The Mormon Persecution Complex goes off the rails.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/orson-scott-card-racist-obama_n_3762891.html

I made a thread about this yesterday but its gone now. It might be too political? I tried to make it mainly about mormon racism, but yeah.

His rant just gets crazier as you scroll down, jesus.

I read through some of the more recent comments.

An interesting thing to me is that many do associate Mormonism with racism, bigotry, and misogyny (Beck, Romney, and now Card), but the most limited criticism is the withholding of the Mormon priesthood.

Defenders say it is society and politically driven (both have credibility) and that the policy was reversed in 1978--all is well, all is well.

The harsh bigotry is canonized in Mormon scripture and still exists, although I understand they have tried to soften some of the wording as translation or is it revelation errors, definitely not a religion with conviction to consistency.

The Curse of Cain/Curse of Ham, the fence sitters doctrine, the dark skin curse to white skin delightsomeness through righteousness are all still in Mormon scripture or historical doctrine. These are the outlandish doctrines that show they don't believe in race equality. A newborn of African ancestry carries with it the Curse of Cain whereas a white baby does not carry Adam's transgression, but clearly was valiant in the pre-existence especially if born in Utah, to Mormons, in the covenant!

I would encourage those to consider the weight of the criticism when posting comments. The priesthood denial was bigotry, and delayed, but it was reversed and has some social and political basis.

The dark skin is a sign of a curse from God for pre-existent flaws and that dark skin becomes white and delightsome are still in Mormon scripture (Book of Moses and Book of Mormon) remain uncondemned, and are lesser known, but poignant criticisms and evidences of Mormon bigotry.

Nail them to the wall on their doctrines, they choose to associate with the religion, this is not bigotry to criticize bigotry of belief by association. If a Mormon does not want to be associated with bigotry they need to distance themselves from organizations that teach bigotry. Bigotry is in Mormon scripture, renounce the Book of Mormon, renounce, the Pearl of Great Price, renounce Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith as prophets, renounce Mark E. Peterson, LeGrand Richarss, and Delpert Stapley as apostles of God and after having done that are you still Mormon? On the records I guess, but seems like all of those choices to not associate with Mormon bigotry would also make you no longer a Mormon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2013 10:49AM by gentlestrength.

Lets see if my comment gets published,

"As author Maureen Johnson puts it, "I don't know where Orson Scott Card goes from here, except maybe to declare war on the moon.""

Well, if he goes to war on the moon, he's gonna have to contend with the moon people who dress like Quakers that Joseph Smith made written accounts of! Those Quaker Moon People are survivors, watch your back Orson!"

Card is a creepy, little man, and the Mormon church is a disgusting, hateful cult, but the contributor of the HuffPost article (apparently) didn't even bother to read Card's own blog posting (which is actually linked in the article.)

Card's original post, from which the quotes are taken, opens thusly:

"This is the column where I predict how American democracy ends.

"No, no, it's just a silly thought experiment! I'm not serious about this! Nobody can predict the future! It's just a game. The game of Unlikely Events."

And Card repeats that caveat later in his post. Read it in its full context here:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2013-05-09-1.html


Card (and the Mormons) have damned themselves already in so many ways. There's no need to pull quotes out of context which end up diminishing the credibility of those who (hopefully) are trying to get out the truth.

I understood this was some sort of fantasy. But so are his purported "facts" that he uses as his spring board.

The national police force garbage was debunked in 2008. WTH is wrong with him? It's all out of touch with reality. Who fantasizes that they're some sort of prophet calling out evil, like Sam on the wall?

And who thinks Gallipoli was a success? It's all very messed up.

Maybe the guy has spent too much time writing fantasy. He thinks his words impart "a truth", regardless of whether he confines himself to "factual".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2013 01:13PM by crom.

I did read the blog. It starts out with all those disclaimers but then it devolves into talk about how card is a student of history and can predict certain things and that he will be wrong some of the time and blah blah blah. Its very wishy-washy, but the fact is he thought a great deal about the future of the us and THAT is what he deemed to be the most likely outcome. He figured that his paranoid racist dystopian fantasy is likely and said so in public. Putting a disclaimer on it doesn't help at all- it is revealing that his imagination is so tainted by bigotry.

You said:

"He figured that his paranoid racist dystopian fantasy is likely and said so in public."


Card's blog said:

"Will these things happen? Of course not. This was an experiment in fictional thinking."

I don't think Card's CYA comments ("thought experiment" etc.) really cover his ass.

Reading the entire blog post, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that Card's brain is operating off the rails, that he has several loose screws, and that mormonism acts like an injection of steroids into the most batcrap crazy of his ideas.

Card is pumped up on mormonism, racism, paranoia, and egoism.

The guy has wasted himself and now he's wasting our time.

The only good thing that will come of this is that more people will see/hear how conservative mormons talk when they think no one but other mormons are listening.

He shutdown the BBS on his website , things are maybe getting to hot for him

to stoke the persecution complex.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865575144/The-21st-century-blacklist.html

The BIG difference is that the real people who got blacklisted were victims of government sponsored (House on unamerican activities committee) persecution. This on the other hand, is just market forces and public opinion reacting to his offensive statements and actions.

Add: Just to p!ss me off further, Wallace Bennett got to office by publishing pamphlets calling his opponent a Communist sympathizer, and he tried to take the teeth out of the Civil rights Act, (he didn't want federal funding to be withheld if local governments discriminated).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2013 05:30PM by crom.