L. Tom Perry is not a "televangelist."
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).
I said, in a vain attempt at forcing some intellectual coherence down the throat of this posturing 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.
Posturing Hack then retorts, struggling for intellectual substance in an effort to defend his prior slanders:
If he was denouncing tenets of an identifiable political ideology, then he was being
political.
Which is exactly what I said.
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.
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, 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.
They post false information about them on websites.
Which I've clearly never done.
They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose.
Clearly, have never done that.
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.
PH then begins the usual self-defeating, intelligence insulting, Johnnie Cochranesque game anew:
[color=#0000FF]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. Just the kind of stuff you'd apparently like to shut down, eh Darth?).
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.
Now, take a look at Johnnie at work:
which according to you should be subject to church discipline.
CFR
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?