Uncovering a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing?

[_Runtu]

This "guy" knows what ellipses are. You don't, apparently. They are not an "error" but merely a tool of punctuation useful for highlighting pertinent sections of a quoted text. I could have done the same with bolding. Look! I'm doing it now!

Though nearly convinced, we were bothered. It is often said that if something looks too good to be true it usually is. So we decided to examine the book for ourselves, and found that the book was, indeed, too good to be true. So we decided to write our own review, documenting our own findings.

And what has changed? Have I left out some important, valuable information in a sneaky fashion? Has the excised portion proved my point (that the review spent time describing itself) false?

No.

P.S. I am not a guy. Nor is this a "game" with winners and losers.

You pedant, you. :) And why am I suddenly humming Beck?

[_Sethbag]

Well, it's published by Signature, it must be anti-mormon. How droll. The scare tactics are obvious. This article wasn't written for mopologists and critics, who would see right through it. This is an article written directly for the rank and file TBM masses, who are scared off by the use of terms like "anti-mormon", and who can be warned off by people with PhD after their names and told that hey, this book isn't worth reading, so don't bother.

[_Runtu]

Well, it's published by Signature, it must be anti-mormon. How droll. The scare tactics are obvious. This article wasn't written for mopologists and critics, who would see right through it. This is an article written directly for the rank and file TBM masses, who are scared off by the use of terms like "anti-mormon", and who can be warned off by people with PhD after their names and told that hey, this book isn't worth reading, so don't bother.

I used to be on a mailing list whose owner referred to this conspiracy of anti-Mormons as "The Signaturi." I always giggle when I think of that. Oooh, they published it with Signature, the publisher that pays in pints of blood. [cue scary music]

[_Blixa]

Don't you love it when someone really hates you enough to not be able to refer to you by name or correct gender?

[_silentkid]

To be FAIR (hardee-har-har)...I don't think Charity was referring to Blixa when she said "that guy." She was referring to the author of the book being reviewed. I think I found the pertinent part.

From the book:

The Church does not have a position on the causes of...susceptibilities or inclinations...related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions--whether nature or nurture--those are things that the Church doesn't have any position on.

From the review:

The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions--whether nature or nurture--those are things the Church doesn't have a position on.

I think this is what happened. Not positive, though.

[_charity]

You guys really ought to pick your battles. You can't win this one the merits of the case.

As soon as I saw the handy dandy little use of ellipses to alter the meaning of a text, that guy was a gone goose. When someone engages in that little trick, their have lost the game. It really is such an obvious error, you wonder why anyone of any intelligence or sophistication would chose to use it.

This "guy" knows what ellipses are. You don't, apparently. They are not an "error" but merely a tool of punctuation useful for highlighting pertinent sections of a quoted text. I could have done the same with bolding. Look! I'm doing it now!

Though nearly convinced, we were bothered. It is often said that if something looks too good to be true it usually is. So we decided to examine the book for ourselves, and found that the book was, indeed, too good to be true. So we decided to write our own review, documenting our own findings.

And what has changed? Have I left out some important, valuable information in a sneaky fashion? Has the excised portion proved my point (that the review spent time describing itself) false?

No.

P.S. I am not a guy. Nor is this a "game" with winners and losers.

This is the passage.

"The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions--whether nature or nurture--those are things the Church doesn't have a position on.

The passage was quoted as: "The Church does not have a position on the causes of...susceptibilities or inclinations...related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions--whether nature or nurture--those are things that the Church doesn't have any position on. "Issues Resources," 2006.12

I have bolded what is left out in the quoted passage in the Compendium. The speaker/writer was obviously referring to more than one "susceptiblity or inclination." Yet you would not have a clue if you only read the Compendium.

Couple that with the fact that this is the ONLY reference in the Compendium to homosexuality, leaving out many strong statements condeming homosexual practices and gay marraige, and you see an intent to deceive.

[_silentkid]

Hi Charity. See my previous post. I'm not all bad. Misunderstandings happen. It's all good. I had your back. Can I get a thank you? Can I get an amen?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Come on, B, I wanna see a free book review from you, ya?

If you look through back issues of the Daily Utah Chronicle from the late 70's you'll find a few, including one on The Monkey Wrench Gang. Let me know if you find it---I'm going to be teaching that book next semester in my Nature Lit course...

I'm much more interested in the Buttercream Gang; have you done any work on them?

[_Bond...James Bond]

Come on, B, I wanna see a free book review from you, ya?

If you look through back issues of the Daily Utah Chronicle from the late 70's you'll find a few, including one on The Monkey Wrench Gang. Let me know if you find it---I'm going to be teaching that book next semester in my Nature Lit course...

Off Topic---That's a good book Blixa. I'm a big Edward Abbie fan (I am my father's son).

[Anonymous]

You've got to be kidding me, charity. My bad, but in the future please make it clear what your posts are refering to. Since no one was talking about the Compendium itself, but rather the review of it, there is no way to know what passage you were reacting to.

However, your point about ellipses is still pretty bad. Not much IS left out, and if there is an intent to "decieve" than the upshot is to make the church's position nicer, more humane and better than it in fact is. How dare they!