Deadpool

[NeuroTypical]

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Do you have anyone you love in this life? Wife? Children? Parents?

How would you feel if something happened to them that was exceedingly cruel and mocking? Would you feel "meh". Whatever. Taking offense is a fool's errand. Or would it upset you on some level?

So, I have some of those, and I've encountered what you describe.  Let's take one of the more serious examples - sexual molestation.  At one of the highest points in my personal discipleship, I had in my brain two things at the same time.  One was love for the victim and sorrow over the harm done her, the other was love for the perpetrator and sorrow over the harm done him.  (There were many times I was not at my highest point through the process.)

I submit if y'all ain't full of Christlike love for the people responsible for creating this light-minded mockery of sacred things, then y'all might want to be spend more time working more on your own application of the 2nd great commandment, and less time trying to get others as offended as you figure they ought to be.  (This suggestion for anyone who feels that way.)

Edited December 15, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[unixknight]

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I claim that if someone feels absolutely nothing in similar regard for someone they supposedly love dearly who is cruelly mocked, maybe there's something wrong there. It is offensive. It offends me. I should offend anyone who has taken His name upon them.

Sorry but no.  You see this poster like somehow it stands apart from the other zillion insults hurled at the Lord every single day from all sectors of modern culture.  Maybe it's a big deal to you, but to me, it's Tuesday.

For some reason my refusal to get worked up over it has you bothered enough to double down on a sweeping statement about peoples' relationship with Christ being somehow insufficient just because they aren't reacting the way you did.  That's what I take exception to.  Either you can understand that or you cannot. 

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

and less time trying to get others as offended as you figure they ought to be.

Just so we're clear: Not what I'm suggesting.

A lot of people are confusing my suggestion that we should feel offense with the idea that we should respond with 'activism'. That's one option. Typically probably a bad one. But one can feel offense without doing a single thing about it.

I'm going to throw this out here again (I did before but sans quote and link so I'll go again because I think it's interesting related to the discussion and our potential responsibility).

Jacob 1:19

"And we did magnify our office unto the Lord, taking upon us the responsibility, answering the sins of the people upon our own heads if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence; wherefore, by laboring with our might their blood might not come upon our garments; otherwise their blood would come upon our garments, and we would not be found spotless at the last day."

Edited December 15, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

Just now, unixknight said:

but to me, it's Tuesday.

...you know, this actually explains a lot...

[unixknight]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

I am genuinely confused as to what you think I said or did to indicate I was outraged or that I am trying to convert you to my holy jihad. I was simply discussing the point that was raised.

I remember once being on the receiving end of a lecture from you on following the exact words of the prophets.  Here I am doing precisely that, and you seem to take issue.  I think I'm more confused than you are, bro.

[Vort]

 

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I remember once being on the receiving end of a lecture from you on following the exact words of the prophets.  Here I am doing precisely that, and you seem to take issue.  I think I'm more confused than you are, bro.

I don't remember that particular lecture. But what exactly were the words I wrote on this thread that you thought were voicing outrage and urging you to do the same?

Edited December 15, 2018 by Vort

[unixknight]

Just now, Vort said:

...you know, this actually explains a lot...

It's the result of living in a place like Maryland.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, I have some of those, and I've encountered what you describe.  Let's take one of the more serious examples - sexual molestation.  At one of the highest points in my personal discipleship, I had in my brain two things at the same time.  One was love for the victim and sorrow over the harm done her, the other was love for the perpetrator and sorrow over the harm done him.  (There were many times I was not at my highest point through the process.)

I submit if y'all ain't full of Christlike love for the people responsible for creating this light-minded mockery of sacred things, then y'all might want to be spend more time working more on your own application of the 2nd great commandment, and less time trying to get others as offended as you figure they ought to be.  (This suggestion for anyone who feels that way.)

The "Pray for those that persecute you, love your enemies" is maybe the hardest part of all of HIs teachings. 

[Vort]

Dupe. Please nuke at your earliest convenience.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Vort

[unixknight]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I see a large difference between taking offense and recognizing offense. The poster is patently offensive; substitute Mohammed for Jesus Christ and decide for yourself how many would die in the rioting. I need not take personal offense to recognize boorishness and rude behavior.

Consider that God takes offense. Our prophet told us that Jesus Christ is offended when we misuse the name of his Church. If God himself can and does take offense at the innocent mischaracterization of his Church, which may have been intended as insult in the first instance but certainly is rarely intended so today, then I don't see that it's necessarily some great breach of integrity if we take offense at that which is offensive.

 

47 minutes ago, Vort said:

Hmmm. I understand that there is a difference, but I'm not convinced it's meaningful. Do you really believe that a blasphemous poster mocking Christ is somehow less offensive to the Spirit (or less a violation of God's will and commandments) than uttering his name as a profane oath? I doubt God gets overly worked up about either thing*, but such things surely offend the Spirit. If President Kimball (or by extension, you or I) can reasonably voice objection at profaning God's sacred name, why might we be considered less reasonable when voicing objection to a patently offensive, profane poster?

*FWIW, and though I hesitate even to bring up the topic...this is how I feel when I hear people talk about how our heavenly Father has withheld our Mother's name from us because it would invite profanity of her name, which would offend her, and (we may suppose) the Father would get soooooooooo worked up over it that he might lose control and smite us. I mean, come on. If we suppose we have a heavenly Mother who is a fit consort for God himself, just as Eve was a fit helper ("an help meet") for Adam, then we must ascribe to the Mother infinite power, dominion, might, majesty, knowledge, and a perfection of every virtue from love to patience to forebearance. The mere image of such an all-powerful Being just dissolving in tears at the hurt of hearing her mortal, veiled, foolish children profaning her name is so utterly absurd as to defy analysis beyond, "You must be kidding."

Besides, if we want to profane the heavenly Mother, it's exactly as easy as profaning the Father. We don't need a personal "name" for the Mother any more than we do for the "Father"—which we do not have, if such a thing even exists. "Elohim" is a sacred term we use as a name, but it's clearly a placeholder and a title, simply a Hebrew term meaning "Gods".

 

1 minute ago, Vort said:

 

I don't remember that particular lecture. But what exactly were the words I wrote that you seem to think were voicing outrage and urging you to join in?

The above two posts feel to me like an effort to convince me that it's more righteous to react with offence.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

You see this poster like somehow it stands apart from the other zillion insults hurled at the Lord every single day from all sectors of modern culture.

No. I do not.

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Maybe it's a big deal to you, but to me, it's Tuesday.

Sad commentary.

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

For some reason my refusal to get worked up over it has you bothered enough to double down on a sweeping statement about peoples' relationship with Christ being somehow insufficient just because they aren't reacting the way you did

Kind of like I might make a sweeping statement that if someone is apathetic about...say...serving their fellow man, their might be a problem with their spiritual attitude?

The obvious doesn't need doubling down. It is what it is.

5 minutes ago, unixknight said:

That's what I take exception to.  Either you can understand that or you cannot. 

Oh, I understand just fine. I'm suggesting you might want to evaluate your relationship with Christ if cruel, mocking things about Him don't offend you. That offends you. If your offense or lack thereof was the primary consideration in the matter then I'd immediately back out. I'm sorry it offends you. I don't want it to offend you. But the fact that it offends you doesn't change what I believe to be correct. Sorry.

[Vort]

Just now, unixknight said:

The above two posts feel to me like an effort to convince me that it's more righteous to react with offence.

Then you obviously misunderstood them, though I am not sure how. I thought they were quite clear. I will try to explain.

The first post that you quote was a reaction to what I understood you to be saying, something like, "Don't take offense at the Hollywood movie poster. Only a fool takes offense at something that wasn't meant to be offensive, and only a really humongous fool takes offense at something that was meant to be offensive." My response was meant to point out two things:

1. That the mere fact that someone points to an offensive display and says, "That's offensive", should be distinguished from the act of taking offense. Recognizing and categorizing something as offensive is not at all the same thing as being offended by it. A picture of the Islamic prophet Muhammed dancing around in a tutu and firing a machine gun is offensive, and I recognize it as such. But it does not offend me personally. It's simply boorish and rude, and I would be embarrassed to see such a display in the company of a Muslim friend or acquaintance.

2. That this saying, though pithy (and not originating with President Young), doesn't really withstand close examination. If God himself takes offense at things, then it is impossible to conclude that taking offense per se is a bad thing.

The second post seems even less likely to be misunderstood. You claimed that comparing the poster to President Kimball's plea was somehow invalid or weak. My post pointed out that, on the contrary, it was quite a strong comparison, and that a mocking poster is likely to be as intrinsically offensive as profaning God's name in word. I then asked why it should be acceptable to voice objection to one but not the other. (The asterisked paragraph had nothing to do with the original response, of course.)

I thought my posts that you quoted were perfectly clear on the above matters. Even on rereading them now, I don't see any element of outrage or expectation that you should join me. Perhaps you can reread those posts and see whether I'm right and you actually read into them things that were not really there. Otherwise, you could perhaps point out to me exactly what it was that indicated to you that I was outraged and looking for converts, so I can learn to avoid such things in the future.

[Grunt]

Some days this place reminds me of Dad's at Thanksgiving when the drunk uncle brings his family.

[lostinwater]

Just my opinion.

But it's worth pointing out that the people who created that picture are not mocking God - at least not mocking God as anyone here thinks of It.  They are mocking an image of hypocrisy, silence amid suffering that's been formed by completely different teachings, experiences, biases, etc., - which they define with the term "God".  People are referring to two totally different ideas, with the same name.

It doesn't mean it's not very insensitive, of course.  It is.  But the whole action springs from a place of skewed understanding - not a place of malice.  Whose understandings are skewed in what places is anybody's guess.  Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say whose misunderstandings are skewed in what places is everybody's belief.

[SilentOne]

3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Some days this place reminds me of Dad's at Thanksgiving when the drunk uncle brings his family.

I was mentally comparing this place to the stereotypical family Thanksgiving earlier today.

27 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Maybe it's a big deal to you, but to me, it's Tuesday.

 

You might want to take another look at your calendar.

[Guest MormonGator]

Something good to remember? If this is our biggest problem, than we are not oppressed or persecuted in any way, shape or form. That we can complain about this sort of shows how good things are. 

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, SilentOne said:

You might want to take another look at your calendar.

Why?

[The Folk Prophet]

41 minutes ago, Vort said:

I am genuinely confused as to what you think I said or did to indicate I was outraged or that I am trying to convert you to my holy jihad. I was simply discussing the point that was raised.

It seems that some cannot disassociate the concept of "offense" and "outrage".

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Some days this place reminds me of Dad's at Thanksgiving when the drunk uncle brings his family.

It's interesting that each one of us will think that the "drunk uncle" is someone different. 

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

But it's worth pointing out that the people who created that picture are not mocking God - at least not mocking God as anyone here thinks of It.  They are mocking an image of hypocrisy, silence amid suffering that's been formed by completely different teachings, experiences, biases, etc., - which they define with the term "God".  People are referring to two totally different ideas, with the same name.

It doesn't mean it's not very insensitive, of course.  It is.  But the whole action springs from a place of skewed understanding - not a place of malice.  Whose understandings are skewed in what places is anybody's guess.  Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say whose misunderstandings are skewed in what places is everybody's belief.

FWIW, I don't believe this. I think the creation of this picture was done intentionally because they knew it would be controversial. And boy howdy did it work.

It's actually interesting though. It's not really bad press for the church -- if one cares to look at it that way.

[Grunt]

21 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's interesting that each one of us will think that the "drunk uncle" is someone different. 

Probably.  I didn't think of it as any specific individual.  

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Probably.  I didn't think of it as any specific individual.  

We had the missionaries over tonight-we talked about how everyone had a "crazy family member". Ironic that you mention it here. 

Edited December 15, 2018 by MormonGator

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

We had the missionaries over tonight-we talked about how everyone had a "crazy family member". Ironic that you mention it here. 

You know, they say that every family has that one crazy person, certifiable yet blissfully unaware that he's insane, just thinking he's totally normal, clueless as the day is long, assuming he's just as sane as everyone else, while his family cringes in embarrassment and tries to change the subject.

This is nonsense. Take my family, for example. Every one of them is rock solid. No insane ones in the bunch. I can personally testify to that. A better bunch of people you have never met. Modest, too. Any time I mention this topic, they demure and talk about something else. Inspiring!

[Guest MormonGator]

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

You know, they say that every family has that one crazy person, certifiable yet blissfully unaware that he's insane, just thinking he's totally normal, clueless as the day is long, assuming he's just as sane as everyone else, while his family cringes in embarrassment and tries to change the subject.

This is nonsense. Take my family, for example. Every one of them is rock solid. No insane ones in the bunch. I can personally testify to that. A better bunch of people you have never met. Modest, too. Any time I mention this topic, they demure and talk about something else. Inspiring!

One did mention an uncle @Vort. Then she looked sad. 

Edited December 15, 2018 by MormonGator

[Vort]

32 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

One did mention an uncle @Vort. Then she looked sad. 

You must have misunderstood her. She probably said Uncle Mort.