Calling Foul on FAIR

[_Chap]

You conclude wrongly; the sarcasm was obvious. He said "joy and comfort" but he meant "annoyance." But in order for it to have any bite, the underlying assumption would have to be that the "delicate flower" description was authentic. Otherwise, how could that possibly be of any concern to "LDS women worldwide?"

Regards,
Pahoran

I see that Pahoran's objection is simply to whether the original parody had any basis of fact behind it. Anybody who thinks it did (and hence finds the parody amusing) is 'incredibly naïve' in his view. Let's consider the whole of the relevant paragraph:

Or consider this line from the same conference, also posted on the site: "There is a tremendous amount of pain among our women regarding how they can or cannot contribute to the governance of our ecclesiastical organization". How is this possible, given how regularly the prophets and apostles talk about how much women are loved? How they are like delicate flowers to be put on pedestals, and are special helpmeets for worthy priesthood holders? Obviously FAIR is trying to foment discord among women and deny the wonderful joy our fair sisters feel in the sacred Plan of Happiness.

The general tenor of the material here does not seem off the mark as satire about LDS attitudes to the role of women. I don't know whether any prophet or apostle has ever used the precise words 'delicate flowers' to refer to women. But not all LDS women would repudiate such a metaphor, I find:

By any other name

I just saw a Mormonad poster with the headline BE YOUR OWN KIND OF BEAUTIFUL. I want to say I am disappointed at the designers and whoever approved it. It is all wrong. It should be a single rose in a bouquet of daisies instead of a daisy in a bouquet of roses. Daisies are not a prized flower. They grow wild anywhere and are cheap and easy to obtain. They have no pretty smell, and are common. A rose is a delicate flower that must be cultivated and cared for. It is among the most prized flowers and is noted for its beauty and wonderful aroma. Please don’t use a daisy to represent young womanhood. Change it and make it right.

Jane Savage
Ranier, Oregon

Whether it is a good thing for young women to be encouraged to think of themselves as delicate flowers is at least open to discussion. I certainly would not want to bring up any daughter of mine to think that way, and I am pretty sure that any such comparison would provoke laughter on their part were I to make it.

[_Pahoran]

I see that Pahoran's objection is simply to whether the original parody had any basis of fact behind it. Anybody who thinks it did is 'incredibly naïve' in his view.

Are you always this dense, or only when it serves a polemical purpose?

Pahoran's "objection" is that the parody, however ham-fisted it is, can be taken as somehow representing authentic LDS thought by those so disposed.

The general tenor of the material here does not seem off the mark as satire about LDS attitudes to the role of women. I don't know whether any prophet or apostle has ever used the precise words 'delicate flowers' to refer to women. But not all LDS women would repudiate such a metaphor, I find:

<Snip>

Whether it is a good thing for young women to be encouraged to think of themselves as delicate flowers is at least open to discussion. I certainly would not want to bring up any daughter of mine to think that way, and I am pretty sure that any such comparison would provoke laughter on their part were I to make it.

So the best you could find is a letter from an individual that took issue with something in an official Church publication.

What might that tell a thoughtful reader?

In any event, it seems obvious to me that the Facebook page this spiteful satire is found on certainly belongs to someone hostile to the Church of Jesus Christ. The "critic" in question would probably have an aneurism if the term "anti-Mormon" were applied to his activities, however accurate it may be. But based upon the evidence before us, my preliminary conclusion is that a certain rather smug Florida academic is responsible for that performance.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Cinnamon Bear Head]

Pahoran, name ONE thing in that letter that could be termed anti-Mormon?

[_Pahoran]

Pahoran, name ONE thing in that letter that could be termed anti-Mormon?

Let's see.

First, there's the industry-standard, shrink-wrapped, off-the-shelf anti-Mormon claim that "apologists" are responsible for "shaking the faith of members."

Then there is the industry-standard, shrink-wrapped, off-the-shelf anti-Mormon technique of quote mining for snippets, taking them out of context, and representing them as saying the opposite of what they actually mean when read in context. FAIR was not trying to "discredit" the Book of Abraham; the claim that it was is a lie. Nor was it "trying to foment discord among women."

The satirical attack upon a respected apologetic organisation was actually an attempt to indirectly rehabilitate an openly apostate endeavour, namely the misnamed "Mormonthink." It was, therefore, an anti-Mormon effort.

I'm sorry; you only asked for one thing, and there I've given you three. Oh well.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Chap]

But based upon the evidence before us, my preliminary conclusion is that a certain rather smug Florida academic is responsible for that performance.

Oh, that's what all the convoluted fuss was about? I'll leave it to Kishkumen to decide whether he is as terrified by Pahoran's attempt at exposure as Pahoran seems to think he ought to be.

by the way, since Pahoran has mentioned what he evidently believes to be in real life information about a poster's location, are the rest of us allowed to do the same whenever we feel like it?

[_Cinnamon Bear Head]

Sorry, but these are (or would be) attacks on the delusional Internet Mormonism. Nothing there is anti-Mormon.

Pahoran, name ONE thing in that letter that could be termed anti-Mormon?

Let's see.

First, there's the industry-standard, shrink-wrapped, off-the-shelf anti-Mormon claim that "apologists" are responsible for "shaking the faith of members."

Then there is the industry-standard, shrink-wrapped, off-the-shelf anti-Mormon technique of quote mining for snippets, taking them out of context, and representing them as saying the opposite of what they actually mean when read in context. FAIR was not trying to "discredit" the Book of Abraham; the claim that it was is a lie. Nor was it "trying to foment discord among women."

The satirical attack upon a respected apologetic organisation was actually an attempt to indirectly rehabilitate an openly apostate endeavour, namely the misnamed "Mormonthink." It was, therefore, an anti-Mormon effort.

I'm sorry; you only asked for one thing, and there I've given you three. Oh well.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Sorry, but these are (or would be) attacks on the delusional Internet Mormonism. Nothing there is anti-Mormon.

You may not be aware of this, but "Internet Mormonism" is a rhetorical construct, an invented category that represents no reality, but merely serves a polemical purpose.

And you have demonstrated exactly how it is to be used: namely, dishonestly and in the utmost bad faith.

Shades will be pleased; that's what he invented it for.

But the ridiculously heavy-handed satire remains a bit of anti-Mormon propaganda.

Just so you know.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Cicero]

Kish is not the author.

[_Pahoran]

Kish is not the author.

I'm glad to hear that; my respect for him just soared.

Although, upon second thought, it can't soar very far. He may not have written that stupid satire, but he clearly approved of it.

So, just as a matter of interest, who is the author?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_LDSToronto]

So, just as a matter of interest, who is the author?

This person

H.