"Meme" used to have a different meaning, but now, in common usage, they are simply a nice photo, picture or backdrop with a nice or funny or inspirational quote on it. They are used for two reasons. One is to convert others to a given viewpoint, be it political, religious or just a certain world view. The second is to affirm and support those who already share that view.
This could be a funny picture of Hillary or Donald with some comment panning on either of them. In theory this would move some neutrals off the fence to the side for or against whoever. And give a chuckle and/or affirmation to the supporters of whoever. Me, I voted Gary Johnson, so I'll use an example that might move neutrals from both of those to a third party candidate:
Or it could, instead of being political, be some general opinion on our society/culture in general. It lets others know they are not alone in their frustration, and may even let some know that it's okay to be frustrated by such things. Such as:
No real politics or religion there, but a desire to bring people around to a general view all the same.
Or it could be religious memes. These can range from funny in-jokes that only Christians in general or some particular churches specifically will get. Haystack jokes for Adventists, for instance. And if you're not Seventh-day Adventist, don't worry about it, the point was for it to be an in-joke!
Or from that narrow range, it can go to some broad meme where Christ is shown on the Cross and it says, "I asked Jesus how much He loved me and He opened His arms wide...and died for me."
Besides funny in-jokes and broad general messages, there is another class of religious meme. The conversion kind. These are memes that are deliberately designed to prompt a change in the belief of another. They are not bad in and of themselves, and they can be for political purposes as well as religious.
Some - most - are relatively straight forward and honest. They are not trying to hide what they are. Thus you see many memes from Seventh-day Adventists about Saturday being the Sabbath. They are put out there as Seventh-day Adventist memes, designed to have you want to think about Seventh-day Adventism.
I call that Green Level propaganda - It is true and from a true source. The political equivalent of the Republican Party posting "Trump 2016!".
Next there is Yellow Level propaganda. This is stuff that is mostly political, and mostly from Neo-Nazis. It's bad stuff from bad sources. "Hitler Was Right!" posted by StormFront. Why is that only Yellow Level? Because it is massively ineffective. The message is too obviously wrong, the source is too obviously a bad source.
So now we get to Red Level Propaganda. This can be for subtly effecting a change in the viewer's political beliefs over time, or his religious beliefs. Or his social beliefs in general. Or for fast cash.
It mostly is true, but it comes with a hook. Like a beautiful picture of a father pushing his bicycle along while his little boy rests upon it. And the caption says, "A Father Loves His Children". What could be wrong with that? Well, nothing - but at the bottom it has a "sponsored by" section, and the "charity" that sponsored it is fraudulent and hoping that you'll visit their website, get suckered and send them some money.
It is true, but not from a true source. I have had to delete that very type of meme from many of the Adventist groups just for it being a snare to sucker people into thinking it is safe to donate to them.
Other types of Red Level propaganda involve various mixings and matchings between some truth and some lies. Or it could be an "incrementalist" meme, designed to habituate you to a bit of error, so at a later time, you can be took a bit further down that road. Each meme in that series will be just a shade wrong, but when the shade is added up over the years, you are now then in the dark.
It could be a repetitive meme. Where Huxley's great truth of "1,000 repetitions equal 1 truth" is put into play. In that case, it's a matter of trying to get you to feel a certain way. Like how Blue Lives Matter inundate the web with pictures of cops giving milk to a housewife, cops giving boots to a homeless man, cops hosting a soup line for orphans, etc. And meanwhile, Black Lives Matter is inundating the web with pictures of cops shooting dogs, cops beating women, cops killing unarmed minorities, etc.
The first time you see either, you don't automatically think all cops are good or bad. But if you only see the Blue Lives memes, or tend to see them mostly, you'll come around to most cops being good. And if you only - or at least mostly - see the Black Lives memes, you'll come around to seeing most cops as bad.
Which is Red Level and which is Green Level between those two? Ahh, that's the question, isn't it? Each side will think they are the Green and the other the Red. And they're both right - from each of their perspectives. Propaganda is funny that way - remember, I said that it could be good or bad. Propaganda is neutral - it's how you use it. And what you use it for.
Okay, so I could go on all day, because it's a large topic, but I'm going to get to the specific that I came across today in church.
It's that old ruse that I think of as the "Harrison Ford Trick". You know, where the guy did so many good movies, you figure that they all must be good, then you go and pay $16 to take you and your girl out to see "Six Days and Seven Nights" and realize that Harrison betrayed you! That the movie sucked! They put his name on it because they knew you'd come see it!
Well, some churches are real pros at that trick. Except that they hope that once you're in, you won't think they suck. I refer to the practice of quoting their own leaders instead of the Bible. Why do they do that?
It's because while quoting the Bible is great, that promotes Christianity in general, and nothing further. Which isn't bad, but is it as good as it could be? What if you could promote Christianity AND your own church? Wouldn't that be better? Most think so. I know that I do.
Now, perspective comes into play here. As far as neutral people are concerned, simple and wholesome quotes that are true, and come from a named person, is Green Level propaganda. The statement is true, and the source is truthfully named. So no one in the neutral camp minds.
But those of us a bit more partisan do mind. For instance, is John Wesley so well known as the founder of Methodism that a neutral would know that? If so, then that they've cited a known source makes it Green Level. But if it is not true, if most do not know him that way, then it has shaded rather fast into Red - as it is designed not for the putative purpose of teaching a single moral truth that is contained in the quote, but for the hidden purpose of getting someone habituated to Methodism.
See, if they keep seeing quotes from John Wesley, and each keeps resonating, then it would tend to have them favorably inclined to try a Methodist church first, should they ever be in a church trying mood. And churches depend on two things - the number of children born to the already faithful, and the number of neutrals who seek them out first when they do decide to go to church.
While that is very bad of the Methodists to do that, it is very good when I salt the various groups that I have say in with Ellen G. White quotes. Mostly Bible verses, but always some few from her. Nor am I being funny or hypocritical. True, I do hope that the quotes resonate and that if a person who is neutral ever decides to try church, that he'll try ours. For me, I am posting Green Level Propaganda.
But I fully acknowledge that to a partisan Methodist, it would be Red Level. I have a motive besides the goodness of the quote itself. Green if you agree with the unnamed motive. Red if you do not. There's nothing particular wrong in this, it's simply that I am not going to include a bio of Ellen White every time I quote her, and nor will the Methodist include a bio of John Wesley every time he is quoted.
Again, this is how the spread of ideas works, it is not good or bad in itself, it is all in what you use it for.
Now comes the greatest source of memes in the world of religion. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While other faiths quote Christ and Church leaders in a mix and match fashion, the Mormons almost exclusively quote their leaders who they call Prophets and Apostles. By this I mean that Adventists and Methodists and many others lean towards scriptural quotes. Bible verses. And add only a bit of salt in the form of an Ellen White or John Wesley or Thomas Aquinas quote here or there.
With Mormons, the Bible is rarely quoted, but the leaders are quoted extensively. I could not emphasize this enough. The Bible quotes barely rise to the level of a "salting", the entire course is Church Leader quotes, perhaps a dash of the Book of Mormon, and rarely a Bible verse.
This is due to which is central to which church. If the Bible is central, then that gets quoted most. If the leaders are central, they'll be quoted the most.
This is due to which is central to which church. If the Bible is central, then that gets quoted most. If the leaders are central, they'll be quoted the most.
Tons of beautiful memes are made by Mormon sources, pretty pictures, nice back drops, artistically very well done, with quotes from their various Apostles and Prophets, past and present. Boyd K. Packer, Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson, and on and on. They have 15 Prophets and Apostles at any one time, the three in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.
They do not, as a rule, tend to quote Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. Mainly as most of the neutrals know who those are thus would be turned off immediately. But they'll quote a lot of the 20th century prophets and apostles who the neutrals are less likely to know.
And the quotes will fall into three categories.
First, completely true ones. Such as this:
 |
| How sweet! Let's try his church! |
These are mostly used to habituate you to their leaders, and to see those leaders as men of inspiration and wisdom. There is a chance that if you were to ever go to church you might choose to go to the one that produced all these men who's quotes you have found solace in. If you think I exaggerate, then you have no idea of the sheer number of Mormon memes there are. Thousands. Literally.
And each speech gave by these men, four times a year, is specifically wrote to have quotable phrases in them, which then the rank and file online will dutifully turn into memes and spread far and wide. It's a deliberate campaign, and frankly, quite successful. In conjunction with their missionary efforts, they bring in a quarter of a million new baptisms each year.
Second, there are the ones that are seemingly true, but have hidden landmines in them. Such as this:
 |
| How sweet! Let's try his church! |
This one is a twofer. It still helps habituate you to their leaders, but it also has a bit of unique Mormon doctrine slipped in. Where they believe that Christ did not die for our sins, but atoned for them earlier when He bled from every pore. The death afterward was simply a postscript, not really needful as He had already atoned for us.
And if you think I am parsing a fine theological point, then all I can say is that is the least of the differences between this faith and the rest of Christianity.
Thirdly, there are the ones that you are likely to NEVER see, unless you are in the culture and in their specifically Mormon themed groups. And even then, they are very rare, as they tend to be secretive about the "real" beliefs until you've been there a few years. Such as this:
 |
| Jesus and some of His wives! How sweet! Let's try this - wait, what? |
And that's about it. Three levels, only two you'll ever see. The quality? Superb. The quantity? Massive. What's to be done?
Two things.
One, post as many pro-Adventist memes in as many groups as you can. Two, do not remain silent when you come upon any non-Adventist memes in Adventist groups. I used the Mormons as an example as I am most familiar with their type of memes, and they do the most. I could have equally showed various liberal Protestant memes, like this:
 |
| How sweet! A church I can take "that one cousin" to! |
Which tend to habituate the neutrals to a belief that Christianity is accepting of an actively homosexual lifestyle, such that if they ever decide to try church, they should find a "real" church that does accept gays, not one of the mean and intolerant ones that says that such is a sin!
And again, to those in churches with actively homosexual ministers, that example would be Green Level, though to us it is Red Level. Christians do support equality...but do also know that sin is sin.
While my focus is online, this also applies off line. Bumper stickers, pamphlets and posters. It is not so much that such need to be "fought", but more simply "named". The "naming" of it takes the sting out. Every time. But without it being named...it's an accumulative poison. Or refreshment.
Depends upon your tastes.
No comments:
Post a Comment