Bigotry against the CoJCoLDS?

[_wenglund]

Second, so far as I know there is little to no disagreement that the Church itself is "authoritarian." (I know you say that some kinds of authoritarianism are okay, but it seems to me that you will have to first reckon with the presence of this within the Church before you can begin extending your criticism and analysis to the so-called bigots.)

Yes, the Church does have an authority structure (just as do most every formal organization--such as the family and the medical establishment and the scientific community and the government, etc.), and thus it is, in that sense, "authoritarian" (not to be confused with 'authoritarianism"). And, if the authority structure in the Church were to be anti-Mormon religious bigots (which is the topic I am addressing in the linked article you are responding to), then you may have a point. They aren't, and so you don't.

Wade. You are the one who has been so insistent upon using "generic" theoretical and definitional frames. Now I am beginning to see why. By your own definition, authoritarianism leads to bigotry. Also by your own definition, the LDS Church is an authoritarian organization. Thus, don't we have to say that the Church itself is bigoted?

No, "we" don't have to say that. You are equivocating in your use of the word "authoritarianism". The GENERIC definition I give for that term, and the one that is causal to bigotry, does not apply to the Church--though it may apply to individual members of the Church who may thereby be vulnerable to leaving the church and becoming bigotted against it, like some who have gone before them.

Well then, I guess you can't very well called it "GENERIC" if you're making specific exceptions for your definition.

If I was making an exception for my definition, then you would be correct. I wasn't, so you aren't. The GENERIC definition doesn't apply to the church, period. For it to apply would require an exception.

Third, you write (discussing authoritarians):

By using Double Standards, Scape-goating, and Projectivity--where they are quite merciful, flexible, and understanding of themselves and their respective in-groups, but highly judgmental, rigid, and skeptical of others, and tend to blame their "troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless.[...]

(emphasis added)

So, by your own definitions, isn't the Church (as an authoritarian organization) thus "blaming its troubles on the powerless"?

No. But, I wonder if you agree with my causal analysis, and I am open to hearing why you think it is.

Not sure what you mean, Wade. This is your own definition, after all.

While it is my definition, you are the one suggesting that Church is "blaming its troubles on the powerless", not me. If you are not sure what you mean by that, then who is?

No.... Your definition is what's suggesting that.

No it didn't--at least not in any reasonable way (and I know this as the ULTIMATE EXPERT on what MY DEFINITION says and means).

Or vice versa, are the bigots attacking the Church, which, according to your own formulations, is "relatively powerless"?

First of all, not surprisingly, you are keying in on the least significant variable in the statement, and one that need not necessarily be the case for the significant variables of the statement to hold true.

If it's insignificant, why include it in the definition?

I didn't say it was "insignificant". I said it was the "least significant" portion of the statement. I included it so as to add potential insight and perspective. I also included it to provide additional context to the quote I was citing.

Well then, which is it? Is the Church "powerless," or not?

That depend on the context (see below).

Second, that is not my "formulation". The word "powerless" is in reference to "some one", not some thing. Do you understand the difference? In other words, it is in reference to a member of the Church, and not the Church as a whole.

So.... You're saying that individual members of the Church are powerless?

...as powerless as the individual bigots.

But you said in your shorter definition that bigotry was dependant upon "membership in a group." As such, I hardly see how you can separate out the individual from the group in this instance. By your own definitions, anyhow.

You are, as usual, confusing the causal explanation for bigotry with the definition of bigotry,

Aren't the "explanation" and the "definition" related?

Yes, but not in the way you supposed.

and you are conflating the members, themselves, with the group in which they are members.

No---it's your definition that's doing the conflating.

No, it is you who is doing the conflating (and I say this as the UTLIMATE EXPERT on MY DEFINTION).

You are also fixating on one of the least significant aspect of the causal explanation, and thus missing the more significant points.

Well then, what are the "more significant points"? Perhaps you should delete that portion of the causal explanation, so that people won't fixate on it in the future. It seems to detract from what you're trying to say or prove.

If I notice going forward a general pattern of people fixating on the insignificant at the expence of the more significant points (i.e. those that are bolded so as to assist the comprehension impaired, as well as those things that are stated up front by me), then I will consider making that change. As it is, you are they only one I am aware of who has had that specific problem. Hopefully, that has been corrected now with layers and layers of clarifications on this seemingly obvious point (though I won't hold my breath).

Think of it this way: jobless white men may feel threatened by black men in the work force--thinking the blacks may receive preferential treatment in hiring, thus preventing the white men from getting a job. The white man may then blame their jobless condition on the black men, and feel powerless against that perceived threat--the source of which may be a figment of their imagination or governmentally mandated quotas, etc. In the process, they may fail to take personal responsibility and consider their own possible contribution to their jobless condition--such as a lack of education, poor interviewing skills, sitting at home on the couch, or drowning their sorrows at the local pub, etc. This may lead to them becoming bigotted towards black men--who, individually or collectively, may be as powerless in preventing the white men from getting a job as the white men are themselves. In other words, these white men are "scape-goating" black men for their jobless condition and the threat against their getting a job. They are being "quite merciful, flexible, and understanding of themselves and their respective in-group, but highly judgmental, rigid, and skeptical of others, and tend to blame their 'troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless. This may occur when one group [or individuals within a group] feels threatened, but are themselves powerless to act against the actual source of the threat . . . where they deny 'particular characteristics in [themselves] but notices them in others.'" (Farley, 2000.25)

As I mentioned elsewhere, I think this is a false analogy (imho). One chooses whether or not to be a member of the Church, right? On the other hand, one cannot choose whether to be black or white. Thus, the "blam[ing] their troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless" is utterly different when applied to the Church because A) the Church is quite powerful, and B) part of that power is associated with the underlying choice/free agency requisite to Church membership.

Not surprisingly you jumped to the wrong conclusion about what, in PRINCIPLE, the analogy was designed to convey, and thus completely missed the perfectly valid point. I don't know what else I can do in helping to bridge your lack of comprehension when you can't even correctly comprehend the analogy intended to help you comprehend the PRINCIPLE you failed to comprehend. Oh well...

Third, members of the Church, both individually and collectively, may be "powerless" in certain case of perceived "threats" by the bigots, because the perceived threats may be purely in the mind of the bigot. The Church and its members can't control (in spite of wild accusations by some to the contrary) or prevent bigots from imagining threats that aren't real. In that specific sense, the Church and its members are relatively powerless in stopping fundamentalistic and authoritarianistic delusions and cognitive distortions in the hate-driven minds of bigots.

So you're dealing only with "perceived threats" rather than actual ones? In other words, your theory is meant only to deal with what's happening in people's minds, and is useless in reckoning with the actual, physical world?

No. It is intended to deal with both (though perhaps more the perceived than the real threats). There are effective ways of dealing with real threats rather than resorting to the dysfunction and corrosive strategy of bigotry.

Hmmm. Interesting, and I wish you'd elaborate. I agree that bigotry is "corrosive and dysfunctional."

I will elaborate over the course of this thead, though I am not sure in your case whether that will be of much help.

Simple question: Is the Church powerful, or not?

Asked already and answered.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Second, so far as I know there is little to no disagreement that the Church itself is "authoritarian." (I know you say that some kinds of authoritarianism are okay, but it seems to me that you will have to first reckon with the presence of this within the Church before you can begin extending your criticism and analysis to the so-called bigots.)

Yes, the Church does have an authority structure (just as do most every formal organization--such as the family and the medical establishment and the scientific community and the government, etc.), and thus it is, in that sense, "authoritarian" (not to be confused with 'authoritarianism"). And, if the authority structure in the Church were to be anti-Mormon religious bigots (which is the topic I am addressing in the linked article you are responding to), then you may have a point. They aren't, and so you don't.

Wade. You are the one who has been so insistent upon using "generic" theoretical and definitional frames. Now I am beginning to see why. By your own definition, authoritarianism leads to bigotry. Also by your own definition, the LDS Church is an authoritarian organization. Thus, don't we have to say that the Church itself is bigoted?

No, "we" don't have to say that. You are equivocating in your use of the word "authoritarianism". The GENERIC definition I give for that term, and the one that is causal to bigotry, does not apply to the Church--though it may apply to individual members of the Church who may thereby be vulnerable to leaving the church and becoming bigotted against it, like some who have gone before them.

Well then, I guess you can't very well called it "GENERIC" if you're making specific exceptions for your definition.

If I was making an exception for my definition, then you would be correct. I wasn't, so you aren't. The GENERIC definition doesn't apply to the church, period. For it to apply would require an exception.

Let me see if I've got this straight. You are using a "GENERIC" definition. As such, this definition is meant to apply to things in a GENERAL, GENERIC sort of way, right? You also say above that you weren't making any exceptions, right? And yet you write, "The GENERIC definition doesn't apply to the church, period." How can this be, Wade? Either your definition is truly GENERIC, and applies to everything, generally and in a generic way, or you are making an exception for the Church. Which is it?

Third, you write (discussing authoritarians):

By using Double Standards, Scape-goating, and Projectivity--where they are quite merciful, flexible, and understanding of themselves and their respective in-groups, but highly judgmental, rigid, and skeptical of others, and tend to blame their "troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless.[...]

(emphasis added)

So, by your own definitions, isn't the Church (as an authoritarian organization) thus "blaming its troubles on the powerless"?

No. But, I wonder if you agree with my causal analysis, and I am open to hearing why you think it is.

Not sure what you mean, Wade. This is your own definition, after all.

While it is my definition, you are the one suggesting that Church is "blaming its troubles on the powerless", not me. If you are not sure what you mean by that, then who is?

No.... Your definition is what's suggesting that.

No it didn't--at least not in any reasonable way (and I know this as the ULTIMATE EXPERT on what MY DEFINITION says and means).

Well, Wade, then why did you start this thread in the first place? If you, as the "ULTIMATE EXPERT" keep moving around the definition, and continue to claim that I'm incapable of understanding you, then what's the point? Are you, as the ULTIMATE EXPERT trying to communicate something or not? If you can't get anything across in any kind of meaningful way, then your appeal to me at the start of this thread was rather pointless, don't you think?

At some point, you're either going to have to acknowledge that what I'm saying has some merit, or else you're going to have to throw up your hands in frustration. It must get awfully lonely being the only ULTIMATE EXPERT, and thus the only person who seems to grasp what you're saying.

Or vice versa, are the bigots attacking the Church, which, according to your own formulations, is "relatively powerless"?

First of all, not surprisingly, you are keying in on the least significant variable in the statement, and one that need not necessarily be the case for the significant variables of the statement to hold true.

If it's insignificant, why include it in the definition?

I didn't say it was "insignificant". I said it was the "least significant" portion of the statement. I included it so as to add potential insight and perspective. I also included it to provide additional context to the quote I was citing.

Well then, which is it? Is the Church "powerless," or not?

That depend on the context (see below).

Yes, the context is which bigotry is occuring. By your own definition, bigotry occurs when the group is "powerless." So you do indeed see the Church as a powerless, helpless institution, apparently.

Second, that is not my "formulation". The word "powerless" is in reference to "some one", not some thing. Do you understand the difference? In other words, it is in reference to a member of the Church, and not the Church as a whole.

So.... You're saying that individual members of the Church are powerless?

...as powerless as the individual bigots.

But you said in your shorter definition that bigotry was dependant upon "membership in a group." As such, I hardly see how you can separate out the individual from the group in this instance. By your own definitions, anyhow.

You are, as usual, confusing the causal explanation for bigotry with the definition of bigotry,

Aren't the "explanation" and the "definition" related?

Yes, but not in the way you supposed.

Okay. Well, since you are the ULTIMATE EXPERT, I suppose you'll have no problem offering up an explanation.

and you are conflating the members, themselves, with the group in which they are members.

No---it's your definition that's doing the conflating.

No, it is you who is doing the conflating (and I say this as the UTLIMATE EXPERT on MY DEFINTION).

You are also fixating on one of the least significant aspect of the causal explanation, and thus missing the more significant points.

Well then, what are the "more significant points"? Perhaps you should delete that portion of the causal explanation, so that people won't fixate on it in the future. It seems to detract from what you're trying to say or prove.

If I notice going forward a general pattern of people fixating on the insignificant at the expence of the more significant points (i.e. those that are bolded so as to assist the comprehension impaired, as well as those things that are stated up front by me), then I will consider making that change. As it is, you are they only one I am aware of who has had that specific problem. Hopefully, that has been corrected now with layers and layers of clarifications on this seemingly obvious point (though I won't hold my breath).

I don't know, Wade. I think that details such as the above are pretty important. I don't understand why you think that point is so "insignificant." Perhaps, as the ULTIMATE EXPERT, you'd care to explain?

Think of it this way: jobless white men may feel threatened by black men in the work force--thinking the blacks may receive preferential treatment in hiring, thus preventing the white men from getting a job. The white man may then blame their jobless condition on the black men, and feel powerless against that perceived threat--the source of which may be a figment of their imagination or governmentally mandated quotas, etc. In the process, they may fail to take personal responsibility and consider their own possible contribution to their jobless condition--such as a lack of education, poor interviewing skills, sitting at home on the couch, or drowning their sorrows at the local pub, etc. This may lead to them becoming bigotted towards black men--who, individually or collectively, may be as powerless in preventing the white men from getting a job as the white men are themselves. In other words, these white men are "scape-goating" black men for their jobless condition and the threat against their getting a job. They are being "quite merciful, flexible, and understanding of themselves and their respective in-group, but highly judgmental, rigid, and skeptical of others, and tend to blame their 'troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless. This may occur when one group [or individuals within a group] feels threatened, but are themselves powerless to act against the actual source of the threat . . . where they deny 'particular characteristics in [themselves] but notices them in others.'" (Farley, 2000.25)

As I mentioned elsewhere, I think this is a false analogy (imho). One chooses whether or not to be a member of the Church, right? On the other hand, one cannot choose whether to be black or white. Thus, the "blam[ing] their troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless" is utterly different when applied to the Church because A) the Church is quite powerful, and B) part of that power is associated with the underlying choice/free agency requisite to Church membership.

Not surprisingly you jumped to the wrong conclusion about what, in PRINCIPLE, the analogy was designed to convey, and thus completely missed the perfectly valid point. I don't know what else I can do in helping to bridge your lack of comprehension when you can't even correctly comprehend the analogy intended to help you comprehend the PRINCIPLE you failed to comprehend. Oh well...

Sort of like how you missed the PRINCIPLE of the vehicular manslaughter analogy in the juliann thread? Goes both ways, doesn't it.

Anyhow, I still feel that my point stands. You seem unwilling to paint the Church as being either "powerful," or "powerless," and in my view, your unwillingness to do this appears to be a function of your knowledge that doing so will render the Church guilty of bigotry. At least according to your own definition.

I understand that you don't want to blame the Church for anything ever, Wade. But is this really honest? Is this really beneficial to the Church in the end?

Third, members of the Church, both individually and collectively, may be "powerless" in certain case of perceived "threats" by the bigots, because the perceived threats may be purely in the mind of the bigot. The Church and its members can't control (in spite of wild accusations by some to the contrary) or prevent bigots from imagining threats that aren't real. In that specific sense, the Church and its members are relatively powerless in stopping fundamentalistic and authoritarianistic delusions and cognitive distortions in the hate-driven minds of bigots.

So you're dealing only with "perceived threats" rather than actual ones? In other words, your theory is meant only to deal with what's happening in people's minds, and is useless in reckoning with the actual, physical world?

No. It is intended to deal with both (though perhaps more the perceived than the real threats). There are effective ways of dealing with real threats rather than resorting to the dysfunction and corrosive strategy of bigotry.

Hmmm. Interesting, and I wish you'd elaborate. I agree that bigotry is "corrosive and dysfunctional."

I will elaborate over the course of this thead, though I am not sure in your case whether that will be of much help.

Hey, go on ahead, my friend. I feel like I've been waiting forever for you to offer up specific evidence and support. You hardly ever do that.

Simple question: Is the Church powerful, or not?

Asked already and answered.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-[/quote][/quote]

Where? You mean your "it depends on the context" dodge? Try giving a more specific and direct answer, Wade. Otherwise it just looks like you're trying to weasel out of the trap you inadvertantly set for yourself.

[_wenglund]

Second, so far as I know there is little to no disagreement that the Church itself is "authoritarian." (I know you say that some kinds of authoritarianism are okay, but it seems to me that you will have to first reckon with the presence of this within the Church before you can begin extending your criticism and analysis to the so-called bigots.)

Yes, the Church does have an authority structure (just as do most every formal organization--such as the family and the medical establishment and the scientific community and the government, etc.), and thus it is, in that sense, "authoritarian" (not to be confused with 'authoritarianism"). And, if the authority structure in the Church were to be anti-Mormon religious bigots (which is the topic I am addressing in the linked article you are responding to), then you may have a point. They aren't, and so you don't.

Wade. You are the one who has been so insistent upon using "generic" theoretical and definitional frames. Now I am beginning to see why. By your own definition, authoritarianism leads to bigotry. Also by your own definition, the LDS Church is an authoritarian organization. Thus, don't we have to say that the Church itself is bigoted?

No, "we" don't have to say that. You are equivocating in your use of the word "authoritarianism". The GENERIC definition I give for that term, and the one that is causal to bigotry, does not apply to the Church--though it may apply to individual members of the Church who may thereby be vulnerable to leaving the church and becoming bigotted against it, like some who have gone before them.

Well then, I guess you can't very well called it "GENERIC" if you're making specific exceptions for your definition.

If I was making an exception for my definition, then you would be correct. I wasn't, so you aren't. The GENERIC definition doesn't apply to the church, period. For it to apply would require an exception.

Let me see if I've got this straight. You are using a "GENERIC" definition. As such, this definition is meant to apply to things in a GENERAL, GENERIC sort of way, right? You also say above that you weren't making any exceptions, right? And yet you write, "The GENERIC definition doesn't apply to the church, period." How can this be, Wade? Either your definition is truly GENERIC, and applies to everything, generally and in a generic way, or you are making an exception for the Church. Which is it?

Nope, you didn't get it straight. A GENERIC definition doesn't apply to "everything". In my case, it only applies GENERALLY to the MEMBERS OF A GROUP OR KIND--i.e. members who fit the definition I gave for bigot. The Church does not fit that definition. Nor, for that matter, does a significant portion of the world's population. In other words, my GENERIC definition doesn't mean that everyone and every group or organization is bigotted. It means that everyone and everything that fits the general definition, is bigotted. Do you have it straight now?

Third, you write (discussing authoritarians):

By using Double Standards, Scape-goating, and Projectivity--where they are quite merciful, flexible, and understanding of themselves and their respective in-groups, but highly judgmental, rigid, and skeptical of others, and tend to blame their "troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless.[...]

(emphasis added)

So, by your own definitions, isn't the Church (as an authoritarian organization) thus "blaming its troubles on the powerless"?

No. But, I wonder if you agree with my causal analysis, and I am open to hearing why you think it is.

Not sure what you mean, Wade. This is your own definition, after all.

While it is my definition, you are the one suggesting that Church is "blaming its troubles on the powerless", not me. If you are not sure what you mean by that, then who is?

No.... Your definition is what's suggesting that.

No it didn't--at least not in any reasonable way (and I know this as the ULTIMATE EXPERT on what MY DEFINITION says and means).

Well, Wade, then why did you start this thread in the first place? If you, as the "ULTIMATE EXPERT" keep moving around the definition, and continue to claim that I'm incapable of understanding you, then what's the point? Are you, as the ULTIMATE EXPERT trying to communicate something or not? If you can't get anything across in any kind of meaningful way, then your appeal to me at the start of this thread was rather pointless, don't you think?

First of all, my definition hasn't moved an inch. It is the same today as it was when I wrote it over a year ago. Rather, it is your repreated misunderstanding of my definition that is moving all around. Hopefully, at some point you will stabalize through correct cognition. I won't hold my breath.

Secondly, I can't control for your failure to comprehend. I intentionally used the language of social scientists because it has reaped general understanding, and it was easily comprehended by me. If it is lost on you, then I am sorry. I will try and clarify for yuor benefit as I have done, but at some point you will need to take responsibility. May I suggest setting aside your preconcieved notions, and also instead of trying to debate or challenge, first try to correctly understand--i.e. ask clarifying and non-prusumptuous questions, rather than telling me what I said and waiting to be frequently corrected. This may save us both a lot of wasted time, and it will increase your chances of accurately comprehending.

At some point, you're either going to have to acknowledge that what I'm saying has some merit, or else you're going to have to throw up your hands in frustration. It must get awfully lonely being the only ULTIMATE EXPERT, and thus the only person who seems to grasp what you're saying.

When you say something that is due some merit, then I will acknowledge it. Until then, please follow my advice above.

Or vice versa, are the bigots attacking the Church, which, according to your own formulations, is "relatively powerless"?

First of all, not surprisingly, you are keying in on the least significant variable in the statement, and one that need not necessarily be the case for the significant variables of the statement to hold true.

If it's insignificant, why include it in the definition?

I didn't say it was "insignificant". I said it was the "least significant" portion of the statement. I included it so as to add potential insight and perspective. I also included it to provide additional context to the quote I was citing.

Well then, which is it? Is the Church "powerless," or not?

That depend on the context (see below).

Yes, the context is which bigotry is occuring. By your own definition, bigotry occurs when the group is "powerless." So you do indeed see the Church as a powerless, helpless institution, apparently.

In certain contexts and in certain ways, yes I do. In fact, I suggest at least one of those ways below (as previously noted).

Second, that is not my "formulation". The word "powerless" is in reference to "some one", not some thing. Do you understand the difference? In other words, it is in reference to a member of the Church, and not the Church as a whole.

So.... You're saying that individual members of the Church are powerless?

...as powerless as the individual bigots.

But you said in your shorter definition that bigotry was dependant upon "membership in a group." As such, I hardly see how you can separate out the individual from the group in this instance. By your own definitions, anyhow.

You are, as usual, confusing the causal explanation for bigotry with the definition of bigotry,

Aren't the "explanation" and the "definition" related?

Yes, but not in the way you supposed.

Okay. Well, since you are the ULTIMATE EXPERT, I suppose you'll have no problem offering up an explanation.

I did (as perviously noted: see below)

and you are conflating the members, themselves, with the group in which they are members.

No---it's your definition that's doing the conflating.

No, it is you who is doing the conflating (and I say this as the UTLIMATE EXPERT on MY DEFINTION).

You are also fixating on one of the least significant aspect of the causal explanation, and thus missing the more significant points.

Well then, what are the "more significant points"? Perhaps you should delete that portion of the causal explanation, so that people won't fixate on it in the future. It seems to detract from what you're trying to say or prove.

If I notice going forward a general pattern of people fixating on the insignificant at the expence of the more significant points (i.e. those that are bolded so as to assist the comprehension impaired, as well as those things that are stated up front by me), then I will consider making that change. As it is, you are they only one I am aware of who has had that specific problem. Hopefully, that has been corrected now with layers and layers of clarifications on this seemingly obvious point (though I won't hold my breath).

I don't know, Wade. I think that details such as the above are pretty important. I don't understand why you think that point is so "insignificant." Perhaps, as the ULTIMATE EXPERT, you'd care to explain?

Again, I didn't say it was "insignificant", I said it was the "least significant". Should I repeat this, or did you get it that time? Do you understand the significant difference between the two?

As for my explanation, see the analogy below (this time try grasping the PRINCIPLE being conveyed, rather than getting hung up on unintended comparisons).

Think of it this way: jobless white men may feel threatened by black men in the work force--thinking the blacks may receive preferential treatment in hiring, thus preventing the white men from getting a job. The white man may then blame their jobless condition on the black men, and feel powerless against that perceived threat--the source of which may be a figment of their imagination or governmentally mandated quotas, etc. In the process, they may fail to take personal responsibility and consider their own possible contribution to their jobless condition--such as a lack of education, poor interviewing skills, sitting at home on the couch, or drowning their sorrows at the local pub, etc. This may lead to them becoming bigotted towards black men--who, individually or collectively, may be as powerless in preventing the white men from getting a job as the white men are themselves. In other words, these white men are "scape-goating" black men for their jobless condition and the threat against their getting a job. They are being "quite merciful, flexible, and understanding of themselves and their respective in-group, but highly judgmental, rigid, and skeptical of others, and tend to blame their 'troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless. This may occur when one group [or individuals within a group] feels threatened, but are themselves powerless to act against the actual source of the threat . . . where they deny 'particular characteristics in [themselves] but notices them in others.'" (Farley, 2000.25)

As I mentioned elsewhere, I think this is a false analogy (imho). One chooses whether or not to be a member of the Church, right? On the other hand, one cannot choose whether to be black or white. Thus, the "blam[ing] their troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless" is utterly different when applied to the Church because A) the Church is quite powerful, and B) part of that power is associated with the underlying choice/free agency requisite to Church membership.

Not surprisingly you jumped to the wrong conclusion about what, in PRINCIPLE, the analogy was designed to convey, and thus completely missed the perfectly valid point. I don't know what else I can do in helping to bridge your lack of comprehension when you can't even correctly comprehend the analogy intended to help you comprehend the PRINCIPLE you failed to comprehend. Oh well...

Sort of like how you missed the PRINCIPLE of the vehicular manslaughter analogy in the juliann thread? Goes both ways, doesn't it.

Whether it goes both ways or not, in order for you to correctly comprehend what I am saying, you need to try and understand the PRINCIPLE being conveyed in the analogy, rather than picking irrelevant nits and making excuses for yourself. Okay?

Anyhow, I still feel that my point stands. You seem unwilling to paint the Church as being either "powerful," or "powerless," and in my view, your unwillingness to do this appears to be a function of your knowledge that doing so will render the Church guilty of bigotry. At least according to your own definition.

You are welcome to feel whatever you want. You can feel that you have made a valid point, and you can feel that the moon is made of cheese. But, your feelings are not a valid substitute for a reasoned response (something entirely absent from you "challenges" thus far). You have misconstrude what I have said at each turn, and you have been irrationally resistant to being corrected by the person with the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY to know. Such arrogance on your part makes meaningful dialogue virtually impossible. But, I am a hopeless optimist.

I understand that you don't want to blame the Church for anything ever, Wade. But is this really honest? Is this really beneficial to the Church in the end?

Your "understanding" is, as expected, incorrect. Are you going for some kind of record? Are you and Beastie and Runtu in some kind of a contest to see just how poorly you can comprehend what I say?

Third, members of the Church, both individually and collectively, may be "powerless" in certain cases of perceived "threats" by the bigots, because the perceived threats may be purely in the mind of the bigot. The Church and its members can't control (in spite of wild accusations by some to the contrary) or prevent bigots from imagining threats that aren't real. In that specific sense, the Church and its members are relatively powerless in stopping fundamentalistic and authoritarianistic delusions and cognitive distortions in the hate-driven minds of bigots.

So you're dealing only with "perceived threats" rather than actual ones? In other words, your theory is meant only to deal with what's happening in people's minds, and is useless in reckoning with the actual, physical world?

No. It is intended to deal with both (though perhaps more the perceived than the real threats). There are effective ways of dealing with real threats rather than resorting to the dysfunction and corrosive strategy of bigotry.

Hmmm. Interesting, and I wish you'd elaborate. I agree that bigotry is "corrosive and dysfunctional."

I will elaborate over the course of this thead, though I am not sure in your case whether that will be of much help.

Hey, go on ahead, my friend. I feel like I've been waiting forever for you to offer up specific evidence and support. You hardly ever do that.

You said the same thing on the Accountability/Responsibility thread, and when I asked you to offer yourself as a specific example, and when that failed I offerred myself as a specific example, you suddenly went silent.

Let's see if it happens again.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Let me see if I've got this straight. You are using a "GENERIC" definition. As such, this definition is meant to apply to things in a GENERAL, GENERIC sort of way, right? You also say above that you weren't making any exceptions, right? And yet you write, "The GENERIC definition doesn't apply to the church, period." How can this be, Wade? Either your definition is truly GENERIC, and applies to everything, generally and in a generic way, or you are making an exception for the Church. Which is it?

Nope, you didn't get it straight. A GENERIC definition doesn't apply to "everything". In my case, it only applies GENERALLY to the MEMBERS OF A GROUP OR KIND--i.e. members who fit the definition I gave for bigot. The Church does not fit that definition. Nor, for that matter, does a significant portion of the world's population. In other words, my GENERIC definition doesn't mean that everyone and every group or organization is bigotted. It means that everyone and everything that fits the general definition, is bigotted. Do you have it straight now?

Why doesn't the Church fit the definition? You have admitted that the Church is "authoritarian." The Church hierarchy is also quite "understanding" towards its respective in-groups, such as in the treatment of Elder Paul H. Dunn, or the way Patriarch Joseph F. Smith's homosexuality was handled.

First of all, my definition hasn't moved an inch. It is the same today as it was when I wrote it over a year ago. Rather, it is your repreated misunderstanding of my definition that is moving all around. Hopefully, at some point you will stabalize through correct cognition. I won't hold my breath.

Secondly, I can't control for your failure to comprehend. I intentionally used the language of social scientists because it has reaped general understanding, and it was easily comprehended by me.

I get the social science language, no problem. Really, the problem as I see it is that you refuse to apply the same standards of your theory to the Church itself. For reasons you've explained elsewhere, the Church gets a free pass. Simply put: you don't play fair.

If it is lost on you, then I am sorry. I will try and clarify for yuor benefit as I have done, but at some point you will need to take responsibility. May I suggest setting aside your preconcieved notions, and also instead of trying to debate or challenge, first try to correctly understand--i.e. ask clarifying and non-prusumptuous questions, rather than telling me what I said and waiting to be frequently corrected. This may save us both a lot of wasted time, and it will increase your chances of accurately comprehending.

I think I do understand, Wade. You want to vilify anyone who is critical of the Church, and yet you refuse to apply your same critical standards to the Church itself. Am I right?

At some point, you're either going to have to acknowledge that what I'm saying has some merit, or else you're going to have to throw up your hands in frustration. It must get awfully lonely being the only ULTIMATE EXPERT, and thus the only person who seems to grasp what you're saying.

When you say something that is due some merit, then I will acknowledge it. Until then, please follow my advice above.

Not very nice, Wade.

In certain contexts and in certain ways, yes I do. In fact, I suggest at least one of those ways below (as previously noted).

Hmmm. I must not have caught that. I think you're trying to avoid painting the Church as either "powerful" or "powerless." You want to have it both ways, in my opinion.

But you said in your shorter definition that bigotry was dependant upon "membership in a group." As such, I hardly see how you can separate out the individual from the group in this instance. By your own definitions, anyhow.

You are, as usual, confusing the causal explanation for bigotry with the definition of bigotry,

Aren't the "explanation" and the "definition" related?[/quote]

Yes, but not in the way you supposed.[/quote]

Okay. Well, since you are the ULTIMATE EXPERT, I suppose you'll have no problem offering up an explanation.[/quote]

I did (as perviously noted: see below)[/quote]

Again, I don't think I caught that. How are the "explanation" and the "definition" related in some way that I didn't grasp to your liking?

I don't know, Wade. I think that details such as the above are pretty important. I don't understand why you think that point is so "insignificant." Perhaps, as the ULTIMATE EXPERT, you'd care to explain?

Again, I didn't say it was "insignificant", I said it was the "least significant". Should I repeat this, or did you get it that time? Do you understand the significant difference between the two?

No, Wade, I'm afraid I don't. You don't do a good job (imho) of conveying which of your points are "more significant" than others.

As for my explanation, see the analogy below (this time try grasping the PRINCIPLE being conveyed, rather than getting hung up on unintended comparisons).

You cannot simply wave the comparisons away, Wade.

Think of it this way: jobless white men may feel threatened by black men in the work force--thinking the blacks may receive preferential treatment in hiring, thus preventing the white men from getting a job. The white man may then blame their jobless condition on the black men, and feel powerless against that perceived threat--the source of which may be a figment of their imagination or governmentally mandated quotas, etc. In the process, they may fail to take personal responsibility and consider their own possible contribution to their jobless condition--such as a lack of education, poor interviewing skills, sitting at home on the couch, or drowning their sorrows at the local pub, etc. This may lead to them becoming bigotted towards black men--who, individually or collectively, may be as powerless in preventing the white men from getting a job as the white men are themselves. In other words, these white men are "scape-goating" black men for their jobless condition and the threat against their getting a job. They are being "quite merciful, flexible, and understanding of themselves and their respective in-group, but highly judgmental, rigid, and skeptical of others, and tend to blame their 'troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless. This may occur when one group [or individuals within a group] feels threatened, but are themselves powerless to act against the actual source of the threat . . . where they deny 'particular characteristics in [themselves] but notices them in others.'" (Farley, 2000.25)

As I mentioned elsewhere, I think this is a false analogy (imho). One chooses whether or not to be a member of the Church, right? On the other hand, one cannot choose whether to be black or white. Thus, the "blam[ing] their troubles on someone else who is relatively powerless" is utterly different when applied to the Church because A) the Church is quite powerful, and B) part of that power is associated with the underlying choice/free agency requisite to Church membership.

Not surprisingly you jumped to the wrong conclusion about what, in PRINCIPLE, the analogy was designed to convey, and thus completely missed the perfectly valid point. I don't know what else I can do in helping to bridge your lack of comprehension when you can't even correctly comprehend the analogy intended to help you comprehend the PRINCIPLE you failed to comprehend. Oh well...

Sort of like how you missed the PRINCIPLE of the vehicular manslaughter analogy in the juliann thread? Goes both ways, doesn't it.

Whether it goes both ways or not, in order for you to correctly comprehend what I am saying, you need to try and understand the PRINCIPLE being conveyed in the analogy, rather than picking irrelevant nits and making excuses for yourself. Okay?[/quote]

What is the principle, Wade? If you are wanting to convey the principle, why not come out and say it? Why bother even wasting the time to craft a lengthy analogy?

Besides, your point in the analogy---that bigots blame their problems on something that's actually their own fault---doesn't fit the analogy very well. Moreover, apostates are often at least partially the Church's fault, which is something you will never, ever acknowledge, even in passing.

Anyhow, I still feel that my point stands. You seem unwilling to paint the Church as being either "powerful," or "powerless," and in my view, your unwillingness to do this appears to be a function of your knowledge that doing so will render the Church guilty of bigotry. At least according to your own definition.

You are welcome to feel whatever you want. You can feel that you have made a valid point, and you can feel that the moon is made of cheese. But, your feelings are not a valid substitute for a reasoned response (something entirely absent from you "challenges" thus far). You have misconstrude what I have said at each turn, and you have been irrationally resistant to being corrected by the person with the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY to know. Such arrogance on your part makes meaningful dialogue virtually impossible. But, I am a hopeless optimist.

Hey, you were the one who addressed ME. The bottomline is that you refuse to acknowledge or examine the Church's culpability in any of this. You love the Church too much to be a valid critic or rhetor.

I understand that you don't want to blame the Church for anything ever, Wade. But is this really honest? Is this really beneficial to the Church in the end?

Your "understanding" is, as expected, incorrect. Are you going for some kind of record? Are you and Beastie and Runtu in some kind of a contest to see just how poorly you can comprehend what I say?

So you *are* will to blame the Church? Would you care to name something bad the contemporary Church has done? Or is this just hot air on your part?

Hey, go on ahead, my friend. I feel like I've been waiting forever for you to offer up specific evidence and support. You hardly ever do that.

You said the same thing on the Accountability/Responsibility thread, and when I asked you to offer yourself as a specific example, and when that failed I offerred myself as a specific example, you suddenly went silent.

Let's see if it happens again.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I responded to that thread. You must not have bothered to read my response.