Mormons arguing that “Mormon” is as derogatory as the N-word

[Kishkumen]

You took everything he said seriously before this happened?

No need to go running off to the opposite extreme there, Shades. Obviously I felt liberated to a certain degree beforehand, but my sense of freedom was noticeably more pronounced once I saw a stream of things said so bizarre that I simply could not take them seriously.

True prophets, or false prophets?

What does that even mean to you, Shades? I mean, for there to be true or false prophets? Does such a thing exist for you? Personally, I don't deal in simple binaries. I understand that there is heavy streak of binary thinking in the Mormon tradition, but I don't feel obligated to stick with it, and I am surprised that your questions suggests you might be doing so.

Brigham Young was a relatively decent man??

Yeah, relatively decent. I stand by that. I don't like him. I doubt we would have been friends. But, I think that on the whole he was a relatively decent person who labored under the great burden of being the leader of a large group of people. A number of the decisions he made in that role were, to my way of thinking, bad, but then I have never had the misfortune of being in the position of having to make such decisions for a big group.

[drumdude]

You took everything he said seriously before this happened?

No need to go running off to the opposite extreme there, Shades. Obviously I felt liberated to a certain degree beforehand, but my sense of freedom was noticeably more pronounced once I saw a stream of things said so bizarre that I simply could not take them seriously.

True prophets, or false prophets?

What does that even mean to you, Shades? I mean, for there to be true or false prophets? Does such a thing exist for you? Personally, I don't deal in simple binaries. I understand that there is heavy streak of binary thinking in the Mormon tradition, but I don't feel obligated to stick with it, and I am surprised that your questions suggests you might be doing so.

Brigham Young was a relatively decent man??

Yeah, relatively decent. I stand by that. I don't like him. I doubt we would have been friends. But, I think that on the whole he was a relatively decent person who labored under the great burden of being the leader of a large group of people. A number of the decisions he made in that role were, to my way of thinking, bad, but then I have never had the misfortune of being in the position of having to make such decisions for a big group.

Which of his contemporaries in similar positions of power is he decent in comparison with? How does he stack up against, say, Abraham Lincoln? The stakes were even higher for Lincoln and even though he had to carry that “misfortune” it seems to have illuminated his noble character for the world to see.

[bill4long]

I assume everyone is sitting alone on their computers or phones. Maybe no one is around but the dog or cat. Maybe a house plant or a clown chotchke. You're totally alone. Say "Mormon". Easy. Now say the "N" word. Did you say the "N" word? No right? Then stop it with these comparisons.

I'm alone. I just said the "n-word." Now what?

[bill4long]

It used to be a proud thing to be called a Mormon.

Hinkley thought so.

[Fence Sitter]

I assume everyone is sitting alone on their computers or phones. Maybe no one is around but the dog or cat. Maybe a house plant or a clown chotchke. You're totally alone. Say "Mormon". Easy. Now say the "N" word. Did you say the "N" word? No right? Then stop it with these comparisons.

I'm alone. I just said the "n-word." Now what?

Perhaps a better example that they are not the same is the very fact we are using the euphemism "N" word and everyone is comfortable writing "Mormon".

[I Have Questions]

No need to go running off to the opposite extreme there, Shades. Obviously I felt liberated to a certain degree beforehand, but my sense of freedom was noticeably more pronounced once I saw a stream of things said so bizarre that I simply could not take them seriously.



What does that even mean to you, Shades? I mean, for there to be true or false prophets? Does such a thing exist for you? Personally, I don't deal in simple binaries. I understand that there is heavy streak of binary thinking in the Mormon tradition, but I don't feel obligated to stick with it, and I am surprised that your questions suggests you might be doing so.



Yeah, relatively decent. I stand by that. I don't like him. I doubt we would have been friends. But, I think that on the whole he was a relatively decent person who labored under the great burden of being the leader of a large group of people. A number of the decisions he made in that role were, to my way of thinking, bad, but then I have never had the misfortune of being in the position of having to make such decisions for a big group.

Which of his contemporaries in similar positions of power is he decent in comparison with? How does he stack up against, say, Abraham Lincoln? The stakes were even higher for Lincoln and even though he had to carry that “misfortune” it seems to have illuminated his noble character for the world to see.

I’m not sure I could sit comfortably with using the words “relatively decent” as part of a description for a man who ordered the mass murder and forced enslavement of native Americans. But that’s just me.

[Dr. Shades]

You took everything he said seriously before this happened?

No need to go running off to the opposite extreme there, Shades. Obviously I felt liberated to a certain degree beforehand, but my sense of freedom was noticeably more pronounced once I saw a stream of things said so bizarre that I simply could not take them seriously.

You were liberated only to a certain degree? So, you thought there was a chance you were wrong about his non-prophethood?

True prophets, or false prophets?

What does that even mean to you, Shades? I mean, for there to be true or false prophets?

It means the same thing to me that it does to the Chapel Mormons. And the same thing it meant to you when you were a Mormon missionary.

Does such a thing exist for you? Personally, I don't deal in simple binaries.

When describing their own roles, do the prophets teach the members that their "prophet, seer, and revelator"-hood is an extremely nuanced understanding that may vary from person to person? Or do they deal in simple binaries regarding whether they deliver messages from God?

I understand that there is heavy streak of binary thinking in the Mormon tradition, but I don't feel obligated to stick with it, and I am surprised that your questions suggests you might be doing so.

2 + 2 either = 4 or it doesn't. Similarly, a person is either receiving revelations from God or one isn't (and is lying about it). There's no room for anything other than binary thinking on this point. If I'm wrong, please explain how. . . In clear, straightforward American English.

Brigham Young was a relatively decent man??

Yeah, relatively decent. I stand by that. I don't like him. I doubt we would have been friends. But, I think that on the whole he was a relatively decent person who labored under the great burden of being the leader of a large group of people. A number of the decisions he made in that role were, to my way of thinking, bad, but then I have never had the misfortune of being in the position of having to make such decisions for a big group.

What's your opinion of his Blood Atonement doctrine and practice?

[Kishkumen]

Which of his contemporaries in similar positions of power is he decent in comparison with? How does he stack up against, say, Abraham Lincoln? The stakes were even higher for Lincoln and even though he had to carry that “misfortune” it seems to have illuminated his noble character for the world to see.

LOL!!! I say “relatively decent” and you pull out one of the most universally loved and respected presidents (at least, in modern opinion) of the 19th century for comparison? That’s pretty funny.

[Kishkumen]

You were liberated only to a certain degree? So, you thought there was a chance you were wrong about his non-prophethood?

You really amaze me. We think so differently that it makes communication difficult. Do you recognize a difference between intellectual conclusions and emotional resolution? Do you think it is possible to recognize something does not add up logically and still have an emotional inclination toward it? Do you grant that the two may take time to fully bring into line and may never be perfectly reconciled?

It means the same thing to me that it does to the Chapel Mormons. And the same thing it meant to you when you were a Mormon missionary.

Yeah. I don’t know why I should have to agree with them.

2 + 2 either = 4 or it doesn't. Similarly, a person is either receiving revelations from God or one isn't (and is lying about it). There's no room for anything other than binary thinking on this point. If I'm wrong, please explain how. . . In clear, straightforward American English.

Not all of life is a simple linear equation. In fact, much of it is not.

What's your opinion of his Blood Atonement doctrine and practice?

I think it is awful.

[Kishkumen]

I’m not sure I could sit comfortably with using the words “relatively decent” as part of a description for a man who ordered the mass murder and forced enslavement of native Americans. But that’s just me.

If you put it that way . . . .

The thing about stark moral certainty is that it is so easy to arrive there if you cut out everything that complicates things.