29 August 2007

Stallin’

and the Great Purge of ‘07

It’s been far too long since anyone has attempted a purge.

Previous attempts were (let’s face it) feeble, at best. One attempt was a shame-on-you attack that sought to get the Undesirables to leave on their own. The second attempt was an appeal-to-elitism attack that sought create a divide between the Undesirables and the Regular Folk.

Yawn-inducing, I know. The latest purge attempt, however, is much more interesting.

In the evening of August 20th, Crow stated, “I personally am beginning to think these blogs are a dangerous thing because I think a lot of false doctrine is being mingled with scripture and being passed off as the gospel.“

And what does one do with dangerous things? Ban them, of course.

Earlier that day Crow opined, “The only thing that really concerns me is that this. This and other blogs are linked to a site that is supposed to be faith promoting and provide solid gospel advice and support to those of us who struggle.”

The site Crow is referring to is Northern Lights. There are, of course, many unique individuals linked to the official blog of North Star.* Some are gay women in straight marriages, some are gay men who wear women’s jeans and wax their eyebrows, and all are in a different place in regards to their testimony and understanding of church doctrine.

So is it possible that Crow is merely offering a critique of blogs he views as less than faithful? Could he simply be suggesting that we should choose who’s advice we take a little more carefully? Perhaps some blogs are just less of a valuable resource than others.

Nope.

For Crow, it‘s all or nothing, “I believe that things are black and white, good or evil. Either they glorify and uplift or the bring down and destroy.” He continues, “Yes there is a gap in the middle and various hues of gray… I think its in the gray that Satan dwells.” (emphasis mine)

We certainly can’t allow Satanic blogs to be linked to Northern Lights, now can we?

*Is everyone aware that North Star is a Gay Rodeo association? Also, Northstar is a gay superhero currently in a relationship with Colossus.

+++

good tune
http://djpretzel.web.aplus.net/songs/Castlevania_2_DownTown_OC_Remix.mp3

15 comments:

Foxx said...

Yes, please. Crush the voices of dissent. They only have value if they are 100% purely uplifting. Damn the rest of us who are trying to figure stuff out, who question, who doubt.

Only then can we be of one mind and one heart: when all other voices have been silenced.

drex said...

Reminds me of the latest Dune books!

...dang, I'm a nerd.

Chedner said...

Wait... Colossus is gay?! Wow, I have been away from my X-Men for far too long...

Also, I used to think what Crow is preaching is not the official stance of the Church -- now that I've been corrected, I'm feeling like it's time for me to go elsewhere... too bad Colossus is fictional (to be honest, I've always found his character quite attractive and endearing).

Beck said...

My blog has never had an agenda to be black or white, right or wrong, pro-church or anti-church. Like many others, it HAS been one of searching and questioning and learning and growing as I swim through the vast and wide river of GRAY. If that makes me Satanic, then I guess I better check for my growing horns.

playasinmar said...

Chedner,

Yep, Colossus is gay, been nursing a crush on Northstar for a while, and they recently moved in together at school...

I remember my reaction when I first read that larry king interview. I think we're feeling the same thing there.

Beck,

That vast and wide river of gray is where we all swim no matter how color-blind we think we are. --or-- That vast and wide river of gray will carry you straight to Hades!!!

Kengo Biddles said...

I'm just so utterly offended by this post. I think anyone who isn't quoting General Authorities all the time should just stop blogging, right now.

Because gray is EEEEEEEEEE-vil.

MoHoHawaii said...

I'm one of those who has been invited to exit this community. My faith has shattered into a million little pieces on the floor and I've long since stopped trying to pick up the pieces.

But I'm here and plan to stay even though it is frustrating to witness the anguish that you more faithful 'mos sometimes experience.

To those of you who show me kindness and understanding: thank you. I hope to return the favor.

J G-W said...

This sort of reminds me of that episode of Star Trek with the folks who are black on one side and white on the other versus the folks who are white on one side and black on the other. It just occurred to me... If they look each other in the face... each one is the mirror image of the other.

Profound, huh?

GeckoMan said...

I guess I'm still trying to figure out if this a closed or open society.

I too have shook my head at some of the words that have come from the Crow's Nest, but there doesn't seem to be much respect or tolerance flowing back the other way, which concerns me. Can we agree to disagree without name calling ("your nest is full of shit", etc.) or being ugly? Why should our words reconfirm for some that we're just as close-minded as they suspected?

Playa, I love your sharp sense of humor. You often bring a chuckle to the surface. And yes, humor is often funniest when it is close to the painful truth. You have an eye for this, which I greatly respect and admire.

playasinmar said...

I've heard the "Tolerance for the Intolerant" argument before.

I don't understand it. Why would one be obligated to tolerate those who do not tolerate him?

Besides, I don't recall anyone accusing Crow of being intolerant. A tactless, simple-minded, loud-mouth of a zealot, of course... but "intolerant?"

At least, I never accused him of intolerance. His willingness to discuss these issues (regardless of how dismissive he gets) would indicate a high tolerance for gay Mormons and their issues.

Also, whomever pointed out, "...by definition, all crow’s nests are full of sh*t," should win some kind of award.

That line was pure poetry.

GeckoMan said...

Tolerating the intolerant is also recognized as grace and civility; we don't always succeed at this, but we all believe in a grand Exemplar of this virtue.

You're right, I don't think anyone of us ever accused Crow of being intolerant. He seemed quite willing to debate issues, usually only to his own conclusions, but if we do the same thing, then this is part of what I'm voicing concern about. If we succumb to being intolerant of other's viewpoints or beliefs, then we fail the discussion and the opportunity to learn from one another. There is growth that comes from civil conflict, synergies born out of diverse ideas. To squash or run out of town someone who is struggling themselves with our same issues is unfortunate.

And yeah, I do have to admit that I laughed at the spark of humor in the remark about what the nest was full of; but I later cringed when I thought about what might be going through the heart of the Crow by such an accusation.

Maybe I'm feeling just a little sensitive, because I feel really called out today by iwonder's post. It leads me to wonder what you guys think about me--am I just a "loud-mouth of a zealot" too? Are my viewpoints welcome or will they be merely 'tolerated'?

Crow's View said...

Wow, I must have pecked at a nerve. An entire blog dedicated to me!!! And there isn't any refrences to Crow excrament. I compliment you.

And of course its an open invataion for everyone else to add their pot shots. To attack the intolerant, to belittle the zealot with their smug sarcastic and enlightened statements that aren't clouded by the repressive influences of the church. So now that we are all in our respective corners with our dander up and ready to attack how should we proceed?

I love the way Zeal for the gospel is now a bad thing. And defending things that the church says will prevent us from progressing is now en vogue.

Okay, first of all. I'm really not sure why there is dissent. The church isn't forcing anyone to stick around if they don't want to. No one if forcing anyone to belive anything. That's why its called faith. That's why we need to use our agency to make a choice. We arn't hear following Saten's plan. Yes, if you want to be faithful to the church you do need "to be of one heart and one voice." Yes, it is possible to do this and retain your own sinse of individuality.

That is what agency is all about. If you disagree or feel something is wrong, then please by all means develop a backbone and follow through with your beliefs. Stop wallowing in self loathing. If you choose to leave the church, that's your choice and we need to respect it, love you and accept you.

Of course those of us who do have testimonies will think you are making a eternally devastating mistake. If we love you and also believe in the church we would of course feel that way. Oh perhaps you need to walk way and lose it in order to realize what you do have and desire to get it back. Who knows. We don't recive revaltion for you, your the only one that can do that. All I can do is pray for you and hold to what we belive is the gospel.

But please have respect for those of us who do want to stay and remain faithful and and leave the church alone.

Its ironic that the same person who who accuses me of "preaching" items that are not offical stances of the church is the same person who rejected my friendship after I offered what I thought was a heartfelt and public apology and is now using my blogs or at least thats the implication in his comment here as one of his excuses to "go elsewhere." I really would like someone to clue me in what apostste doctrine I'm exposing. What untruths am I guilty of spreading.

Bloggers here can bash the prophet and his apperence on Larry King and other interview and attack leaders like Elder Bateman for his statements. They can tear apart and pardoy the Elder Oak's and Wickman Interview. They can offer their version of what the Church should say in their opinion since they seem to think they now receive inspirations to lead the church and guide those to go against those called to be Prophet, Seers and Revalators.

They can come right out and say that church leaders are wrong and then they can go off and say I'm somehow intorant and closed minded because I have the nerve to stand up for things that I do consider sacred and that I clearly remember making a coveant not to be part of "evil apeaking of the Lord's anointed" and to stand up for the church when I encounter this. I'm a bad person for sticking to what I said I would do.

I've been told if you don't like what I've blogged don't read it. Well what's the point? Do you only blog so that those who agree with you can back you up? Are you saying you don't want dissent? Are you saying you want to crush anyone who has an opinion that goes against yours?

I posted today why I had taken a step back. Why I had stopped reading these blogs. I felt that was a peace offering and a move towards more tolerance on both parts. But apparently that's not how bloggers play. Today I let curiousity get the best of me and I returned. And what do I find and entire attack based on me. All I can say is wow, I'm flattered that I've had this kind of effect on everyone. I am sorry that the attacks have to continue. I guess being Christlike in the Moho community is another word for conditional love and acceptance.

I have found those who demand tolerance don't normally understand what it is to be tolerant. In fact they are normly the least tolerant ones out there. It's there way or no way, it's black and white. You are either with us or you're not. You don't have a right to an opinon if you disagree with us its because you are a ignorant bigot. Ironicly isn't that sorta what I'm accused of here? Seeing things as black and white?

If they can't debate in a civil and respectful way, they resort to petty insults and attacks. If they can't argue against the message their next move is to belittle the messenger. If they can make that person message appear tactless and simple-minded they can win by default or at least feel smug in that they have been attacked.

I'm sorry if I mistakenly believed that it was somehow admirable to stay faithful to the church. That my CTR ring meant choose the right. Apparently it means Choose the relative.

If I'm standing for what I believe, I honestly don't care if you tolerate or not tolerate me. Because I know whom I'm standing up for. If I'm bad for believing that I'm right then I suppose anyone who argues with me is also guilty of the same offense. I only worry about one judge.

I've heard so many people blog about being tolerant and Christlike. But apparently thats only reserved for those who go along with what is the groupthink here. Again more of what I'm being accused of.

That's one thing you can't accuse me of. I may disagree with you but I'd never openly attack you. I may defend myself as any human would who is attacked. I may disagree with you and tell you why. If you want to take it as an attack that's your issue. But I also would rather us work it out and be friends then continue to take pot shots at each other.

playasinmar said...

"Its ironic that the same person who who accuses me of "preaching"... rejected my friendship after I offered... a heartfelt and public apology and is now using my blogs or at least thats the implication in his comment here as one of his excuses to 'go elsewhere.'"

Is that person me? I never told you to go elsewhere. In fact, I invited you here.

"That's one thing you can't accuse me of. I may disagree with you but I'd never openly attack you."

You said I only claim to be Mormon. That's an attack. A personal attack.

"I've heard so many people blog about being tolerant and Christlike. But apparently thats only reserved for those who go along with what is the groupthink here."

Again: I invited you here, Crow. This forum is more open than most. feel free to say whatever your heart compells you to say.

iwonder said...

Oy vavoy! I wasn't going to respond, since I thought I had already said enough, but I just cannot help myself, so here goes.

Okay, first of all. I'm really not sure why there is dissent. The church isn't forcing anyone to stick around if they don't want to. No one if forcing anyone to believe anything.

To that I feel I need to reply "Oh, bloody hell!" Are you serious? There is dissent because all my life I was raised to believe certain things, and was taught by the church very damaging and false things (re: homosexuality), which things continue even now. These things may or may not be taught by the official Church leadership, but there are enough Stake Presidents and Bishops out there who spread horrible and pernicious (if well meaning) lies about the nature of homosexuality, to make me feel I must speak out about it. To just ignore it would be a gross disservice to myself and many others.

You see, the problem is that we don't want it to be one or the other, 100% Churchiness or 100% of nothing. We who find it intolerable and quite impossible to live the life foisted upon us by/in the Church, just want to find a life(style) that we can actually live in a emotionally, mentally, spiritually healthy manner. I, personally, find that impossible (for me) by living according to the ultra-orthodox law of the church. I don't disrespect that stance, and I do understand it, but I just cannot do it. It is not for me, as hard as that may be to believe.

That is what agency is all about. If you disagree or feel something is wrong, then please by all means develop a backbone and follow through with your beliefs. Stop wallowing in self loathing.

That was pretty rude and callous. That is an example of the types of things that are disrespectful and damaging. It doesn't even matter that you didn't direct it at one singular person, the fact that you are belittling that many of us struggle with making a very, very difficult choice and have (lots of) personal issues on top of that, is just really rude and intolerant and disrespectful.

That's one thing you can't accuse me of. I may disagree with you but I'd never openly attack you

I have to agree with Playa on this one. He is not alone in feeling personally attacked for his beliefs.

But please have respect for those of us who do want to stay and remain faithful and and leave the church alone.

Well, I for one do respect those who desire to be faithful to the church. But I do not feel that I am obligated to "leave the church alone". Why am I not allowed to voice my concerns and criticisms just because you believe in the church? It seems that you are saying that if you like something, no one should be allowed to say anything bad about it. That's doesn't seem very fair, since you claim the right to criticise anyone elses' views you disagree with.

You are saying that you can say whatever you want about whomever and whatever, but because you believe in the church, no one is allowed to say anything that might even possibly be construed as negative.

It doesn't work both ways. Either you accept that all are allowed to voice their opinions about all subjects, or no one is.

Furthermore, while I do believe in the freedom of voicing your opinion, it believe it ought to be done respectfully and tolerantly. Unfortunately, some of us here disagree what "respect" and "tolerance" mean.

I have found those who demand tolerance don't normally understand what it is to be tolerant.

I truly hope you aren't referring to me. I had hoped to have adequately explained that I have no problem with someone openly disagreeing with me and my views or beliefs. I am tolerant of others opinions. I am intolerant when I am attacked, belittled, or put down because of my I feel or believe. And believe it or not, that has happened several times recently.

While I am not holding myself blameless, and admit that I may have said something intolerant or attacking (though I can't think of anything right now), it honestly surprises me that you really view yourself as the victim here. I don't really think that anyone is the "victim", but I do think that the way things have been being discussed needs to be changed.

I don't write any of this as a personal attack, but rather I am simply addressing the points which I feel are pertinent to me, and which I disagree with.

Again, I respect anyone who wishes to stay faithful to the church, and have no desire to belittle their faith or devotion. But that doesn't mean in any way that I need feel that I cannot criticise that which I feel must be criticised and even changed. I have personally experience how damaging certain viewpoints within the church are, and I will not cease to speak out against them.

Basically, I respect (for the most part) everyone's beliefs. But as soon as I am told that I am not to feel a certain way, or that I am not to express that feeling because someone disagrees, or that I oughtn't criticise certain peoples or institutions, or that my views, if contrary to the "establishment" are ok, but only when kept to myself and never, ever shared on my own blog because of those poor, fragile little waifs who might not be able to handle the unfettered truth I am mercilessly shoving down their gullets, well, let's just say that I don't accept that, not at all.

Unfortunately, I have no doubt that I will be called intolerant, and maybe even heretical again (that was the high point of my week last week. I've never been called a heretic before. It was kind of fun!)

enjoy...

Kengo Biddles said...

I love the way Zeal for the gospel is now a bad thing. And defending things that the church says will prevent us from progressing is now en vogue.

Crow, what you call "Zeal for the gospel" appears to anyone else as blind obedience, something we're discouraged from doing as members of the church.

I spent two years of my life telling my siblings in Europe to look at the teachings, think about them and pray for themselves. I'm not about to blindly follow anything any of our leaders say for the simple fact that they're our leaders.

We're told to gain a personal testimony of everything they say.