juliann's Paranoia Erupts in Anger
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8381
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm
Let's see...whoever started it was asking what the definition of a "real" marriage was...I think the idea was that we can see various forms of "being together" in the Bible, etc... so maybe a lot of different forms are/were "ok" besides the current modern definition ....hard to say where that original question was heading.
This line of questioning got shot down with lots of "evidence" that marriage wasn't a modern invention: evidence being things Joseph Smith said, or something from the Bible.
Even if one accepts the Bible as literal history, that leaves out the other cultures comprising the rest of the globe over quite a time span. Not to mention that what constitutes marriage/family has varied greatly over history (and is dependent more on economic needs than religious beliefs), and that the relatively recent "nuclear" or "bourgeois" family that Mormonism is concerned with is a very, very recent Anglo-European invention indeed.
Its no big news that contemporary conservatives read recent blips in human history as defining eternal universals, its just sweetly ironic that this kind of argument is probably the most dominant form of "presentism" currently on offer. Their big "Trump card" has savagely come back to bite them on the ass this time (to mix metaphors in a disgraceful manner).
This line of questioning got shot down with lots of "evidence" that marriage wasn't a modern invention: evidence being things Joseph Smith said, or something from the Bible.
Even if one accepts the Bible as literal history, that leaves out the other cultures comprising the rest of the globe over quite a time span. Not to mention that what constitutes marriage/family has varied greatly over history (and is dependent more on economic needs than religious beliefs), and that the relatively recent "nuclear" or "bourgeois" family that Mormonism is concerned with is a very, very recent Anglo-European invention indeed.
Its no big news that contemporary conservatives read recent blips in human history as defining eternal universals, its just sweetly ironic that this kind of argument is probably the most dominant form of "presentism" currently on offer. Their big "Trump card" has savagely come back to bite them on the ass this time (to mix metaphors in a disgraceful manner).
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8381
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18195
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am
Blixa wrote:Heh...the first thing I thought of when I read about the conference pickle speech was that F-board pickle guy! I always wondered what happened to him! My interest in FAIR/MAD waxes and wanes so I often miss out on the narrative twists and turns in that soap opera...
*modestly* We Pickles have always been a bit ahead of our time. I thank you for your thoughts... it's the thought that counts, ya know!
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4627
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am
harmony wrote:Bond...James Bond wrote:harmony wrote:Blixa wrote:Then again, things have been highly wack over at MAD lately. Maybe its just because I read through a lot of threads recently for a quick catch-up, but it struck me as more rancorous and bizarre than usual (the thread on marriage wherein no one seems to have read a history book, ever).
Can you give us the Reader's Digest version of the marriage thread? I prefer to not sully my shoes by tredding on MAD again, even though I've changed servers so could access it again, and they certainly don't want me there.
Oh come on Harmony...I want to see the Pickle Jar in action for once ;)
From the Pickle jar: were you never on FAIR when Dill Pickles was holding forth about life, love, and the importance of vinegar in one's diet daily?
With appropriate musical accompaniment:
Those were the days, my friend...
we thought they'd never end.
We'd sing and dance, forever and a day.
Then Juliann got mad,
she hates Dill Pickles bad,
And she banned the Pickle, so I couldn't play.
But it all backfired
The Pickle hasn't retired
I just found a new place to have my say.
Sweet! Yes the Pickle Jar was before my time. If you ever start blogging here (by the way: WHERE ARE ALL THE BLOGGERS ON MDB? FAIR STARTS BLOGS AND LIKE 20 SPRING UP OVER NIGHT) you should definitely call it the Pickle Jar :)
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14117
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm
Juliann gives us this juicy tidbit:
Except when she's in "Dunamis" mode. As Mister Scratch aptly noted, the double-layer of MA&D mod anonymity pretty much exposes her "I don't play hide and seek" statement for the lie that it is.
Juliann wrote:I'm going to say what I think, I always have, I don't pretend to be something I'm not and I don't play hide and seek.
Except when she's in "Dunamis" mode. As Mister Scratch aptly noted, the double-layer of MA&D mod anonymity pretty much exposes her "I don't play hide and seek" statement for the lie that it is.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
--Louis Midgley
--Louis Midgley
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5604
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm
Dr. Shades wrote:Juliann gives us this juicy tidbit:Juliann wrote:I'm going to say what I think, I always have, I don't pretend to be something I'm not and I don't play hide and seek.
Except when she's in "Dunamis" mode. As Mister Scratch aptly noted, the double-layer of MA&D mod anonymity pretty much exposes her "I don't play hide and seek" statement for the lie that it is.
Here's yet another juicy nugget:
juliann wrote:I put up a link to a very insulting thread that had to be closed because of the accusations that she extended to Joseph Smith. "(I'm not frustrated at you by the way - just at the situation and selfishness of some of the people I've encountered in my ward and on this board.)". I come back to more of it and if something better has happened in between my apologies....but calling posters here "internet Mormons" to say we are a different species than those "chapel Mormons" is an insult.
Wow.... Who knew that the label of "Internet Mormons" would summon up such ire from juliann? Well done, Shades!
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
Wow.... Who knew that the label of "Internet Mormons" would summon up such ire from juliann? Well done, Shades!
What is bizarre is that this same idea has been repeatedly expressed by believing Mormons, just using different terminology. Juliann is well aware of this. I've seen citations from LDS blogs or boards proving it on threads on which she has participated.
I think they detest the term because there is more than a grain of truth therein.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18195
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am
beastie wrote:Wow.... Who knew that the label of "Internet Mormons" would summon up such ire from juliann? Well done, Shades!
What is bizarre is that this same idea has been repeatedly expressed by believing Mormons, just using different terminology. Juliann is well aware of this. I've seen citations from LDS blogs or boards proving it on threads on which she has participated.
I think they detest the term because there is more than a grain of truth therein.
The reason Juliann detests the whole concept is because she didn't think of it first.