failed for whatever reason to actually provide one.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "respect for a person independent from what they believe."
That is the totally opposite of what I am saying. A person should be respected for what they believe and what they do both. If you don't respect what I believe than that is the same to me as not respecting that person.
I respect your right to believe whatever you want.
I do not, necessarily, respect what it is you believe. That depends on the belief, and it doesn't get a pass just because you believe it.
What right? People throw that around so loosely. Is it a positive right, a negative one? A legal right? A natural right? To top things off, depending on your conception of what a person is it can very well be impossible to respect a person without respecting their beliefs. I can't walk into a room full of woman and spout off misogynistic rhetoric about feminists and then say,"don't worry I still respect you as people," and expect them to feel respected. Come on!
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Tom, then exactly what is respecting someone as a person? Not randomly gunning them down in the street? Not hurling insults at them at random? It seems that your criteria for respect is low enough to make mute the notion of respecting someone in the first place. Of course, I don't hold to notions that I need to respect everyone because the idea sounds nice. Also, I believe when it comes to respect it is not so much if you believe you are respecting the person, but if they feel they are being respected. Your subjective belief of the enterprise has little to do with its success.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I disagree that one must respect a person's beliefs to respect them as a person. I agree with Tom that a requirement that you respect people's beliefs to respect them as people is ridiculous.
As to Black Fox's question of what entails respecting someone as a person: I would say, listening to them, giving their idea's a fair chance, speaking to them in a noninflammatory fashion, not demanding that they agree with you on your opinion, honesty (to a certain extent) and doing no violence to them and giving them the benefit of the doubt/not assuming the worst possible motivations for their actions but instead allowing them to explain are all parts of being respectful as a person.
By your definition all people who disagree with your beliefs are disrespectful. But I say reasonable people can disagree, it is a sign of civility to allow that others might think/feel different about something and yet even with that contrary opinion still be good and sane people who have nothing fundamentally wrong with them, nor does their disagreeing cause you any harm.
In regards to Black Fox's assertion that only the receiving person can determine if the speaker is respectful, I again, disagree vehemently. I would agree that people can feel disrespected regardless of the intent of the speaker, but emotional responses are not always logical, appropriate and can be based on miscommunications. While the end result should be taken into consideration, the intent of the speaker should receive even more regard.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Also, I wonder, if you only respect people who's opinions you respect...doesn't that mean you don't respect strangers or acquaintances who's opinion you simply do not know?
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I disagree that one must respect a person's beliefs to respect them as a person. I agree with Tom that a requirement that you respect people's beliefs to respect them as people is ridiculous.
As to Black Fox's question of what entails respecting someone as a person: I would say, listening to them, giving their idea's a fair chance, speaking to them in a noninflammatory fashion, not demanding that they agree with you on your opinion, honesty (to a certain extent) and doing no violence to them and giving them the benefit of the doubt/not assuming the worst possible motivations for their actions but instead allowing them to explain are all parts of being respectful as a person.
By your definition all people who disagree with your beliefs are disrespectful. But I say reasonable people can disagree, it is a sign of civility to allow that others might think/feel different about something and yet even with that contrary opinion still be good and sane people who have nothing fundamentally wrong with them, nor does their disagreeing cause you any harm.
In regards to Black Fox's assertion that only the receiving person can determine if the speaker is respectful, I again, disagree vehemently. I would agree that people can feel disrespected regardless of the intent of the speaker, but emotional responses are not always logical, appropriate and can be based on miscommunications. While the end result should be taken into consideration, the intent of the speaker should receive even more regard.
If you read back my post I'm sure that you'll see that I did not lay out a definition of what I would consider to be respecting a person. Also, I believe there is an important distinction between trying to be respectful and actually respecting the person from the view of the person being respected. What I was trying to lay out is the notion that someone feeling respected, which I do honestly believe is one of the goals of being respectful, can be considered necessary in some people's definition of someone being deemed respectful.
Look at your own definition of respect. Now to twist your definition somewhat, say I was disrespectful to an idea. Would that require me to approach the idea with inflammatory language? Would it induce me to violence against that idea? Or does respecting an idea require that I agree with it? I don't think respecting an idea requires me to accept it. Neither do I think that I can truly respect a person whose views I cannot respect. Could I be civil to them, certainly. Respect, no.
Intent is often a powerful tool in determining the actions of people, but I for one often feel that giving an undue weight to intent allows a defense by ignorance. I had no idea that talking about subject x would come across as disrespectful to an audience of women. This might be a defense for not holding the speech against the speaker, but I certainly do not see an argument for his being respectful. He may have tried to be respectful, but that is something entirely else.
Also, I think the subjective feelings of the person being "respected" is entirely important in the event. What is the point of being respectful if the act is only there to justify your actions to an third party? The intent of the speaker certainly shows the lack of a malicious feelings, but in no way does it actually raise or lower the actual respectfulness of the discourse or action.
Also Stone, by definition you can disrespect and respect someone's opinions that you don't know. Given that the feeling of respect comes from the other party it does not matter what you know or do not know about their opinion. This does not stop us from being civil or trying to be respectful, which is important. It's hard to do it when you're not trying.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I'm sorry I said anything. I really disrespect most of the people at Hatrack and consider the place rude and worthy of contempt.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
At least the play doesn't bring up the Lafferty brothers or the Mountain Meadow Massacre. Not to mention Warren Jeffs etc.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I'm sorry I said anything. I really disrespect most of the people at Hatrack and consider the place rude and worthy of contempt.
It's amazing you manage to hold your nose long enough to come back and post.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I'm sorry I said anything. I really disrespect most of the people at Hatrack and consider the place rude and worthy of contempt.
Why are you here then?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Then stay away from Hatrack for good, if interacting with it is going to make you act this childish and petulant!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:What I was trying to lay out is the notion that someone feeling respected, which I do honestly believe is one of the goals of being respectful, can be considered necessary in some people's definition of someone being deemed respectful.
Okay, so you have a crazy person, who thinks they are king of the world, and someone approaches them and says, "Excuse me sir, but could you please tell me the time." The person inquiring the time by our societies standards has treated the crazy person with respect. The crazy person deems the other to be -very disrespectful- as they did not bow their head to the ground and refer to them by the title "Your royal magnificence." By your standards, the time asker has been disrespectful. Correct?
quote:Now to twist your definition somewhat, say I was disrespectful to an idea.
Can one be disrespectful to a concept? And if one could, wouldn't the definition of "respectful" be different then say to a person? I'm sorry but pointing out that my definition of being respectful to a person doesn't work when applied to a non sentient non being doesn't actually prove anything. I mean, it was a specific answer to a specific question.
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: ...exactly what is respecting someone as a person?
quote:Also, I think the subjective feelings of the person being "respected" is entirely important in the event. What is the point of being respectful if the act is only there to justify your actions to an third party? The intent of the speaker certainly shows the lack of a malicious feelings, but in no way does it actually raise or lower the actual respectfulness of the discourse or action.
Let's say that two people from two cultures are meeting for the first time, they both attempt to be respectful to each other, but because of the different meanings of the actions in their different cultures they end up both being very offended by the meeting. Now if there was someone there who was versed in both cultures and translate the actions, wouldn't intent and ignorance be the determining factor and not the outcome without interpretation?
quote:Also Stone, by definition you can disrespect and respect someone's opinions that you don't know.
Missing a "n't" there? If so, that's my point. If knowing, and respecting someone's beliefs is a prerequisite for respecting them as a person, then not knowing their beliefs precludes the ability to respect them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And the best post of the year award goes to....
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I'm sorry I said anything. I really disrespect most of the people at Hatrack and consider the place rude and worthy of contempt.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:I'm sorry I said anything. I really disrespect most of the people at Hatrack and consider the place rude and worthy of contempt.
Why are you here then?
Well. Occasional is merely trying to demonstrate how "True respect comes with seeking to understand, not mock or take lightly."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'm sorry I said anything. I really disrespect most of the people at Hatrack and consider the place rude and worthy of contempt.
Criticism of ideas (even deeply held, "sacred" beliefs) <> rudeness. Your belief that one must respect a person's beliefs to respect a person is illuminating and helps to explain this little tantrum.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
What I am saying is that if the person you are acting upon is the deciding factor it doesn't matter if you know or don't know their thoughts and opinions when it comes to the act being respectful or not. Knowing their thoughts and opinions certainly increases the chances of being successful in the pursuit of being respectful
Also, living up to society's standards of respecting someone does not mean you've been respectful. It simply means that you have lived up to some social norm. The point is that you can be disrespectful and not be a "bad person." It is disrespectful to the crazy man to not call him your majesty, but you also don't have to live up to everyone's desire for respect. The King may deem it disrespectful to not kiss his finger and I might deem it to be disrespectful to myself to do so. When it comes to matters of respect there are "lose-lose" situations where you can't help having one party feel disrespected. Do reasonable people generally fall into these kind of situations with one another, no. I'm just stating that it does happen and it is not exactly difficult to see why.
What I'm trying to show by asking how you respect an idea is important in the debate as we are talking about not respecting someone's ideas, but still respecting the person. How do you respect someone's ideas? I would say it is possible to respect some people's ideas and not accept them. Of course others could certainly disagree and that is really what matters in the end. Perception is king.
Also, your whole two cultures meeting with a translator analogy is extremely muddled. Without a "translator" the intent does not matter for anything. It is the actual content of the action that matters, which is what I was trying to state. If you have a translator then the actual contents of the actions is changed. Respect and pretty much all discourse is performative. The fun thing is that in real life the translator does not necessarily even matter. Not every society is full of relativists. They may very well be offended by the actions of the other regardless if the other people saw it as good.
Think of it like this. If you give me chocolate ice cream and I hate it the fact that you like it does not make it taste any better to me. Now, if I find out that you love chocolate ice cream and that is why you gave it to me I might not be offended or hold it against you, but it still won't make it taste good! The same goes for respect. Your action may very well be disrespectful regardless of what you meant by it, but they may not hold it against you as much or at all at a future date upon finding out why you did it. It does not change the reaction at the time of the performance.
I don't mean to come off as a jerk, but I don't see how this is a difficult concept to stomach. You can very well disrespect an idea and therefore necessarily not be able to actually respect the person(They will feel disrespected).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:I'm sorry I said anything. I really disrespect most of the people at Hatrack and consider the place rude and worthy of contempt.
Why are you here then?
Well. Occasional is merely trying to demonstrate how "True respect comes with seeking to understand, not mock or take lightly."
Haha, ouch. Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I'm sorry I said anything. I really disrespect most of the people at Hatrack and consider the place rude and worthy of contempt.
Criticism of ideas (even deeply held, "sacred" beliefs) <> rudeness. Your belief that one must respect a person's beliefs to respect a person is illuminating and helps to explain this little tantrum.
This shows such an ignorance. How can you determine rudeness for other people? You attack them for not holding your social norms, but then are superior for upholding the better social norms. Come on now. I personally think that he or she is coming off as a total adolescent, but generally I'm not one to think that the correct response to adolescent behavior is more of the same.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's not a matter of "difficult concept to stomach"...it's a matter of I disagree.
Your standard for people acting respectfully only takes the outcome for the receiver into consideration and since it is an interaction between two people, you by definition are throwing away half the data.
Should the outcome be taken into consideration, yes. Should it be the only thing taken into consideration, no.
Also, people, even crazy stupid ignorant opinionated loud mouthed louts deserve some respect as human beings regardless of their beliefs. Not the same level of someone you find personally moral and admirable, but some level, and that level is the "as a person" level which even strangers who you have no clue as to their beliefs should receive.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:This shows such an ignorance. How can you determine rudeness for other people?
Let me restate:
In this community, criticism of ideas is not generally considered rudeness. It is, in fact, a significant portion of normal discourse.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I'm sorry I said anything. I really disrespect most of the people at Hatrack and consider the place rude and worthy of contempt.
Criticism of ideas (even deeply held, "sacred" beliefs) <> rudeness. Your belief that one must respect a person's beliefs to respect a person is illuminating and helps to explain this little tantrum.
This shows such an ignorance. How can you determine rudeness for other people? You attack them for not holding your social norms, but then are superior for upholding the better social norms. Come on now. I personally think that he or she is coming off as a total adolescent, but generally I'm not one to think that the correct response to adolescent behavior is more of the same.
Would you mind explaining how MattP's post was adolescent?
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Just look at the difference between his first post and the second.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It's not a matter of "difficult concept to stomach"...it's a matter of I disagree.
Your standard for people acting respectfully only takes the outcome for the receiver into consideration and since it is an interaction between two people, you by definition are throwing away half the data.
Should the outcome be taken into consideration, yes. Should it be the only thing taken into consideration, no.
Also, people, even crazy stupid ignorant opinionated loud mouthed louts deserve some respect as human beings regardless of their beliefs. Not the same level of someone you find personally moral and admirable, but some level, and that level is the "as a person" level which even strangers who you have no clue as to their beliefs should receive.
I'm not saying it is the "only" thing to be taken into consideration in evaluating a situation in a greater say "moral" sense. However, you can't say you respected a person if they feel disrespected. You can certainly say you tried to respect them, but that is something different. If your goal is to make them feel respected, which as I've stated earlier seems to be an important part of respect, then you should be more worried about the receiver than the giver. That doesn't mean that the giver is a bad person or what some might deem a "disrespectful" person, just that they failed in this situation.
A loud mouth lout may deserve having certain parts of their person respected, but this is different from respecting them as a person. For example, I don't respect people who beat their children mercilessly, but that doesn't mean I would say take away their legal rights or kill them. I would even respect some of their ideas, but not them. Does that make a kind of sense. I think you're making an error of composition and I'm sure it might look like I'm doing the same, but you're not looking at what I mean by disrespecting an idea. If I went into a Catholic church and told them all that I thought the notion of Jesus Christ is silly, they all aught to be sleeping in this morning, and that their priest was probably a pedophile I would not be respecting them! I could also think all of those things and still in a sense "respect" the idea by not blathering madly about it in the middle of a mass. As I said earlier, I don't think you have to agree with an idea to respect it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Try comparing both of his posts and your first one, you call him ignorant, combative, superior and adolescent.
Just saying.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
BF, I think we are cross talking with "respect for" and "respect of"...the former being a positive feeling of admiration and esteem about something/someone and the second being a general attitude of courteous civil behavior.
Yes, if someone is not respectful of your beliefs it is hard to show respect for them.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Yes, but I'm rather open about coming off as combative and not necessarily coming from any kind of moral high ground. I just believe in attacking the axioms that we tend to take for granted. That this is good or this is bad. In this case the attitude that a person can just respect everyone but then also not respect their ideas. That is a much different statement than saying we can agree to disagree. What you're saying is that you can disrespect a person's beliefs yet respect them. Tell me if this just sounds contradictory to you? You might respect their right to life, libery, etc. etc, but I certainly don't think you can come off and say that you respect them.
That and I was trying to call him ignorant ( in the situation ), combative, superior, and adolescent. It seems as if I was successful in communicating the message.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yes...you can disrespect someone's beliefs and still respect them. That's my point.
So...what happened to "but generally I'm not one to think that the correct response to adolescent behavior is more of the same."
Two wrongs don't make a right, but the third one is okay? (I still don't see either of his posts as "wrong" for the record).
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I don't think it is necessarily adolescent to point out to someone that hey my norms should be your norms and you're wrong for not having my norms is a wonderful message. He basically points to the fact that "obviously" the reason he is having this tantrum is due to the fact that he thinks people have to respect his beliefs to respect him. Which, if you haven't noticed, I think is actually a pretty salient point. How dare he feel offended!
Now, in his second post MattP comes across with a great deal more thought. Basically he makes the excellent point that on Hatrack it is the norm to deal with criticism of ideas and that if you want to be in this community you will have to accept that. Not only this, but this very criticism that the other viewed as being rude was a general part of the Hatrack community. Much different message.
I don't think that all criticism is disrespectful. That being said, this person obviously does feel disrespected by the criticism found on this forum board. In response I would say deal with it. If they don't like the critical thought found here no one is forcing them to be a member of the community.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Yes...you can disrespect someone's beliefs and still respect them. That's my point.
I refuse to fight this argument anymore. One last shot: If I go into a situation and disrespect a part of someone's beliefs or ideas then I be definition have to have disrespected them. Respecting a belief does not mean agreeing with it! You may not even like it, but respecting it is something entirely different. However, if I actually go through the motions and disrespect a person's beliefs, then they feel disrespected. Hence, they are not respected. You can respect their rights and everything else, but that does not change the fact that you disrespected them!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Matt's first post offended...you...Occasional didn't comment...to which you did attempt to come from high ground...that's why I quoted you. ("but generally I'm not one to think that the correct response to adolescent behavior is more of the same.") And then when I pointed out that your reply was more offensive then the comment you were commenting on being offensive, you claimed to be purposefully offensive...
Please consider Matt's second comment as a clarification for you personally, he didn't change anything he said initially.
I get what you are saying...but instead of saying "To respect me as a person, you must respect my beliefs." you should say, "If you are disrespectful to my beliefs then I feel disrespected as a person." as it's what you really mean.
I can hold the opinion that your beliefs are not worthy of respect, and not share it with you, and still respect you as a person and still treat you with respect.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I'm on the fence on this one. While I may not respect an idea or belief you have, I think I can still respect you as a person.
On the other hand, your beliefs help define who you are, so by disrepecting part of who somebody it, by definition you are disrepecting the person.
I'm confused, so I'm not even going to try. Nevermind, carry on!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Please consider Matt's second comment as a clarification for you personally, he didn't change anything he said initially.
This. My second post wasn't more thoughtful. It just provided additional context in response to the apparent confusion on Black Fox's apart. I believe it was fully appropriate to refer to Occasional's slighting of the majority of Hatrack as a tantrum.
I actually found it fascinating in a meta sort of way that Occasional was offended at having people not respect their beliefs about disrespecting beliefs.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:On the other hand, your beliefs help define who you are, so by disrepecting part of who somebody it, by definition you are disrepecting the person.
Nah. I indicate respect for someone's intelligence and agency by attempting to correct what I believe to be incorrect beliefs. I certainly appreciate when my errors are pointed out in a manner in which I have an opportunity to address them. I especially appreciate having sloppy thinking pointed out.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
MattP: I think his behavior is a tantrum. That being said, I wasn't confused by your initial post. I think it is appropriate to point the fact out that he came to this community and this is the way this community works. He may very well be offended, but he made the choice to come post here.
That is a completely different line of thinking than just saying criticism of ideas does not equal rudeness, or to be nice to MattP: criticism of ideas does not necessarily mean that a person is being rude. At this point I'm beating a dead horse, but just because you find a behavior respectful does not mean it actually is to others.
Also, I'm all for pointing out inconsistencies in people's beliefs, but don't expect them to feel respected or happy about it. It's hard enough to find people who will calmly disagree about milder topics than their religious beliefs. You should also not be surprised when people get offended when you criticize their beliefs. You can certainly be angry when the bear rips off your arm, but then maybe you shouldn't have poked it with a stick.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
You can certainly hold the opinion that someone's belief does not deserve respect and not disrespect them. However, as soon as you voice that lack of respect you are probably going to get under their skin. Respect is performative, and for that reason it does not matter so much what you are trying to do, but what you actually do. In this case what you "actually" do is generate feelings in the other party. If they feel disrespected then you have disrespected them. Someone else might come across and say yes you tried to be respectful or even say something like wow what a crazy sensitive person for bursting up over that. That being said, that party does not matter in the "performance" between the two people in that interaction.
Also, I wasn't trying to come from the "higher" ground on MattP just indicating the fact that he was trying to do so.
I've always thought that our - I use the term loosely - thoughts that to respect others you should treat them the way you would want to be treated is a silly notion. You should treat people the way they wish to be treated and to assume that others wish to be treated the same way as you do is a rather large assumption to make.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I was going to write a point by point argument to your last post, but I decided against it.
I'll just sum up what I had to say in a single sentence: We disagree on a lot.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Totally, and I'm cool with that, because I still respect you : )
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm going to skip all the back and forth here and use my favorite Extreme Example: the scientologists!
I don't have to respect scientology in order to respect someone who is a scientologist. Anybody who says that I categorically have to in order to meet their definition of 'respect' is not using a definition or a standard that I'm even really going to pay attention to.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Which is fine, but they'll still feel disrespected. If you are fine with that it's fine. You will have met your own standard for decorum and be on your merry way.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Say I care about someone a lot, I believe the things they do, I'm kind to them. I happen to be unfamiliar with some particular custom of theirs, and accidentally say something on par with the n-word and they are extremely offended, have I been disrespectful?
If apologize and attempt to make amends and they still are offended. Have I been disrespectful?
(You can substitute the "on par with the n-word" issue with "the person in question is just really easily offended")
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
As an aggregate, you probably haven't been disrespectful. However, that all depends on the recipient. I think most even keeled individuals will accept your apologies and not feel disrespected, but maybe not. I think we've all had odd social situations with people that went in a crazy direction.
Also, just because you did disrespect them does not make you a disrespectful person, Unless you believe in some kind of purity in composition.
I think where people have a problem with this is that they don't feel like they are disrespectful just because someone is overly sensitive. That is, they see being disrespectful as just naturally being something bad and don't feel like being "bad" due to someone's perceived faults.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think where people have a problem with this is that they don't feel like they are disrespectful just because someone is overly sensitive.
I think we also have a problem of definitions. You are claiming an authoritative definition for respect that is not universally recognized. For many people, at least a component of respect - if not the entirety - is intent. Dictionary definitions seem to lean in this direction.
Imagine attempting to shake hands with your "unclean" hand in one of the many cultures who makes such a distinction. The person you offered your hand to looks at you in horror and makes a contemptuous reply. Did you disrespect them? Suppose that someone then explains that your gesture was made in ignorance and the offended party responds by offering you a smile and a gentle pat in the shoulder (with the clean hand, of course). Was your original act still disrespectful? The injured party no longer believes so. Can you retroactively alter the respectfulness of past actions?
[ August 03, 2011, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think intent absolutely matters. If you're dealing with somebody who doesn't get sarcasm and then sarcastically compliment them, they might perceive you as being respect. I do not think by any reasonable definition you have been respectful.
I also think that trying to be aware of what another perceives as respectful behavior and modifying behavior to match that is an aspect of respect. Black Fox has claimed that "living up to society's standards of respecting someone does not mean you've been respectful" and I think that's off. Respect is all about learning the standards of whatever society or sub-society you're dealing with and adapting to those norms.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: If they feel disrespected then you have disrespected them.
I think you are just arguing definitions at this point (which is unproductive). Under your definition, if I am talking to someone and they get to decide whether or not I am being disrespectful then being disrespectful is no longer an immediately bad thing. Once we allow individuals to define what is disrespectful (or offensive), we provide an incentive for people to abuse their supposed feelings of disrespect or offense to censor others. I think that if someone feels disrespected merely because I disagree with them then I have done nothing wrong even if, under your definition, I have been disrespectful. If that's the case then nobody can complain about being disrespected because being disrespectful isn't enough to have done something wrong.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: If that's the case then nobody can complain about being disrespected because being disrespectful isn't enough to have done something wrong.
That's really true, and fantastically worded. Whether or not I am truly a disrespectful person becomes an element at the mercy of my environment moreso than anything that has to do with my level of decorum.
Let's face it — in life, you are going to meet many brittle, snippy, easily offended people. Them having a reactionary snit-fit does not get to be measure by which I can be determined to have been a respectful or disrespectful person.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
You'll meet some. Maybe one a year.
If you meet a LOT, though, if you are continually amazed at how many over-sensitive people you find, if you can't believe just how unbelievably brittle and easily offended the world has gotten, if you start think every member of a certain group is crazy snippy and has a problem, then it isn't them: it's you.
If it is more than, say, one person a year, then "other people" are not the problem. So if two or more people are telling you at the same time you're being disrespectful, it takes...serious contempt and disrespect to imagine they are all wrong and only you know the truth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would put the threshold for that self-evaluation considerably higher than two a year unless one's a hermit, Katie, but I otherwise agree. Would you apply the same logic to blanket condemnations of, say, people on a given thread? That if you perceive more than two people acting badly (or accusing you of acting badly), it's actually your problem and not theirs?
[ August 04, 2011, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
How many people here are named Katie?
For the most part agree with what others are saying to BlackFox. However, I think that "are other people feeling disrespected" is a benchmark you should consider when deciding how best to be respectful.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Tom, your opinion is worth less than nothing to me. I don't respect what you think or say at all, based on my long experience with you and your behavior.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: How many people here are named Katie?
Katharina (or Aerin) is the only person who regularly gets referred to as Katie by anybody. Kate Boots could be called Katie, I suppose, but it's nothing that anyone here has a habit of doing.
Kat, out of curiosity, what is the significance of the Aerin screenname?
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Just a whim. I'm not trying to hide at all. I'm still me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, your opinion is worth less than nothing to me. I don't respect what you think or say at all, based on my long experience with you and your behavior.
That's fair enough. As I do respect what you think and say, however, I'm still curious: do you believe the "if more than one person thinks you're behaving badly, you probably are" applies to forums as well?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Kate Boots could be called Katie, I suppose, but it's nothing that anyone here has a habit of doing.
I am, in fact, called Katie by people who have known me a long time and/or are Irish.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Tom, part of the reason I don't respect you is because you lie. For all the protests of respect, your actions say otherwise. I believe those more.
So: no conversation. Find someone else to smarm on.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Kate Boots could be called Katie, I suppose, but it's nothing that anyone here has a habit of doing.
I am, in fact, called Katie by people who have known me a long time and/or are Irish.
By anyone here, though?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nope. But you could if you wanted to. Especially if you can fake an Irish accent.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
Regarding the perception of respect...
If you know that the other person is not intending to be disrespectful to you, then I don't know why you would ever need to feel disrespected. That you might still feel disrespected is perhaps understandable, but it is in no way necessary.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:part of the reason I don't respect you is because you lie
You are, of course, free to be as wrong as you'd like. Nor do you need any particular reason to disrespect anyone. It is, I assure you, unnecessary for you to convince me that you are confident in your justifications for the rightness of your condemnations; this is something that has always been clear.
However, if you're going to ignore perfectly good questions because you don't respect me enough to answer them, simply don't answer them; leaving aside whether it costs me anything to spit into the wind -- because I understand that it is important to you to say that you do not care -- you waste your own time pretending to converse, otherwise, and that seems like a loss.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Wait, so katharina = Aerin? That explains so much.
Maybe she'll answer me...
kat/Aerin: Does your principal of "If multiple people are feeling disrespected by you, then it's likely you" apply to the 'Rack?
And I'm curious, what did Tom lie about?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Stone_Wolf_,
You are unlikely to get an answer to either question. She tends to disconnect when directly confronted on contentious issues.
Not a value judgement, just an observation.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I think intent absolutely matters. If you're dealing with somebody who doesn't get sarcasm and then sarcastically compliment them, they might perceive you as being respect. I do not think by any reasonable definition you have been respectful.
I also think that trying to be aware of what another perceives as respectful behavior and modifying behavior to match that is an aspect of respect. Black Fox has claimed that "living up to society's standards of respecting someone does not mean you've been respectful" and I think that's off. Respect is all about learning the standards of whatever society or sub-society you're dealing with and adapting to those norms.
That certainly works most of the time. The problem is that we often perceive our society or sub-society as being much larger than it really is. We often talk about being "Americans" as if that is an all encompassing social paradigm that applies to all American citizens. The reality is more complex than that as different regions have different norms and even within regions you have various social norms when it comes to certain groups within that region. Due to that when we meet strangers we cannot just off the cuff say that our norms are their norms.
Interestingly enough I was talking about this issue of respect with a good friend of mine last night and for the most part he came down on the side opposite of mine. What I tried to argue with him, and I suppose I have here as well, is that it is a two way street. Yes, the receiver of behavior gets to decide if they feel respected or disrespected, but so do you. Also, I believe that if someone knows that you don't mean disrespect they may very well not feel disrespected. Of course that depends on them being able to read your intent as respectful, so in that sense you have to hope that the other party is reasonable. They may very well know that you mean well, but still come across as mildly offended got no other reason than it is a gut reaction.
To put it bluntly, perception is king. More often than not it is not what we do or what we are trying to do, but how others perceive it to be.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
The principal is out to lunch with the teachers...
1. Whatever. I know what you're getting at.
2. None of your business. What an intensely personal question. Who do you think you are?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Welp, I wasn't holding my breath. The first seems like just a decent question. The second a matter of fairness: she accuses Tom of lying a lot, but not so he can answer/explain/apologize.
Out of curiosity, does anyone agree with Black Fox's contention that factually respect/disrespect is independent of the intent of the speaker and solely determined by the receiver?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: 1. Whatever. I know what you're getting at.
I was asking your opinion. If I was "getting at" something, I would have simply said so.
quote:2. None of your business.
Fine.
quote:What an intensely personal question.
Not really, "What size/color/cut are your underwear?" is a intensely personal question.
quote:Who do you think you are?
I'm Batman.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Due to that when we meet strangers we cannot just off the cuff say that our norms are their norms.
Who is making this argument?
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Welp, I wasn't holding my breath. The first seems like just a decent question. The second a matter of fairness: she accuses Tom of lying a lot, but not so he can answer/explain/apologize.
Out of curiosity, does anyone agree with Black Fox's contention that factually respect/disrespect is independent of the intent of the speaker and solely determined by the receiver?
Think of it like this. Can you make someone else feel respected at the time of an event, or is that a feeling that has to come from them. Honestly, I think it is pretty straight forward. We just don't like to think of our actions in some sense being out of our control.
I like to think of the performative through the analogy of a play. A play performed before an audience of zero cannot be a good play or a bad play. There is no applause; there is no audience in which to generate a feeling. However, once an audience is present a play can actually perform, but the actors do not have control over the audience insofar as all that they can attempt to do is perform to the best of their ability. One audience might think the actors boring and the dialogue dry, while another audience falls in love with the same performance. In this sense the actors opinion on if the performance was good or if the play is excellent has absolutely no bearing on how the audience reacts. Unfortunately, sometimes we just end up with a poor audience.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
I don't know that it is accurate to compare the feeling of being respected to a matter of personal preference or taste. I mean, you do have the ability to choose whether you want to feel disrespected or not.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I would disagree. It is a kind of reaction like any other. You might choose to swallow your gut feeling or not act upon it, but that does not change the fact that you felt it. Unless you actually believe that every emotional decision that you make is dictated by your rational free will.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
Sure, you may not be able to control your initial reaction, but you can control how you perceive it afterwards.
Isn't saying "I feel disrespected" just another way of saying, "I feel he was disrespecting me?" Cannot that opinion change over time?
To put it another way, I think someone could accurately make the statement, "I felt disrespected at first, but I realize now that no disrespect was intended, so I no longer feel disrespected."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Wait, why is the topic of what TomDavidson may or may not have lied about, an "intensely personal question" for Kate? (Or does the numbering of 1 and 2 mean something else)
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
quote: "I felt disrespected at first, but I realize now that no disrespect was intended, so I no longer feel disrespected."
In order for this to happen, I think it needs more than "I didn't mean it badly. Your feeling disrespected is your problem; it's probably related to how stupid you must be in order to be a theist. I didn't mean that badly either."
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
quote:Originally posted by shadowland: Sure, you may not be able to control your initial reaction, but you can control how you perceive it afterwards.
Isn't saying "I feel disrespected" just another way of saying, "I feel he was disrespecting me?" Cannot that opinion change over time?
To put it another way, I think someone could accurately make the statement, "I felt disrespected at first, but I realize now that no disrespect was intended, so I no longer feel disrespected."
Sure that can happen, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to change your mind about the matter. It also doesn't change the fact that at one point you felt disrespected. Again, in the end perception rules. I'm not saying your perception can't change or even that it probably won't change; I am simply making the observation that in the end it is the other person's perception of the events that matters in their feeling disrespected or not. Sure your intent may influence their perception later on, but it also may not.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
BF (Forever?) I think you are confusing opinion and fact.
Take your play. The play can be factually good even with no audience. Just as a tree will make noise even if there is no one there to hear it. That someone feels disrespected doesn't mean they factually were. Someone could love a bad play or hate a good play, an individual's opinion doesn't change the facts (is the play well written, well acted, with good production values, etc)...then perhaps you ask, who then makes that determination which changes it from individual opinion to empirical fact? First off is the conclusion reasonable? Would the majority of people agree with it? Is it logical, does it make sense?
People's opinions should be taken into consideration, but reasonableness ranks higher in my book, and when it comes to people interacting, intent also needs to be given it's fair share of weight.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Wait, why is the topic of what TomDavidson may or may not have lied about, an "intensely personal question" for Kate? (Or does the numbering of 1 and 2 mean something else)
I am actually delighted to answer intensely personal questions. And think that Tom is scrupulously honest.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Oops, I meant Katie/Katharina, not Kate. Sorry.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
BF,
I think you're still trying to wage a definition war here without solid footing in the technical definition or conventional use of the word. There have been times when I've felt offense at another's action and would have said that the action was disrespecting me only to later have the motivations of that action clarified. I no longer consider those events acts of disrespect. I was not disrespected; I merely misunderstood the motivations behind those actions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So...no personal questions then? None at all?
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Oh, I'm also Kate. That's my email address and what about 30% of people I know in my city call me. I recognize all nicknames of Katharine except for Kathy. Don't like the name Kathy at all. That one is clearly not me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
kmbboots: Maybe in a different thread
(And maybe once I figure out what intensely personal questions you haven't already answered)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Apologies boots...I'm too literal by far.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What are you apologizing for?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There was briefly a new thread...it was a bad joke and is no longer around...if you missed it, better for everyone!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Awwww...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be fair, I think BF is correct once you appreciate the nuance of what he's saying.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Perhaps your fresh perspective could bring better understanding, Tom. Why is it you feel BF is correct?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think (and suspect this is what Tom means) that even though BlackFox's definition is arbitrary, it SHOULD be the mark of a respectful person to consider whether someone feels respected or not. If you frequently find that your "respectful" attitude is making people upset, you should reconsider the behaviors you consider respectful.
Consider being a good person, in general. It's not just the intent. If you consistently try to be good in a way that ends up hurting people, then eventually your intent stops counting for as much. True "Goodness," as well as "Respect," require more than just intent.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Consider being a good person, in general. It's not just the intent. If you consistently try to be good in a way that ends up hurting people, then eventually your intent stops counting for as much. True "Goodness," as well as "Respect," require more than just intent.
Well, yeah. <edit> That is, you should try to be respectful based on the audience's concept of respect rather than merely your own definition.</edit>
At least my specific point was in highlighting the other side of that, namely, that intent does play a role in determining whether you feel disrespected or not, or at least your perception of their intent plays a role.
I think the difficult part in all of this is trying to understand the other person's perception, which involves not only your perception of the other person's intent, but also trying to understand their perception of you and your behavior. There's plenty of room for misunderstanding in all of this. Therefore, I don't see what benefit there is in ever feeling disrespected when the intent is unknown.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by shadowland: Well, yeah. I'm not sure that anyone was specifically arguing against that point.
At least my specific point was in highlighting the other side of that, namely, that intent does play a role in determining whether you feel disrespected or not...
+1
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why is it you feel BF is correct?
Because, as he pointed out, you can in fact disrespect someone accidentally, through ignorance or through their own determination to be disrespected. Avoiding the appearance of disrespect, then, is something to be done when possible, but it should be acknowledged that it is not always possible, and is certainly not the end goal of any social interaction.
90% of social interaction involves coming up with supposed motives for other people, and about 90% of being a good person requires that the motives you invent err on the side of charity. I know there are people who disagree with me on this, but they're wrong -- although I suppose I can be a bit flexible regarding the percentages I just made up. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You lost me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: You'll meet some. Maybe one a year.
No. Not unless you live in a cave.
quote:If you meet a LOT, though, if you are continually amazed at how many over-sensitive people you find, if you can't believe just how unbelievably brittle and easily offended the world has gotten, if you start think every member of a certain group is crazy snippy and has a problem, then it isn't them: it's you.
Thankfully, then, if this is an intent at remote analysis, none of it applies to me. Many individuals of certain groups can be offended by stupid things, though. I watched a whole cadre of anti-vac activists be deeply offended over the mention by one mother that she had taken her baby out for vaccinations that day. They were all snippy about it. Them being near universal in their actions didn't mean they could say "it's you" to the mother.
quote:If it is more than, say, one person a year, then "other people" are not the problem. So if two or more people are telling you at the same time you're being disrespectful, it takes...serious contempt and disrespect to imagine they are all wrong and only you know the truth.
There have been scores of separate instances here where I have watched many, many more than two people here trying to tell you that you were being incredibly disrespectful, in instances were you were being very straightforwardly hostile. Are you admitting contempt and disrespect on the part of your own actions and tendencies, or how do you explain this? Are you different?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Clearly, you don't appreciate the "true respect" that is being demonstrated by people that are advocating "true respect."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Mucus...I searched for the phrase "true respect" and had to go back two pages to a post by Occasional to find it...is that who you are directing your post at? And if not, who?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
There's at least one layer of sarcasm there, so I'm not sure if it matters who he's directing the post at.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
So, it's okay to be a jerk on the internet?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'd take Hatrack over plenty of real life places I know. People here are articulate, funny, discuss interesting ideas, and compared to many other places, are respectful.
For comparison, a place I used to work at was predominantly atheist and (nominally) liberal. Common political discussion consists of such nuanced commentary as "Man, republicans are retarded." A lot of the running dialogue in the office is "ironic" racist and sexist jokes. Attempts to resolve arguments by *actually looking up the answer* were often met with scorn.
I have no problem being told, in the course of a religious discussion, that I can't be moral without Christian values. I have no problem with people thinking an idea I believe in is ridiculous, so long as they express that thought in a way that shows they respect me as a human being.
I agree that on the internet, you have to be prepared to deal with a wide array of people which includes some people who are willing to be obnoxious because they are shielded by anonymity. I do not think that makes being a jerk on the internet okay.
What I really don't understand is, if you think Hatrack is such a cesspool, what are you still *doing* here?
[ August 05, 2011, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
People have told me that you are not nearly as toxic in person as you are online.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
On a pretty regular basis, myself and others have felt insulted by you. Do you not think you have insulted us, or that it is okay to have insulted us because other people are being insulting?
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Are you asking me that question? Seriously? HERE? In THIS PLACE?
So is that a yes?
quote:Oh my stars, my real life is much, much better than Hatrack as it is now.
Congratulations.
quote:Since I can't imagine that behavior is normal in their real life . . . then clearly this isn't real life for you either.
FWIW, Hatrack is most definitely a part of real life for me.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Seriously - ENCOURAGED TO COMMIT SUICIDE.
Who did that? Was it said in seriousness? Did the community not come down on them? If not, that's bizarre.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
While I can imagine such a thing happening on hatrack, you have a habit of grossly mischaracterizing things, and I'd like to see the context.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Kat, I'm glad you have a positive real life, many of us here do, and still enjoy the 'Rack.
Would you please try and be mindful that we posters determine with each post if this is a positive place or a negative one, and we need your help! Please put forth extra effort to be kind and friendly here and the rewards will not be limited to this place, but you will benefit by them directly as well!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm tempted to waste my time and energy trying to get you to understand that your negative behavior is the cause of the strife you are reeling against, but if you stay consistent, you will simply assign me a negative agenda, ulterior motives, say I'm dishonest and then, declare what I really think.
You win kat! You win. You are so unpleasant to deal with, so assumptive and unable to apply any of your own ample criticism to your self that I just don't want to deal with you anymore.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. Maybe we should just take some time away from trying to "fix" kat. Getting piled on like this can't be pleasant and isn't likely to be productive.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Only if this is real life. If it isn't - and it isn't - then encouraging someone to committ suicide or condemning them for not allowing themselves to be raped is totally awesome and hilarious.
That really isn't the standard that is generally applied here, kat. I'm not here as much as I once was, of course, and I don't read every post of every thread the way I once did, but I still feel confident in saying that neither of those things are par for the course here. I really am curious as to who said it, what the context was, and whether they were taken to task for it by the community.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: I'm completely satisfied in my assessment of the community, and the present treatment only reinforces that my original assessment is correct.
Then why post about it, if you're not looking for either discussion or validation?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can't help but wonder: is this a game? Are you trolling, Katharina? I'm asking because your words are so consistently-almost constantly, now-at such odds with your tone and the overall ideas you're expressing, that it's just *strange* to read you now, so often lecturing and criticizing on what an awful place this is and how mean and nasty its inhabitants are, and how poorly their behavior reflects on them...and doing so in a way that, sometimes within the same thread and even post, is exactly what you're criticizing.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Fabulous. I'm thrilled about not only being on the receiving end of those things, but at being called a delusional liar when I report that it happened.
Hmmmm....does this sound like anything else to anyone else?
Kat, are you addressing me with this? If so, I think that you're being unfair, and honestly I feel hurt. I wasn't calling you anything, and I don't think that a fair reading of my question could lead you to think that I was. I was asking for clarification because what you were talking about seemed utterly bizarre, and out of keeping with what I see of the forum, not because I thought you were lying.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: "This happened."
"Prove it."
No. Bite me.
Really? So in any situation, being asked to back up what you say with actual evidence is deserving of instant refusal and insults?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's not what he said, either in content or in tone. You're lying. I don't know if it's intentional, or if it's because you feel hurt, or if it's because Hatrack, being filled with nasty, smug hypocrites deserves nasty, smug behavior from you.
But whether it's intended or not, you're lying, and lying in a very strange, aggressive way. It's pretty unsettling, to the point that having said this, I'm just not going to post about this anymore. People who know my 'style' around here know that's unusual, but frankly I think it's something we should all do, those who haven't already. Regardless of whatever provocation is offered.
Katharina, I'm not sure what exactly happened to so thoroughly turn you on this group and the people in it. I'm sorry for whatever it was. But you're behaving in a savage, hateful way now. It's pretty clear that posting about it doesn't make you feel better, but I do-believe it or not-hope that something will.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
"This happened"
"Man, that's weird! Tell me more."
I don't think there's any way to convince you of this, but the above really was my intent. I retract the question, though, and won't be interacting with you further.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: You'll meet some. Maybe one a year. So if two or more people are telling you at the same time you're being disrespectful, it takes...serious contempt and disrespect to imagine they are all wrong and only you know the truth.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Jake, I'm sorry if your question wasn't intended that way.
[ August 05, 2011, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Aerin ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: If the goal is to prove otherwise, retire from the field and maybe consult a book or two on different tactics.
The goal is trying to understand why you're somewhat constantly so unpleasant to almost everyone with very little reason. When asked to explain said reason, you respond with insults.
As I doubt I'll be getting a different response, I'll do what you suggest:
I see you coming down the sidewalk, and I'm crossing to the other side of the street.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Fabulous. I'm thrilled about not only being on the receiving end of those things, but at being called a delusional liar when I report that it happened.
Ironically, what I actually said was:
quote:you have a habit of grossly mischaracterizing things
Such as, say, saying that somebody called you a delusional liar, when in fact they said no such thing.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Jake, I'm sorry if your question wasn't intended that way. There was an almost identical question above it that definitely seemd intended that way, and yours seemed like a continuation of it.
I appreciate the apology.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Are you asking me that question? Seriously? HERE? In THIS PLACE? Where people encourage suicide and Tom calls theists deluded drug addicts?
Heaven help us all if this were real life. Thankfully, however, it isn't. Not even remotely. For which you should clearly be incredible thankful.
I would appreciate some sort of indication where a poster has encouraged another poster to commit suicide and nothing was done. As for Tom comparing theists to deluded drug addicts, that conversation is still happening, and it does not strike me as him being dismissive of anybody. Perhaps if somebody responded to him and he said something like, "Whatever, I'm not listening to you, you're a delusional theist." I might do something then.
Currently whenever you seem to get into discussions with Rabbit or Tom you get incredibly frustrated and angry. I don't see why that inevitably has to be.
I'm doing everything I can to manage this place, and believe me the biggest perk of this job is not hearing people, such as yourself tell me what a terrible place it is here.
I pay attention, I listen seriously when posters talk to me about what is concerning them, but explosive emotional outbursts don't solve anything here.
I'm glad you find RL so gratifying, I do too. I'm sorry Hatrack is not providing you with whatever it provided you with in the past, I'm earnestly doing what I can as a moderator to bring that to pass. But it's delusional to believe that if I was just perfect as a moderator it would all work out. There is a certain element to a healthy forum that has to come from the posters, where posters talk openly and honestly to each other.
I can't stop people from reading into each other's posts, anymore than I can stop a zebra from seeing what looks like a lion moving through the grass and braying to the rest of the heard to run. All I can do is stop lions when they come out of the grass.
Unfortunately there is so much history and bad blood between you and several posters katharina it's an almost impossible task to let that all go. I'm not saying who is at fault, all I can say is that some amount of long suffering and general amiability would serve you well. If that doesn't feel like a proper fit, very well, you have every right to express yourself as you choose, so does everybody else.
If you can't find a way to make it work with every other poster, either by ignoring the ones you can't be trusted to respond positively to, or by finding a way to not get your feathers ruffled, then perhaps Hatrack isn't the best place for you to spend your time.
I for one like you, I think you bring many great things to the table, you're smart, honest, steadfast in your beliefs, and even kind. That's the better part of you.
I'm sorry you feel dog-piled, but you are bringing serious accusations to the table, and telling everybody else you have no intention of backing them up even when honest people are genuinely shocked to hear you feel that way. It's not fair to make accusations you will not/cannot discuss specifically. It's better you simply not make them otherwise how can those discussing with you even deal with them? If we are going to talk about the existence of God for example and I say to Javert, "I know he exists, he visited me once in person, we had a conversation, but I'm not going to discuss it further sorry." It puts him at an improper disadvantage.
Anyway, I'm rambling. If you wish to discuss this further you have my email, though I would appreciate it if you would provide some means for me to respond, that isn't here on the boards.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
My behavior, such as saying you mischaracterize things, which you immediately distorted into "calling you a delusional liar?"
If you consider that an acceptable way to rephrase what I said, then no, you do not get to be taken at face value when you say that somebody told somebody else to commit suicide.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't ever think I've seen you curse before, Aerin.
**
It's a sign of how long I've been away from Hatrack that I can't think of anything flippant to say.
I think I'm the worse for that change.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
*shrug* I really don't feel like reliving the circumstances. Especially not in this horrible, horrible thread where people respond a report of being hurt with accusations of dishonesty and demand that I put myself up for judgment. It is simply not going to happen. If you don't understand why, then I suggest a book or two on psychology.
JBlade: I'll go back to ignoring the trolls and remembering that it isn't worth my time to share anything, because any little bit only leads to demands for more until someone finds something with which they can attack me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So, how 'bout that Book of Mormon? I hear there are some good musical numbers, eh?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Javert and Rakeesh, go to hell. That now makes an unbelievable amount of people ganging up on me, and considering the offense is umbrage at my contention that Hatrack is a nasty, uncivil place filled with ill-informed, entitled jerks I would cross the street to avoid in real life, the present circumstances are only reinforcing my assessment.
Do you not think that you are, right now, being the most nasty and uncivil person in this discussion? Going out of your way, in fact, to pointlessly express your condescension towards others?
Do you remember how this relates to my point about what you said?
You literally said "if two or more people are telling you at the same time you're being disrespectful, it takes...serious contempt and disrespect to imagine they are all wrong and only you know the truth."
You then become incredibly hostile and end up with those Two Or More people telling you at the same time that you're being disrespectful.
And you are.
Do you see the lesson you unintentionally give us about yourself when you either disconnect from the previous statements so boldly (the whole 'do as I say, not as I do') or come up with excuses and pretty much hateful dismissals of a group which is, pretty clearly, acting better than you?
It's a serious question. It's not 'ganging up.' It's trying to point out that you have no perspective on the hypocrisy of your actions, and that you need to regain it somehow.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
For our next act, I think we'll have a Hindu demonstrate how eating beef insults Hindus by walking a horse and two cats into a Burger King, butchering them, and feasting on the bloody remains.
That'll show them beefeaters.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: JBlade: I'll go back to ignoring the trolls and remembering that it isn't worth my time to share anything, because any little bit only leads to demands for more until someone finds something with which they can attack me.
If that's how you feel it has to be, that is in fact how it has to be. I believe you can do better, but I'm not demanding that from you.
I'm willing to assume you are telling the truth Kat, you don't strike me as somebody who invents falsehoods. But I have absolutely no recollection of seeing a poster encourage another to commit suicide, and doing nothing about it. You have indicated you don't wish to relive it, and I can respect that, if you can, I'd appreciate at least a finger pointing in the right direction.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
JBlade, it wasn't on your watch.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So, how 'bout that Book of Mormon? I hear there are some good musical numbers, eh?
Along the same lines as the Book of Mormon musical, is the production of 'Mothers, Monsters, and Mormons.'
Not a complete tangent, but I've got a story coming out in an anthology later this year by the same title-- without the mothers.
I mean, there may be mothers in the anthology. But there are no mothers in the title. But there are LOTS of monsters in the anthology, and lots of Mormons too. That much is certain.
One of the monsters is a werewolf. A Mormon werewolf. He's a he, so he's not a mother. He might be a muthah...I suppose someone somewhere might call him that. I personally don't think the label applies.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Samp, you are an idiot.
You don't even see the hypocrisy in saying something like this while looking down your nose and going out of your way to vent your hatred openly on others and judging the forums for being such a hateful place.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Way to prove me wrong about the quality and habits of Hatrackers there, Samp.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
A Mormon werewolf...that sounds like the set up to an offensive Halloween joke.
A Catholic vampire, a Jewish mummy and a Mormon werewolf walk into a bar...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: For our next act, I think we'll have a Hindu demonstrate how eating beef insults Hindus by walking a horse and two cats into a Burger King, butchering them, and feasting on the bloody remains.
That'll show them beefeaters.
I don't recall a Burger King at the Tower.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I am both eeriely attracted to and repelled by the Burger King character in commercials.
---
Added:He kind of reminds me of one of my current cats. I am fascinated by him and extremely close to him, and yet I keep expecting him to claw my face. But he never does. He never acts out at all. It's just ... he really, really should. When is he going to go psycho on me? Gah!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: I am both eeriely attracted to and repelled by the Burger King character in commercials.
Right...he's so creepy, the kind of creepy you want to hang out with at a pool hall for about an hour.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Yeah!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And then talk about with your friends for the rest of your lives...
"Remember that guy we met at "Sticks"...yea, he always smiled and had a pointy beard and wore a crown...his face never moved...."
"Oh yea, how could I forget, he was wearing a cape for heaven's sake...a cape!"
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: A Mormon werewolf...that sounds like the set up to an offensive Halloween joke.
A Catholic vampire, a Jewish mummy and a Mormon werewolf walk into a bar...
The anthology comes out around Halloween (or is supposed to).
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I do remember a poster encouraging another to commit suicide.
It was Otaku. I (and certainly others) reported him.
He got BANNED FOREVER.
Are you maybe misremembering this event?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Right...he's so creepy, the kind of creepy you want to hang out with at a pool hall for about an hour.
You have got to play this game.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Good. night.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I've played that game.
It's NOTHING like Splinter Cell.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Hanging upside down from a pipe, you sneak up behind a security guard and...tense moment...stuff a char grilled hamburger in his mouth!
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Yeah. Uhm. What the most ironic part of this outburst is that hatrack is less dysfunctional and mean than it has been since at least when I was invited to post.
Please just report when someone gets clearly out of line. Don't try to fix the damaged goods. Its obviously not a obligation of the community and after a while it is obviously noooooot going to do any good.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I wonder if JB deleted nearly all of kat's posts, or was it kat herself?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: What the most ironic part of this outburst is that hatrack is less dysfunctional and mean than it has been since at least when I was invited to post.
I know that I feel like it's less welcoming than it has been in the past. That's one of the reasons I've been scarce.
Someone pointed out-- was it Squicky? Or Samprimary-- that the long-timers who were abandoning Hatrack were part of the problem, since they were electing not to build the community. I feel like there's some truth to that; but alas!
I'm less interested in the fight against trolls/poor forum etiquette these days. Other communities provide what I feel I obtained from Hatrack back then, so my inclination to get riled up here is slackened.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I wonder if JB deleted nearly all of kat's posts, or was it kat herself?
I think the answer to that question is quite obvious if you look at the two individuals' past behavior.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: What the most ironic part of this outburst is that hatrack is less dysfunctional and mean than it has been since at least when I was invited to post.
I know that I feel like it's less welcoming than it has been in the past. That's one of the reasons I've been scarce.
Someone pointed out-- was it Squicky? Or Samprimary-- that the long-timers who were abandoning Hatrack were part of the problem, since they were electing not to build the community. I feel like there's some truth to that; but alas!
I'm less interested in the fight against trolls/poor forum etiquette these days. Other communities provide what I feel I obtained from Hatrack back then, so my inclination to get riled up here is slackened.
I find it less of a haven for social conservatives but, perhaps because of that, more welcoming than it was when I first posted here.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I wonder if JB deleted nearly all of kat's posts, or was it kat herself?
I think the answer to that question is quite obvious if you look at the two individuals' past behavior.
Prolly right.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually do wish there was a stronger conservative force here. It seems like most of those who remain either refrain from speaking up, or are on the more extreme end of the spectrum. So what ends up happening is the remaining conservatives who are articulate end up feeling dogpiled. Which isn't a good dynamic.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Did you just delete a whole thread recently, rivka? I remember - it was you welcoming me and telling me how delightful I am.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Too bad you didn't keep that up.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
What is wrong with you? I can't remember even discussing anything with you, and you're acting like you have a personal grudge. What happened to you?
Maybe wrapping up and running away with the welcome thread wasn't the most cordial behavior of your own. It certainly makes your condeming me for deleting nasty posts when you deleted a whole nice thread bizarre. What are you thinking?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Someone pointed out-- was it Squicky? Or Samprimary-- that the long-timers who were abandoning Hatrack were part of the problem, since they were electing not to build the community. I feel like there's some truth to that; but alas!
I wouldn't call them "part of the problem" — it's just consequence. An invariable part of the cycle when a forum is imploding.
And, to be sure, the forum was imploding when I made note of it. It had old, acrimonious, dysfunctional blood (vehements!), really really weird dumb new posters with lightning-rod positions that they would ceaselessly and incoherently argue (slags!) attracted here by OSC's own politically motivated activity, and the forum was totally. not. being. moderated. at. all.
It's not just some unique hatrack thing, neither.
And if this place is getting better as opposed to just stabilizing post-implosion (I think it's getting better, personally) I could explain why in detail. In conclusion: The Book of Mormon is a play, perhaps it is kind of controversial, I am not derailing at all.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: your condeming me for deleting nasty posts
I did no such thing. I merely stated that it was clear who had deleted the posts. If you read condemnation into that, that's your problem.
Similarly, I bear you no grudge. I'm fairly sick of your exceedingly anti-social behavior on Hatrack, but I don't take it personally or anything. So if you think there's a grudge between us, you might check its directionality.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I find it less of a haven for social conservatives but, perhaps because of that, more welcoming than it was when I first posted here.
It's likely that people feel more welcome when their beliefs generally match the beliefs of the community in which they find themselves.
I don't remember Hatrack ever being a "haven" for social conservatives; I do remember a time when I felt that religion was a safe topic to talk about, and that rather than having to be silent in order to keep the peace, I could be honest about my beliefs, and have an expectation of honest, non-vitriolic discussion.
People found faith here; people lost faith here. I think we saw equal amounts of both. But I feel like it was all done mostly with civility.
The community is what it is. Nothing is more likely than that I'm a geezer with faulty memories and a yearning to be back in the in-crowd.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
I barely even think of you, much less dislike you, and I was happy to read the welcome thread. The unceromonious deletion, however, was a little off-putting, and this behavior now is completely bizarre. Are you looking to make me not like you? It might work.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: I barely even think of you
*shrug* Works for me.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Okay, it's working. Congrats! @*&$#
Now your behavior is about in line with my opinion of Hatrack. You fit in beautifully.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I find it less of a haven for social conservatives but, perhaps because of that, more welcoming than it was when I first posted here.
It's likely that people feel more welcome when their beliefs generally match the beliefs of the community in which they find themselves.
I don't remember Hatrack ever being a "haven" for social conservatives; I do remember a time when I felt that religion was a safe topic to talk about, and that rather than having to be silent in order to keep the peace, I could be honest about my beliefs, and have an expectation of honest, non-vitriolic discussion.
People found faith here; people lost faith here. I think we saw equal amounts of both. But I feel like it was all done mostly with civility.
The community is what it is. Nothing is more likely than that I'm a geezer with faulty memories and a yearning to be back in the in-crowd.
Whereas, I was told that, among other things, that only LDS were welcome to discuss those things and my heathenish, slutty* viewpoint was unwelcome. It was very hostile. I suppose a balance is difficult to find. I don't think that religious people need to keep quiet to keep the peace (I certainly don't) but I do think it fair to challenge and be challenged on those beliefs.
*Not in exactly those words, but close.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
We need a "Don't feed the bears" sign.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:and this behavior now is completely bizarre.
- rivka neutrally points out a pattern involved
- you perceive and accuse rivka of something rivka did not do, and turn it, in your own head, into a grudge
- noting fairly straightforwardly that the perceived grudge does not exist and the condemnation you rushed headlong into making is not valid is not 'completely bizarre.' It is actually a pretty rational, mature, and appropriate response to such an accusation
- especially if this is all happening pretty much at the drop of a hat, and now you're going to use THIS as an excuse to not like rivka, well, it speaks to the standard by which you decide someone has deserved your contempt.
Like others, I legitimately wish you could see what you're doing.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Whereas, I was told that, among other things, that only LDS were welcome to discuss those things and my heathenish, slutty* viewpoint was unwelcome. It was very hostile.
I don't remember that.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Samp, butt out. Your biased dogpiling is both unwelcome and stupid.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Like others, I legitimately wish you could see what you're doing.
If wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets...in the mean time, don't feed the bears!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Whereas, I was told that, among other things, that only LDS were welcome to discuss those things and my heathenish, slutty* viewpoint was unwelcome. It was very hostile.
I don't remember that.
...probably because I wasn't around then. I keep forgetting you're "older" than your member name.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Whereas, I was told that, among other things, that only LDS were welcome to discuss those things and my heathenish, slutty* viewpoint was unwelcome. It was very hostile.
I don't remember that.
Maybe because it was only an occasional thing. Uh, pun intended?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't remember you being around then. It was a long time ago. 1997 - 1999, I think. I remember, Grayson and Karl, Rodney, Morgan Majors, and John Hansen...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Samp, butt out. Your biased dogpiling is both unwelcome and stupid.
I'll let you know when you've made a credible point regarding whether or not I should openly respond to you being an unreasonably hostile, hypocritically injurious poster. Until then — and at least until I can be convinced that my behavior is less welcome — you will just have to accept my 'unwelcome' behavior just as readily as we end up having to welcome yours.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
You firmly reaffirm my opinion of Hatrack and the people who have come to populate it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't remember you being around then. It was a long time ago. 1997 - 1999, I think. I remember, Grayson and Karl, Rodney, Morgan Majors, and John Hansen...
Yeah, I wasn't-- I didn't go on the BFFC forums until 1999, right after the migration from Big Mouth Lion (maybe a bit before).
It's funny: check out Samp's link upthread for an almost exact reenactment of this thread. Some good discussion in the initial pages of that thread.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: You firmly reaffirm my opinion of Hatrack and the people who have come to populate it.
I don't know how many times you want to hinge on this point.
(It's pretty obvious that you will eventually think this way of pretty much any online community which does not just provide for your double standard — i.e. weather your confrontational outbursts without appropriately confronting your behavior in return, so)
(I am feeding the bears)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kat: You don't have to be this angry. You're losing your presence of mind, and it's so unpleasant to see, not to mentino miserable for you. There are several posters all saying similar things to you, and while you might feel they all have axes to grind, that doesn't mean you have to lose your cool.
There are plenty of people here who don't dislike you, but you need to lower your shields as it were, and perhaps not feel like a wounded animal so much. This thread could use a general cooling of passions.
-----
I will note though for others that if a poster has indicated they have no intention of listening to you, it might be prudent to not continue to address them, their responding to you makes them dishonest, you trying to get them to respond to you on Hatrack is rude to put it lightly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: It's funny: check out Samp's link upthread for an almost exact reenactment of this thread. Some good discussion in the initial pages of that thread.
I was excited to hear they were making a remake of the original, but then I heard I was going to be played by Elliott Gould, and, ehh
quote:I will note though for others that if a poster has indicated they have no intention of listening to you, it might be prudent to not continue to address them, their responding to you makes them dishonest, you trying to get them to respond to you on Hatrack is rude to put it lightly.
Hold on.
When I read this, it sounds poorly reasoned. If a poster notifies me "I am so not listening to you!" it doesn't make it so that if they subsequently start berating us/our posts/the community, that ANY responding to this behavior is 'rude to put it lightly.'
If this were true, I could just say "I am not listening to any of you. At all. I completely disregard your opinions." then sit here and just berate people or their opinions openly and now they're just supposed to not respond to me? Or they're rude? In my opinion, a great way to empower the abusers to have a shield of eggshells around them.
[ August 05, 2011, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samprimary: I'm was not addressing whether or not a poster continues to make comments towards those they have said they are not listening to.
Obviously if that is the case it's a different situation.
Also, if they are going on to be a bad element in the community that necessitates action on someone's part, though it should not necessarily be *you* if they have indicated they won't listen to you.
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
BBlade,
Seriously, I think it's a lost cause. As long as there are people like Samp, it doesn't matter about the silent majority.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: BBlade,
Seriously, I think it's a lost cause. As long as there are people like Samp, it doesn't matter about the silent majority.
Kat: The fact I moderate this forum pretty clearly indicates that I don't agree with you. Samp is actually an extremely valuable poster in many respects.
Sure he grates at times, I've come to learn even I do that and I used to think I was good at avoiding conflict. You might not want to listen to him, and you don't have to, but you'd do well to read what he is saying right now and pretend it's not him saying it.
This place is not prohibitive of interesting discourse. Has it had problems? Yes absolutely. Does it have problems? Yes absolutely. Will it recover? I'm not sure, I'm trying to see to it that happens. You can help.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: You firmly reaffirm my opinion of Hatrack and the people who have come to populate it.
Then why are you still participating? I don't mean to suggest that I want you to leave - you are an interesting person who often has a great perspective to bring to conversations - but you seem extremely unhappy right now, so what is your purpose in continuing to escalate this unfortunate discussion?
Posted by Aerin (Member # 3902) on :
Once more into the breach...
1) It isn't all dross. There's some gold, sometimes. Not on the past couple of pages, granted, but sometimes; 2) I don't know if you saw the list of Hatrackers, but the part about bored underachievers included me. Not in Real Life, of course, but for all this writing and wordplay, there are other things I could do with it, so why not? See above. (I guess that's not really an answer.) 3) Some of it is seriously MEANT to be distancing and offputting. There's an ingratiating, entitled assumption of familiarity here sometimes that I find tremendously invasive and creepy, and I'm not being insulting when I say I'd rather some people stay far away and quit thinking I want a personal conversation. I seriously just want an impersonal, topical discussion, but if you're <irony alerty> lovely and vivacious and clever and vocal like me</irony alert>, then you have to DEAL with those assumptions of familiarity and I HATE that. I HAVE friends, I have a boyfriend, I have close family, and I have all sorts of spiritual and health advisors on tap if I need that. I would PREFER to be the prickly, cold-hearted bitch if it would JUST keep socially-insensitive, pornographyYay!, Internet strangers AWAY from me. This "I see into your soul and truly understand you" is CREEPY.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kat: I see, well that certainly explains a lot.
If you want things to remain impersonal, that's fine, I respect that. I can't give much advice as to how to accomplish that as I don't know what it's like to want to converse with people but keep all of my personal details hidden. Over time they spill out for me. I have tons of friends in real life, a group of them come from forums, I know what it's like to have so many friends there isn't time enough maintain them all equally, but I've never experienced a total filling of that niche. I'm always in the friend market as it were.
I at least understand now why you find it so provoking when people try to analyze you or ask you to volunteer information. That will be very useful information when we converse in the future.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Interesting. You have some fundamentally different expectations and preferences compared to other active posters and this explanation does illuminate why some previous interactions have headed south.
Many people do enjoy personal conversation online. Whether this represents a minor pathology or not can be a determination left to the reader, but it seems doubtful that you can change either their behavior or your expectations so perhaps when one of your boundaries is approached you should just quietly depart from the line of discussion that is heading there. Easier said than done, of course, but that's been my strategy on the occasion where I don't want to go "there."
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Hmmm, the creepy comment has me ruminating. I have read Hatrack for around 10 years and it has had a profound affect on shaping my critical thinking skills, my understanding of other perspectives, and my personal opinion on numerous topics. And yet, I really don't post much or feel the need to post much. There's people here, including kat, who I do feel I "know" on some level because over the years, they've volunteered a wealth of information about themselves and their thought processes. If you took any of the prominent posters' posts and compiled them, they would likely be multiple volumes of lengthy books.
I don't know that a poster can write that much about their own opinions and perspectives without the people who read it starting to feel some type of knowledge about that person. Sure it's just an aspect of who they are, not a complete picture. But I think it's a very real aspect- I know Mary or Porter said once that Hatrack enhanced their marriage by allowing them to see different sides of each other.
So while more lurkish people like me are likely creepy, because we read but don't reciprocate in the sharing, I think a certain amount of familiarity after years and years of fairly personal sharing is not assumptive. I'm not trying to inflame anything or accuse anyone. I just thought I'd offer my perspective on why I think that is a fairly natural thing to develop.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I would like to note that there is a difference between a relative stranger (someone who posts on the same internet discussion board, for instance) displaying an ingratiating, entitled assumption of familiarity vs when a person accuses another person/group of people of specific wrong doing publicly and then refuses to explain even basic details when other people wonder about the circumstance.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: If you took any of the prominent posters' posts and compiled them, they would likely be multiple volumes of lengthy books.
>_<
Thanks. I now have an image of all my Hatrack posts taking up a shelf of my bookcase.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Are we arranged by colour? Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The personal boundaries issues explains a lot for me. Different people (and different communities) have different norms about what's polite. I have my own frustrations with society having a lot of norms that I wish were different.
I think it's important to understand the rules you're dealing with and work within them. I also think it's important not to compromise your own values too much. And the world would be a better place if we tried to me more accommodating of each other's preferences.
I don't think that excuses all of kat's behavior. I think you can say "I prefer not to have this type of discussion" without insulting a person. And there are types of conversations (such as, say, what counts as disrespect) that are inherently personal, or at least I'm not capable of discussing them without getting more personal that kat would prefer.
But I'll make an effort to respect that preference in the future.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Is being subject to criticism for a really obvious pattern of hostile behavior 'creepy'?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Is being subject to criticism for a really obvious pattern of hostile behavior 'creepy'?
It is if you twirl your mustache while you do it (which I do!).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It seems I misread Parkour's post and implied that kat has a mustache...my bad.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm glad I was away for a few hours while this whole drama played out. It's difficult to make sense of it, now that so many of the crucial posts have been deleted, but:
1) I recall a few separate instances in which someone urged suicide upon someone else, all of which happened during the Great Immoderation. To my knowledge, none of the posters in question are still here, and all but one of them actually wound up being actively banned at least once.
2) Kat and rivka should not be enemies. That is not how the universe works, and it is dumb. Please stop being dumb, universe people.
3) Kat, honestly, I do not believe that you are consciously brittle and bitchy as part of an active strategy to force unreal Internet-only people to hold you at arm's length; I worry that this is a justification that you will seize upon and use in the future to justify this behavior to yourself, because it's certainly more plausible than many more alternatives I've heard in the past. That said, I certainly owe it to you to take that claim at face value. I would point out that we have other posters on Hatrack -- Scott R springs to mind -- who have long espoused a similar "arm's length" approach, but who over time have become gradually more willing to engage with us in MeatSpace; there are others -- I think Ralphie is the classic example here -- who became so involved with the forums that they felt the need to completely disassociate to protect their real lives (but without blaming the forum for that desire.) If you truly believe you need your space, I think that's a fine and respectable position and wholeheartedly support your attempt to stake out any territory that you think is best for your own mental health -- but I like a lot of people on here, and it pains me to see them slandered as a potential by-product of that process.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I've posted here on and off through the ages and I've always felt that people were respectful, kind, and intelligent. I post a lot on Top-Law-Schools.com (TLS) and people on Hatrack are angels compared to them, but then it is a forum board for future lawyers.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:who have long espoused a similar "arm's length" approach, but who over time have become gradually more willing to engage with us in MeatSpace;
While I'm not completely confident of this interpretation, I don't think the issue was MeatSpace, it was more about sharing personal information in general (with random internet denizens as well as random meetspace folks you might come across). I recall a post a while ago where I talked about the way I introduced myself to random strangers, which kat criticized. There was no previous drama in that thread, so I'd take that at face value.
Fake Edit: Mispelled Meatspace, but I think my new way is better.
[ August 05, 2011, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: the Great Immoderation.
Lol.
quote: I post a lot on Top-Law-Schools.com (TLS) and people on Hatrack are angels compared to them, but then it is a forum board for future lawyers.
I just get this vision of a forum comprised mostly of neophyte aspiring law school students. 'moreover, you suck, ergo heretofore concordantly, you are a butt, qed'
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: 2) Kat and rivka should not be enemies. That is not how the universe works, and it is dumb. Please stop being dumb, universe people.
If it helps, Tom, I don't consider Katie an enemy. I don't dislike her; I do dislike a lot of her behavior on Hatrack. (I have every reason to believe that her behavior IRL is very different.)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
kat, your last post makes me sad. I think what made the Hatrack I joined so special to me is that we WERE friends. People had personal conversations, got to know each other, cared about each other and like each other enough to meet up in person. I'm glad that you have real life friends and are happy with your life, and I know that this place has changed and people have moved on and it's not the same community, and neither is anywhere else. But the fact remains that I will only ever be friends with you on line, and if you're not being friends with people online anymore that means we'll never be friends again.
I do think I understand where you're coming from -- there have certainly been times when people crossed my boundaries here, probably unintentionally but who knows. And I'm glad you said it again, because if you have before I've missed it, and it does make some of your posts make more sense. I don't think it's going to be a particularly effective strategy, but that's not my business, so whatever.
But my reaction when I got to the "I have a boyfriend" part of your post was, since it was news to me, to get happy and excited for you and want to ask you about it. How long you've been seeing each other, how you met, etc. But you don't want that here anymore, which I respect, and I'm not going to join livejournal just to stalk you, if you still even update there.
So I guess I'll just say I'm happy for you and I wish you well. And go back to lurking. Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: Some of it is seriously MEANT to be distancing and offputting. There's an ingratiating, entitled assumption of familiarity here sometimes that I find tremendously invasive and creepy, and I'm not being insulting when I say I'd rather some people stay far away and quit thinking I want a personal conversation.
I admit that when I can attach a face to a name, I tend to view further interaction on a slightly more personal level. I can't speak for anyone else, but in case you hadn't thought about it yourself, I do want to make mention that your having posted a link to your picture in a different thread may have the unintentional consequence of people viewing their conversations with you on a level more personal than you are comfortable with.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: the Great Immoderation.
Lol.
quote: I post a lot on Top-Law-Schools.com (TLS) and people on Hatrack are angels compared to them, but then it is a forum board for future lawyers.
I just get this vision of a forum comprised mostly of neophyte aspiring law school students. 'moreover, you suck, ergo heretofore concordantly, you are a butt, qed'
The language is not quite that flowery, but it does get terrible. There are various factions of "douchery," but pretty much most of the regular posters don't consider you a viable breathing human being if you didn't score in the top 10% on the LSAT. Then there are people who don't think you're a really lawyer unless you went to HYS ( Harvard, Yale, Stanford). Great people : )
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I remember Hatrack being a more thoughtful, civil place as well. At the same time, I remember many times over the years being so upset about something or other at Hatrack that I would carry the cloud with me back into Real Life--until I realized what was happening and could dismiss it. I do think a lot of the pillars of the Hatrack community have long since left, or don't put much energy into the place anymore. That's very sad to me. However, it's not yet a ghost town. Hatrack still has plenty of potential. I love this place. I've always been a wallflower here, but I prefer riding the pine at Hatrack to doing the same most other places. Long live this beautiful board.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
What an amazing thread. I think historians in a thousand years' time ought to read this, and figure out what it says about... something or other. Our time, maybe, or social dynamics, or something.
Hatrack is indeed a unique place in my experience. I probably got more enjoyment from it than hurt, through the years. But things change and life moves on. I spend much more time on the nacle now, which though less personal is more civil. Being part of groups is fun. And being able to get away from those groups when they turn ugly, upon occasion, is also nice.
Groups can become toxic, too, at times, and in some circumstances. It's a good thing for each of us to assess when that's happening and separate ourselves from bad situations. Life is too short. And individuals only have limited power to change group dynamics. Sometimes the best path is simply to walk a different way.
Maybe at times too much talk can be improved by a bit more action. I loved the holiday charity gifts, the cookie chains (even though they always were shortlived) and other group actions that changed the world, even in tiny ways, for the better.
I want to build in more service in my life, to do more for others. I want to accomplish more before I die. I want to feel that nourishing joy of actually making a positive difference with my time. The life of the mind is wonderful. I love the thought, the learning, and the struggle to express my ideas that I experienced here. But it's amazing how good things can tip over into the negative. As I get older I hope I'm learning to identify when that's happening and disengage. I hope I'm learning a better balance between learning, thinking, expressing, and planning, doing, creating. I hope to catch the trick of hanging at the sweet spot, being more open but less ouchy, finding the right wavelength to surf so as to affect the world in maximally positive ways, to change myself in positive ways, and cut out the waste, the damage, reprogram the anger, the annoyance, the grumpiness into more joy.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)