wenglund wrote:All this from a guy who lives in mortal fear of a very small and obscure Church committee that is essentially nothing more than a news clipping service.
Any committee that the Brethren go to the trouble of publicly asserting is required by divine fiat (D&C 123), can hardly be characterized as a mere "clipping service."
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
wenglund wrote:All this from a guy who lives in mortal fear of a very small and obscure Church committee that is essentially nothing more than a news clipping service. Can you say "PROJECTION"? ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Wade, I used to work there, and I met the head of that committee (at that time it was Bill Nelson [I'm not good at remembering names after 15 years]). It's not a clipping service, though that is one of its functions.
If you're going to insult someone, at least do it accurately.
I met Pres. Kimball in the halls of a church building once, and I flew home from my mission in the seat next to President Hinckley's wife. It is essentially a clipping service.
If you protend to hypocritically chasten someone, at least do it with more credibility than a one-time meeting with someone years ago.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Are you actually claiming that you discussed the SCMC with Mrs. Hinckley? Moreover, how was you bumping into these people anything more than "a one-time meeting with someone years ago"?
Do you mind if an "outsider" with many LDS friends in real life and in cyberspace offers a comment or two? I will be brief. What I see happening in the lives of my friends and also online friends, is a kind of coercion. I don't mean that to insult the LDS here and will explain as best I can. Haven't had much sleep so bear with me. The coercion I see comes from various parts of the LDS community and is, in my view, based on doctrines.
For example, the Temple Ceremonies wherein members are not permitted to discuss even between husband and wife, what they've experienced there and how they feel about it.
In my mind, that sets up a sort of polarization within the marital relationship where even if one spouse has doubts, feels uncomfortable, they are not permitted to discuss it with the other spouse. I don't think that type of dynamic where a partner feels they must withhold their true feelings from the other, is healthy.
Let me try to connect a dot or two between my above statement and your "paranoia" question.
When a member is taught not to discuss their experiences and how they feel about them with other members, their own family member and their own spouse, I think sets up an unhealthy dynamic.
I compare that with the behavior I see in TBM's online in relation to doubting or ex-LDS who almost appear to be obsessed with unearthing personal information about the posters. They needle them about anonymity..why? If the posters were to actually give their first names, my guess is the result would be something on the order of the Itchy Blog or character assasination in real life. I have read more than one threatening comment online to "out" someone to their Bishop or SP.
Okay, I'm rambling and brain dead.
Jersey Girl
I think this is a good analysis, Jersey Girl. My sense is that the paranoia in inextricably tied to the rampant secrecy in the Church---and, as Rollo points out, the "all or nothing" approach. Further, I think it's unfortunate that so often apologists dismiss this part of the culture with the wave of a hand, or else they go into self-deprecation/ridicule mode, making jokes about foil hats and so forth. That does little to address the issue, in my opinion.
Mister Scratch wrote:I think this is a good analysis, Jersey Girl. My sense is that the paranoia in inextricably tied to the rampant secrecy in the Church---and, as Rollo points out, the "all or nothing" approach. Further, I think it's unfortunate that so often apologists dismiss this part of the culture with the wave of a hand, or else they go into self-deprecation/ridicule mode, making jokes about foil hats and so forth. That does little to address the issue, in my opinion.
What do you think of a debater who insists upon an apology for every slight, every offense? [Betting that, as usual -- although you are getting better -- you won't answer and will respond with an insult or a question].
wenglund wrote:All this from a guy who lives in mortal fear of a very small and obscure Church committee that is essentially nothing more than a news clipping service. Can you say "PROJECTION"? ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Wade, I used to work there, and I met the head of that committee (at that time it was Bill Nelson [I'm not good at remembering names after 15 years]). It's not a clipping service, though that is one of its functions.
If you're going to insult someone, at least do it accurately.
I met Pres. Kimball in the halls of a church building once, and I flew home from my mission in the seat next to President Hinckley's wife. It is essentially a clipping service.
If you portend to hypocritically chasten someone, at least do it with more credibility than a one-time meeting with someone years ago.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Are you actually claiming that you discussed the SCMC with Mrs. Hinckley? Moreover, how was you bumping into these people anything more than "a one-time meeting with someone years ago"?
As expected, you completely missed the point. (Hint: I was intentionally being facetious.)
But, rest assured that you are safe behind the thick and inpregnable barrior of your closed mind.
Mister Scratch wrote:I think this is a good analysis, Jersey Girl. My sense is that the paranoia in inextricably tied to the rampant secrecy in the Church---and, as Rollo points out, the "all or nothing" approach. Further, I think it's unfortunate that so often apologists dismiss this part of the culture with the wave of a hand, or else they go into self-deprecation/ridicule mode, making jokes about foil hats and so forth. That does little to address the issue, in my opinion.
What do you think of a debater who insists upon an apology for every slight, every offense? [Betting that, as usual -- although you are getting better -- you won't answer and will respond with an insult or a question].
P
I feel sorry for the debater, especially since no apologies are ever forthcoming, regardless of the severity of the slight, or the offense. All the screw-ups get conveniently swept under the rug, or are dealt with via endless excuses.
Mister Scratch wrote:I think this is a good analysis, Jersey Girl. My sense is that the paranoia in inextricably tied to the rampant secrecy in the Church---and, as Rollo points out, the "all or nothing" approach. Further, I think it's unfortunate that so often apologists dismiss this part of the culture with the wave of a hand, or else they go into self-deprecation/ridicule mode, making jokes about foil hats and so forth. That does little to address the issue, in my opinion.
What do you think of a debater who insists upon an apology for every slight, every offense? [Betting that, as usual -- although you are getting better -- you won't answer and will respond with an insult or a question].
P
I feel sorry for the debater, especially since no apologies are ever forthcoming, regardless of the severity of the slight, or the offense. All the screw-ups get conveniently swept under the rug, or are dealt with via endless excuses.
But I really question the adequacy of one's rhetorical skills when almost every opponent is called a liar and an apology is demanded. I am very impressed with the knowledgeable posters on this Board who don't take offense, even at insults, and turn the other cheek so to speak while continuing on with points and argument. Sort of Dan Vogelish. The Pahorans and the Mr. Scratches of the world -- who really pays attention to them? Just wondering.
Mister Scratch wrote:I think this is a good analysis, Jersey Girl. My sense is that the paranoia in inextricably tied to the rampant secrecy in the Church---and, as Rollo points out, the "all or nothing" approach. Further, I think it's unfortunate that so often apologists dismiss this part of the culture with the wave of a hand, or else they go into self-deprecation/ridicule mode, making jokes about foil hats and so forth. That does little to address the issue, in my opinion.
What do you think of a debater who insists upon an apology for every slight, every offense? [Betting that, as usual -- although you are getting better -- you won't answer and will respond with an insult or a question].
P
I feel sorry for the debater, especially since no apologies are ever forthcoming, regardless of the severity of the slight, or the offense. All the screw-ups get conveniently swept under the rug, or are dealt with via endless excuses.
But I really question the adequacy of one's rhetorical skills when almost every opponent is called a liar and an apology is demanded. I am very impressed with the knowledgeable posters on this Board who don't take offense, even at insults, and turn the other cheek so to speak while continuing on with points and argument. Sort of Dan Vogelish. The Pahorans and the Mr. Scratches of the world -- who really pays attention to them? Just wondering.
P
You do, apparently. And if I may add---"continuing on with points and arguments" is exactly what I tend to do with you, since so many of your posts are personal attacks on me. Many of which, I'd also like to add, you have never apologized/repented for. Such as your claim that I don't provide citations.
Mister Scratch wrote: You do, apparently. And if I may add---"continuing on with points and arguments" is exactly what I tend to do with you, since so many of your posts are personal attacks on me. Many of which, I'd also like to add, you have never apologized/repented for. Such as your claim that I don't provide citations.
That's twice in one day, against two different posters, in which you've demanded an apology. Quite effective rhetoric.
Mister Scratch wrote: You do, apparently. And if I may add---"continuing on with points and arguments" is exactly what I tend to do with you, since so many of your posts are personal attacks on me. Many of which, I'd also like to add, you have never apologized/repented for. Such as your claim that I don't provide citations.
That's twice in one day, against two different posters, in which you've demanded an apology. Quite effective rhetoric.