Red Ryder wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:04 pm
alas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:26 pmI would be interested in how you rate Sam Young? Is he the same as Wendy or Kate? Or is he a very different category because he is male? Or maybe because you understand his soap box and don’t understand Kate Kelly’s? Because I would put Kate in a very different category than Wendy who married power or Julie who probably borders on mental illness. Wendy and the general RS President, General P president and YW president I would put all in the same category as women who use male power to keep other women in line. Julie I would put in the same box as Denver Snuffer, nut cases. And Kate I would put with Sam Young as believing protesters. John D, Bill Reel, and Consig I would put as unbelieving protesters. And I guess I would put some of them in the power and influence grabbing category long before I would put Kate Kelly as making a power grab.
I put Kate and Julie together in the fantasy because they could never work together to take over the church. And it was supposed to be funny because the two are so different.
I like your categorization and agree for the most part. However if I remove the belief/unbelief, protesters, and mental illness categories all that is left is whether or not they are making a positive push for change (that benefits everyone) or are they self promoting?
To answer your question on those parameters I rate Sam Young as equal to Kate, Julie, and Wendy. I’ll add JD, Bill Reel, Mike Norton, and even McKenna Denson and every other Mormon/Former Mormon celebrity past and present. I’ll exclude Sandra Tanner and Micheal Quinn only because they seem to be pursuers of truth in their remaining form of belief while the podcast celebrities and agitators/leaders of change all seem to seek fame and/or fortune. Just look at how they all aligned with McKenna and now are distancing.
I don’t blame people for chasing after or pursing their passions and can clearly see why people fight against the church but there is clearly a pattern that has appeared.
The public figure ex-Mormons are all becoming the flip side of the Mormons members hero worship such as the apostles/celebrities we have eschewed.
Natural elements of human behavior are probably driving this along with the fact that the core audience of both sides had one common element; Mormonism. We’ve been engrained to follow someone or some cause.
Why can’t time and attention be focused on making the world a better place rather than creating a following and increasing podcasts downloads, or validating a 95 year old’s self proclaimed Prophet title?
Did Mother Teresa or Ghandi act like this?
Humans are weird like that.
I think I’m mostly bothered by the self promotion which Wendy, Russell, Kate, Sam, et al are all guilty of.
OK. I couldn’t imagine you being a sexist jerk, so I had to clarify why you were grouping the way you were. If women who are self promoting are bad, power hungry etc, but men who do exactly the same thing are not, then that is sexism, but since you throw Sam in to that category, I am going to totally agree with you. As my husband says, Sam did a lot of grandstanding. And John D is thrown into the “I don’t care what he is promoting, he is self promoting and then using the hero worship to ....what is the word I want that stops short of accusing him of adultery or sexual harassment but still suggests he uses his fame to harass women, sort of like tRump’s “grab’em by the pussy” comment. “When you are famous you can do anything.”
But yes, when you say they are alike that way, then almost all agitators fall into that category and kind of disgust me the same way, even Ghandi, and Martin Luther King. In order to agitate, you have to get attention and there is a fine line between getting attention yourself and getting attention to your cause. Come to think of it, both Ghandi and King were womanizers.
So, some tactics that might be grandstanding, I forgive if they are designed to draw attention to the cause, but that thin line between drawing attention to yourself and drawing attention to your cause, I think most agitators cross it later in their campaign. I guess fame and attention goes to people’s head. But could Ghandi and King have accomplished what they did without some self aggrandizement? I don’t know. I think they could have done it without womanizing.
In the Feminist community there is always discussion about tactics and ...well they don’t use the term grandstanding, but are the harsher, more public, more demanding, more attention getting tactics good, or do they backfire. Many feel they backfire. And Kate got a lot of backlash. And is being a “good girl” effective for EVER getting change. You can ask sweetly for years and be ignored for years. And does drawing attention to oneself as lead agitator protect followers from punishment or is it just self promotion. There are those who feel that Kate took the brunt of the church’s wrath on herself on purpose so that she was the only one ex-ed. But then there are those who say she just put a target on her back but didn’t do the cause much good by doing so.
Me, I watch from the sidelines because as such an introvert, I wouldn’t make a good public figure.
) And the statue of JS and Emma will be replaced with a stature of Wendy and Sherri. But we won't get rid of the JS/Emma stature. it will be redesigned with Emma standing over JS's cowering body with a flaming sword in her hand and the pain and anger of generations of Mormon women etched on her face.
--- Wndr.