quote:Kama, I think it comes, in part, from the general disdain that America has for quaint or old-fashioned versions of its own culture. Utahns cultivate a culture of order, family unity, adherence to rules, conformity, etc, that reminds many Americans of the 1950's. Since we all know from watching movies that the 1950's were the worst time ever in history Utah must therefore be an insipid and obnoxious place.
Geoff, was this really fair or necessary?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that a thread about why non-Mormons feel left out had been at least partially derailed into a discussion of Utah vs non-Utah Mormon culture?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
AFR, I hear "mission field" used in all seriousness frequently by the Utah-LDS here. The people here are so used to living around other Mormons, they have little experience dealing with people who think differently. There is a bit of the "us/them" mentality that can understandably make people from other viewpoints feel unwelcome.
I try not to hold it against them. If they had more opportunities to interact with people who look at things differntly, they might be more understanding.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ahem, for those not so current on all colloquialisms, i am going to explain in not so delicate terms why "sprung jesus" was offensive. if tom did not mean it this way then i am not offended, but perhaps you'll be less critical if you weren't in the know..
the term "sprung" is often used to mean that someone has an erection. i do not like the idea of someone humorously tossing around the idea of someone else's god walking around with a hard-on. it's base, and rude, especially when you know the offender has no belief nor respect for said god. and before anyone tells me how funny THEIR jesus would be, let me just say it would be equally offensive and in poor taste to talk about a sprung scott r, a sprung bob scopatz, or a sprung tom davidson.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like big butts and I can not lie You other brothers can't deny That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waste And a round thing in your face You get sprung....
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can tell you what I found offensive in Geoff's post in the exact same spot saxon75 did.
It is that he says that "Americans" have disdain for Utah. We aren't talking about "Americans" in general here, we are talking about "Hatrackers" and you've suddenly lumped us into a horrible generallity. If you look, you will see that most of the Utah jokes, that are the worst come from LDS hatrackers themselves, not the non-LDS that the comment is targeted to. There might be an occasional gentle jibe by a non-LDS hatracker but generally the jibe is extremely gentle compared to the relative scale.
posted
He doesn't say that Americans have a disdain for Utah. He says that Americans have a disdain for quaint versions of American culture. And, while I hadn't thought of that before, I found myself nodding my head when I read that passage, and thinking he was on to something, because it helps explain the extreme antipathy I see toward my town and the people who live in it.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, if people want to make comments about a sprung Bob the Lawyer in the same spirit that Tom made his joke, I'm more than willing to bet I'd laugh at it.
Here's the thing, everyone makes a line in the sand on what will and will not offend them. And, frankly, I really don't care if you find that comment offensive. There's a difference in my mind between making a comment with the intention of making people laugh and making one where the intention is to belittle (a la the head scarf comment).
Look, I don't have a problem with you pointing out your line in the sand. Props to you. But I can assure you that I won't remember. It's just not worth the effort to me. I don't mean to put you down and I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just being honest. If I see something that I think is funny my mouth/fingers will move before my brain sorts out whether it's offensive to someone else or not.
Just fair warning is all.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh, this entire thread is a gorgeous array of generalizations. i nearly suffocated under so many blankets. so i took my exclusionary aim type convo to another thread for all to participate in. i hardly talk to anyone from hatrack on aim anymore. jerks.
posted
I'm willing to bet Tom knew it would offend. He understands a great deal about the religious beliefs and feelings of others. Also, he might have apologized instead of justifying had it been unintentional offense.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How did this thread go so quickly from the interactions of us individuals on hatrack to commentary on cultural perceptions? I find it a little upsetting.
Dave: I understand that some of you feel you aren't welcome, but that isn't true, we aren't trying to get rid of you. Reasonable Poster: Thanks, Dave. I have been feeling like I don't belong because I'm not part of the vocal majority. TomD: Individuals=cool. Group=Insufferable. Overreacting LDS: Our group is cool! PAGES OF DISCUSSION OF GROUP, INCLUDING WHY THEIR FEELING OF PERSECUTION IS VALID AS THOUGH THIS WERE SOME SORT OF ANTI-MORMON THREAD.
This isn't a Mormons versus the world thing. This is a some people aren't sure they have a place here anymore thing. HERE on Hatrack. And while people on 'both' sides are trying to explain it away by explaining the LDS faith, that isn't it. If suddenly every thread was about showing dogs, I would wonder if I still belonged. Does that mean I hate dogs, or people who show them? Of course not! It just means that I'm suddenly in a place I don't feel I belong in.
It's like the fluff phases. And before you get all offended, I'm not calling your religion fluff, I'm drawing a parallel. Occasionally we hit a period where every thread is a game or a joke and some people find themselves suddenly without a serious conversation to be involved in. And they complain, and we throw electronic snowballs at them and they start serious threads and all is right with the 'rack.
Only this is worse because people take their beliefs so much more seriously than anything else. And anyone that addresses them in less than a supportive manner evokes a threatened response. On all sides. And suddenly we forget what we're even talking about. It's not about the validity of any religions practices, people.
This is about Hatrack. Us as individuals who belong to that one group that is Hatrack. Us as individuals who wonder if we still belong when we don't see any place we fit.
It will pass or it will not pass. I think that the more time we spend trying to define what side we're on, the less likely it is to pass. Those sides only exist if you pick one. I don't want to pick a side; I want to pick people. I want to pick you. I want to pick us.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I copied this from the Joseph Smith version at http://scriptures.lds.org/1_pet/3 It appears to be identical in the standard King James.
I'm not into normally quoting passages of scripture but this particular passage is one of the big ones used for why you should have answers "prepared" ahead of time. When I re-read it just now in context a couple of things jumped out at me. I'll tell you what they are after the passage.
From I Peter 3
quote:14 But and if ye suffer• for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
15 But sanctify• the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an• answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear•:
16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation• in Christ.
17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
The first thing that jumped out is that NO one of any religion that subscribes to this particular bit as Scripture should be whining about any "persecution" percieved or otherwise but quite possibly rejoicing. But more importantly the "Be ready to give an answer bit" has a second part "with meekness and fear". A spouted out canned answer drilled into your brain, does not give the appearance of meekness. Also, a canned answer leaves out room for any sort of Holy Spirit to work through the individuality of the person giving the answer.
Furthermore a canned response is lazy. It means you don't have to think in the moment, when that is EXACTLY what you are supposed to be doing. Needing canned answers is a shallowness of faith. If you were deeply enough immersed in your religion (regardless of which religion) you don't NEED canned answers. Yes you want to have unanimity in doctrine, but the canned responses which it appears the LDS church teaches are to my non-LDS eyes insipid, bland and occasionally trite.
What I love is when I actually see individuals here, sit and truly THINK about their responses on a religious topic rather than post off the cuff their "automatic" defense response. It used to happen more than I see it now, though I don't think that spark is completely dead. If I did think it was dead I'd probably leave hatrack.
quote:He doesn't say that Americans have a disdain for Utah. He says that Americans have a disdain for quaint versions of American culture. And, while I hadn't thought of that before, I found myself nodding my head when I read that passage, and thinking he was on to something, because it helps explain the extreme antipathy I see toward my town and the people who live in it.
Taken out of context, his post would mean that. In that case, I would disagree with what he's saying, but it wouldn't offend me. But you can't really take it out of context. He said what he said in response to a question. The question was about the general impression of cultural homogeneity in Utah and why it was a bad thing. In the context of this thread, I have to assume that the question arose from what people in this thread were saying about Utah and "Utah Mormon" culture.
So, in the context of this thread, what I got from his post was that he was writing off the opinions of people in this thread who don't like the "Utah Mormon" culture as the opinions of mindless puppets of the liberal media. Maybe that's not what he meant. That's what I read, though.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
If Jatraqueros are a bunch of jerks, then in my experience you are all one of the nicest bunch of jerks I have interacted with. ---
Oh, and kat TOTALLY plagiarized my first post in this thread, and yeah, she prettied up them thar words with that lit-crit education of hers, and yeah, she did it from an LDS perspective, but well, okay, I guess I have no point.
posted
AJ, do you think there can be a middle ground? Because I bet that, as Geoff mentioned, sometimes the people asking have put study into their challenges. Not on Hatrack I mean, but in general. And so if I were religious, I would want to have throught about the common objections to my beliefs and formulated my answers, if for no other reason than to justiofy it to myself, but, as you say, not let that preclude really listening and responding on a case by case basis.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I have seen much in the way of "canned answers" from the regulars here. I don't think anything Geoff said was canned. But I do think he is responding emotionally to things he personally has had to deal with that may or may not have anything to do with his Hatrack experience.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bok: Great minds. And it was the first post on the other now-defunct thread. --
quote:I think it's "people who know the words to 'Baby Got Back'"
Bingo. ---- Somewhere, celia remembered when the blatant and only-between-Mormons discussions were directed to Nauvoo.
I think that's a good idea. I read Nauvoo sometimes, and there is a lot of crossover. Out of respect, maybe we can move the UtahMormons are cool discussion there? I actively participated in that, so I'm just as much a part of it.
We are largely self-moderated here, and it is a compliment in a way. A request by anyone to move a discussion to Nauvoo would not be out of line for the following reasons:
1. Nauvoo exists exactly for that purpose. 2. We have to moderate ourselves. 3. Something needs to be done to change the dynamic.
Things like Mack's announcement thread and the LDS equivelent of Ask the Rebettzin thread would still be okay, because only LDS can post at Nauvoo, but a lot of the discussions could be moved there.
posted
I am running in and out again, but I just wanted to comment on Katie's remarks:
quote:When I first came to Hatrack, I honestly don't remember so many Mormons being there. Maybe I wasn't paying attention, or maybe there was a different balance of threads, but for whatever it was, it seemed like the balance of things has changed. That is not bad, but...this is what I was trying to say in the other thread and apparently did not explain well enough.
When the circumstances change, the dynamic needs to. If you're the only Mormon voice amid 20 others, then having only one or two notes is often not bad, and have just one person chime in is heart-warming. Those same characteristics in 10 of the 20 voices is overwhelming. Maybe we need to change from seeing ourselves as a sub-culture here to aknowledging that it's the largest bloc? I'm still not sure if its a majority, but it's definitely the largest coherent bloc.
In that case, the obligations change. There's a responsibility to pay attention outside yourself. There's always that onus, of course, but it's even greater when circumstances have given you a measure of conversational power.
What do you think?
I agree with you, Katie. The balance at Hatrack feels different to me than it felt when I first came here. I was aware that OSC is a Mormon writer, and attracted many fans of his own faith, but there were also plenty of people here of other faiths, or even of no particular faith. Religion was not an overriding concern in our discussions here, for the most part (except when someone specifically started a thread about a religious topic) - our love of OSC's writing, along with other shared interests we discovered along the way, were important.
I found myself nodding my head when I read Dana's comment, a page or two back, stating that many threads seem to turn into discussions of LDS in one way or the other. I guess that is what I hoped, apparently along with Katie, that people would be made more aware of in this discussion.
Let me paste something I said elsewhere, in a discussion with Hatrackers:
quote:Part of the problem, I think, is that some of the new members coming to Hatrack seem to assume automatically that it's a Mormon forum, since Scott is a Mormon writer. I don't know, maybe they just don't get the fact that his appeal is far wider.
I sort of felt that way about you, beverly, when you first stated posting. It seemed to me that at every opportunity you jumped right in there with comments relating to LDS. I don't feel that way about you anymore, though, in case you're wondering.
Gotta run, again. I'm a shuttle mom today. Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I go away for 12 hours and look what happens! I just want to say I've never felt excluded here because of religion. I think everybody here is really super cool. In Hatrack there is actually the air of respect for all so you can actually let yourself feel safe and part of an actual e-community. If that's from being religious more power to it! And I don't think it will stifle debates or free thought. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Icky, as celia so eloquently pointed out this issue is about HATRACK and how the people here feel about being left out or included or ignored, it isn't about generalizations about America at large.
Geoff's response earlier is a perfect example of a canned response discussing LDS culture, that had nothing to do with the point all the non-lds were actually discussing but morphing it to a distinctly LDS pet topic, and rebutting that topic rather than the one that is actually at hand.
Yes there is a middle ground of forethought and measured response but I'm not seeing that happening very often.
Sadly (or not, since the thread is gone), I never read that thread before it was vaporized. (A side note: has anyone ever thought of what it "sounds" like when a thread is deleted? I "hear" a 'FVuuump!'-type sound.)
quote:It will pass or it will not pass. I think that the more time we spend trying to define what side we're on, the less likely it is to pass. Those sides only exist if you pick one. I don't want to pick a side; I want to pick people. I want to pick you. I want to pick us.
Word. To all you all.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A side note: has anyone ever thought of what it "sounds" like when a thread is deleted? I "hear" a 'FVuuump!'-type sound.
Never thought of it before, but when I imagine it now it sounds a lot like the sound that a Terran Dropship makes when loading units in Starcraft.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I didn't mean "sprung" in a sexual context at all, and never considered that it could be taken that way. I was thinking like "clockwork."
Although now that people have made the erection connection for me, I've got to admit that the mental image is one that's hard to shake. *shudder*
posted
Ela: Huh. I think I'm just as "bad" about that as I ever was. Perhaps you don't feel that way about me as much now because I have been posting less.
It is nice to know how others view me though. I am sorry if I have been annoying. I freely admit that I am a fairly proselyting-minded individual. I like to discuss faith and religion when others are willing. Sometimes no one wants to "play" so I shut up.
I hope me saying that doesn't make anyone even more uncomfortable about me. I do not wish to overwhelm anyone, but I enjoy very much having civil, respectful discussions about my and other's religious beliefs. (Couldn't get that at Nauvoo.com, now, could I?) I am not so much out to convince as to seek understanding and understand in turn. At least that is how I see myself. I have no idea if that is how I come across.
Edit: Oh, but I never assumed this was a "Mormon" site. Only that there was a higher population of LDS here than in the general population. I felt comfortable enough talking about my religious beliefs that I bring them up frequently. That's just the way I am.
posted
Tom, I sincerely apologize for assuming that you intended the sexual connotation. I have a dirty mind. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: The last time you gave a sexual twist to a religious phrase, I didn't get it at all. You have to admit it's not inconceivable that this was meant the same way.
But if you didn't mean it that, I apologize for misconstruing your intent.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: It will pass or it will not pass. I think that the more time we spend trying to define what side we're on, the less likely it is to pass. Those sides only exist if you pick one. I don't want to pick a side; I want to pick people. I want to pick you. I want to pick us.
Nicely said, celia.
And Scott, if it helps, I thought of you before I thought of Uncle Orson.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I copied this from the Joseph Smith version at http://scriptures.lds.org/1_pet/3 It appears to be identical in the standard King James.
Actually, that is the King James Version. The JST only appears in footnotes, and a few selections in an appendix.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But if you didn't mean it that, I apologize for misconstruing your intent.
Since he already said he didn't, it seems like you are either calling him a flat out liar, or just don't really believe what he said, making him, what, someone whose word you don't trust. A liar?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Kayla. That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm calling Tom a big old liar, and there's a rumble behind the dumpsters when school gets out. You can hold his coat.
posted
I've seen some significant wording changes from KJV the JST text in spots, I don't know if the quotes I was seeing of the JST were taken from the footnotes or not. But I figured I'd take the version from the LDS site to be safe and make sure there weren't any major differences.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
