Ron Lafferty wrote:
televangelist: an evangelist who regularly conducts religious services on television.
evangelist: a preacher of the gospel.
L. Tom Perry is paid to go on TV and espouse the LDS gospel and solicit donations to the religious organization that employs him. By definition, he is a televangelist.
The first of Darth's head gaming lies is here exposed in all its tortured, twisted, lawyarly sophistry for what it is, in his own straw-grasping words. One down (any serious Latter-day Saint will be laughing all the way to the fridge for another Dad's at this).
Oh, Loran. How sad that when you are unable to reconcile faith-promoting slogans with reality, it's reality that must needs be wrong.
Just to be clear, I am simultaneously twisting words and grasping at straws that are words, right?
The intellectually serious and philosophically rigorous riposte would have been to demonstrate that my objective definition of "televangelist" is false, or that L. Tom Perry does not in fact get paid to go on TV and shill for the LDS Church. It would not be "Nuh-uh!" followed by the tautological observation that people who believe in the Church think the Church is wonderful.
I said, in a vain attempt at forcing some intellectual coherence down the throat
Funny how that particular imagery should come up in a thread where Joanna Brooks has been mentioned.
of this posturing hack:
Brother Blood, as the sophisticated autodidact that you are, you of course are aware that a hack is "a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative, and trite work; one who produces banal and mediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success in the arts."
I suppose, however, that I should be flattered that you have mistaken me for a General Authority.
As a side note, would you say that I am a hack qua hack?
I didn't say he was endorsing a "political stance," or that he was being political at all. What I pointed out is that his statement was a denunciation of some key attributes of the Left, which, of course, manifests itself in political ways, but is at its core, a worldview and fundamental philosophy of the human condition - a doctrine, or series of doctrines, of which political doctrines are among the most salient.
Yes, I am aware that you said this. Your inability to recognize the self-contradiction of your statement shows that you perhaps pay even less attention to your verbose babbling than other people do.
Posturing Hack then retorts, struggling for intellectual substance in an effort to defend his prior slanders:
I'm sorry that you still don't know what the word "slander" means. Maybe Sean Hannity or Newsmax will explain it for you one of these days.
If he was denouncing tenets of an identifiable political ideology, then he was being political.
Which is exactly what I said.
Odd that you are so intent on proving that I lied (qua lied?) when you agree that I accurately related your position.
What I pointed out is that his statement was a denunciation of some key attributes of the Left, which, of course, manifests itself in political ways, but is at its core, a worldview and fundamental philosophy of the human condition - a doctrine, or series of doctrines, of which political doctrines are among the most salient.
The above is the written equivalent of driving from San Diego to New York City to get to Tijuana.
PH than takes the standard MDB low road:And you continually cyberstalk Joanna Brooks
I responded:
"This is both a lie and a slander."
PH responded with more lawyerly linguistic gaming,
Resorting to the plain, accepted meaning of standard words is among the dirtiest of tricks.
and then posted from another site:Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them.
By this definition, anyone who criticizes anything anyone does or says online, gives a critical review of a book or paper, or critiques anyone political or philosophical views, is a cyberstalker.
Brother Blood, I see that you are treating message board posts the same way that LDS lesson manuals treat the scriptures. However, cherry-picking an isolated statement to invent a proof-text is not a very intellectually serious or philosophically rigorous way to define concepts. Even in the most Dallin H. Oaks-ish warping of facts, it would not be accurate to say that you have merely occasioned an isolated critique of Joanna Brooks.
They post false information about them on websites.
Which I've clearly never done.
http://joannabrookswatch.wordpress.com/ ... -mystique/
Joanna Brooks presents herself as a “Mormon Girl” (which, technically speaking, she is) as well as, as her own blog mentions, ” a national voice on Mormon life and politics,” which she quite patently is not
Joanna Brooks speaks, she speaks nationwide, she speaks about Mormon life, and she speaks about politics. Your distaste for what she says does not make her self-description patently false. By the way, how would her statement differ if it were merely "false" instead of "patently false"?
They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose.
Clearly, have never done that.
http://joannabrookswatch.wordpress.com/
They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms or other sites that allow public contributions, such as Wikipedia or Amazon.com.
This would shut down all critical free speech on the Internet if taken seriously.
I'm talking about a kind of behavior, Brother Blood. I never said I want your speech to be shut down.
PH then begins the usual self-defeating, intelligence insulting, Johnnie Cochranesque game anew:
Loran, as much as I admire your deeply serious and rigorous understanding of law and the legal system, perhaps you could allude to a court case other than the O.J. Simpson murder trial for a change.
An interesting example of the mindset at work here can be found on Joanna Brooks blog, in which Brooks (here a kind of self-styled leftist Mormon Dear Abbey) answers questions from other generally liberal LDS about various aspects of Mormon life, culture, and doctrine. Her answers, however, are not those one would expect from one who had been, not only immersed in, but imbued with, the doctrines, teachings, principles, and culture of “Mormonism.” Indeed, her answers, for the most part, bespeak a deep and conflictual alienation from the Church, from the gospel it teaches and seeks to spread, and from the bulk of its faithful, committed members.
And? These are criticisms of her ideas and beliefs. They are opinions about here philosophy and what I perceive to be her state of mind and psychological orientation (as manifested in her beliefs and philosophy.
Perhaps one day, someone will explain to you the difference between a string of dependent clauses ending in a question-begging assertion and a critique of an idea.
Just the kind of stuff you'd apparently like to shut down, eh Darth?).
Absolutely not! Shutting you down would be like fans lobbying to cancel their own favorite sitcom!
The ghastly intellectual fraud involved in either claiming, or accepting from others, a designation as a "spokesperson" or "a national voice on Mormon life and politics" while that voice is imbued with ideas, concepts, and philosophies dredged from the deepest abyssal planes of the academic Left and its churning cauldron of "studies" departments and pseudo-academic disciplines demands an intellectually substantive, assertive response.
More criticism of her ideas, philosophy, and in this case, self-styled personae as a public intellectual. I do think her designation as a "national voice of Mormon life and politics" is a ghastly intellectual fraud, because Joanna Brooks' politics, ideology, and social philosophy is drastically in conflict with the beliefs and values of the vast majority of faithful, committed Mormons within Mormon culture and with the doctrines of the Church, which are at the base of Mormon culture.
I used to wonder what alphabet soup would look like if it consisted entirely of snarl words and strings of redundant synonyms. Thank you for bringing me the light of knowledge on that question.
Now, take a look at Johnnie at work:
Why, Loran, after your learned and insightful commentary about how Chief Justice Roberts upheld Obamacare under the Commerce Clause, I was expecting much more variety and depth in your musings on the legal system. There have been court cases other than the O.J. Simpson murder trial. You do not appear to be aware of that, so I'm just letting you know.
[/quote]Droopy wrote: Joanna Brooks has, for all intents and purposes, apostatized from the Church. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23079&p=567283&hilit=joanna+bishop#p567283
Or maybe you think that apostates should not be subject to church discipline, which means she is free to promote whatever viewpoint she wants, which begs the question of why you have a blog and interminable threads on this board obsessing over Joanna Brooks.
Apostates may or may not be subject to church discipline. That's more a point regarding what they do as over against what they think privately. It is possible, however, to find oneself excommunicated when one crosses a certain line in public criticism of the Church, its leaders, and its teachings. That is up to the Brethren and/or her local priesthood leaders.
Oh, so her ecclesiastical leaders have some discretion as to whether to impose church discipline upon her. That means that either apostasy is acceptable in the Church in some cases, or that they do not find her to be apostate. Therefore, it is an open question whether there is just as much room in the Church for her as there is for you, which undercuts your fatwa against her. It's too bad that your reluctance to admit you think she she be disfellowshipped or worse for apostasy leads to a self-defeating end. Since you cannot say for sure that she should be subject to Church discipline, you cannot say for sure she is apostate. I will miss your blog after you admit your error and take it down.
In any case, as I have now called your bluff yet again, exposed you as a lying demagogue, and pulled your mask off one more time, it would probably be of little use in pointing out that I have made my position on apostasy clear on this board time and time again. You are ignorant of it, or too utterly consumed by your own fervid agenda to bother apprising yourself of it. Either way, an apostate is one who leaves the church in mind and heart. Apostates do get excommunicated, and others leave of their own accord, in an official sense. That's not my call, and I've never made it my call.
Then it stands to reason it's not your call to determine whether a member in good standing of the Church is apostate, either.
My concern is with Brooks' subversion and corruption of what it is and means to be Mormon; it is with her desire to alter the Church to accommodate the secular liberal world that is her true home and frame of reference. One look at many of the replies on her Religion Dispatches page, as well as on her blog, will make clear that she has already been successful, in true Korihorist fashion, in drawing members of the Church into her worldview and neutered, secularly domesticated version of the gospel.
So she is apostate, but you have no authority to judge her, but she is an atheist anti-Christ (Korihor), but you express no opinion whether there should be ecclesiastical action taken against her, but she is leading members of the Church astray, but you allow the possibility that her priesthood leaders may acquiesce to this by choosing not to have a church court against her.
I commend you for your cogent explanation.
He tries to save himself, but only sinks lower into his pool of bigoted extremism:How many blogs do you have obsessing over Joanna Brooks, Loran? More than I do, I bet.
Its a blog dedicated to intellectual, philosophical criticism of Joanna Brooks philosophy and criticisms of the Church. Deal with it.
One! One blog obsessing over Joanna Brooks, ah ah ah!
I took out a CFR on PH when he claimed that I do not believe that LDS are allowed (by whom, only Crom knows) to express their personal beliefs. Here it is:
Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I am glad to see Brother Blood agree that there is nothing wrong with LDS members marching in a gay pride parade.
CFR]
PH replies:Tell me about how there is plenty of room in the Church for people like Joanna Brooks.
What is Joanna Brooks like, Darth?
According to some of the message board posts and blog entries I have read, she is a very naughty girl. A bad, naughty, wicked girl.
Brother Blood, have you considered having Liz write a story for you about Joanna Brooks? I think it would do wonders for your blog.
