A Guide to Online Mopologetic Behavior

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Equality
_Emeritus
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:44 pm

Re: A Guide to Online Mopologetic Behavior

Post by _Equality »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
A good example to the uninitiated is the Mopologist Apple Analogy. Let's say an apple represents Mormonism. When a Mopologist offers you an apple, it's an apple. Easy enough, no? Well, not so fast. When a critic offers you an apple, the Mopologist will tell you it's not an apple. It never was an apple. It's not the right color, shape, size, taste, and lacks the texture of an apple. In fact, what is an apple? Do apples even exist? Who is offering you this purported fruit (or is a vegetable?)? What is his motivation? He must be anti-apples. That man is a complete, uninformed idiot. Don't listen to him, and don't take that, whatever it is, from him. In fact, we must stop that man from offering this stuff to unsuspecting people, so let's censor him, and additionally, let's contact friends, family, employers, and church leaders reference his nefarious activities.


You're not trying to entice Simon Belmont to start posting again, are you? He may not be able to resist the apple analogy discussion.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain
"The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: A Guide to Online Mopologetic Behavior

Post by _Kishkumen »

Well, I am glad we have established, for the umpteenth time, how much better we are than Joseph Smith (at least those of us prophets who have not committed committed sexual sins in 19th-century frontier America).

LOL!
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Bob Loblaw
_Emeritus
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:26 am

Re: A Guide to Online Mopologetic Behavior

Post by _Bob Loblaw »

Kishkumen wrote:Well, I am glad we have established, for the umpteenth time, how much better we are than Joseph Smith (at least those of us prophets who have not committed committed sexual sins in 19th-century frontier America).

LOL!


Who says we haven't? :)
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
_Stormy Waters

Re: A Guide to Online Mopologetic Behavior

Post by _Stormy Waters »

Bob Loblaw wrote:Totally agree. I sure as hell don't respect a man who used his religious position to commit adultery and coerced others into it. People who justify this s*** deserve derision.


Especially after they've tried to rationalize polyandry, or hiding the marriages from Emma, and then turn around and preach on the importance of "traditional marriage."
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: A Guide to Online Mopologetic Behavior

Post by _Kishkumen »

Bob Loblaw wrote:You don't have to paint Smith's behavior in the worst possible way. Telling it straight is bad enough.

What matters is his religious claims are b***s*** not that he was a lecher.


I take it you are not a fan.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: A Guide to Online Mopologetic Behavior

Post by _Kishkumen »

Bob Loblaw wrote:Who says we haven't? :)


You've been holding out on us, Bob!
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Bob Loblaw
_Emeritus
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:26 am

Re: A Guide to Online Mopologetic Behavior

Post by _Bob Loblaw »

Kishkumen wrote:I take it you are not a fan.


I'm fascinated by anyone who can get that many people to follow him and still has people twisting themselves into knots to keep believing in him. Maybe he was like Bill Clinton--nice guy but you wouldn't trust him to chaperone a group of sorority sisters.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: A Guide to Online Mopologetic Behavior

Post by _Chap »

Bob Loblaw wrote:
Kishkumen wrote:Well, I am glad we have established, for the umpteenth time, how much better we are than Joseph Smith (at least those of us prophets who have not committed committed sexual sins in 19th-century frontier America).

LOL!


Who says we haven't? :)


Actually we have established something much more interesting - that Joseph Smith was a truly florid example of the religious entrepreneur who makes the wondrous discovery that messages from God can give you access to lots of women, and exploits it fully and cynically as far as he dares. And a remarkably large proportion of the people who came to know what he was up to were prepared to tolerate it, and to help him lie about it.

We are not obliged to speak politely about such a man.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Bob Loblaw
_Emeritus
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:26 am

Re: A Guide to Online Mopologetic Behavior

Post by _Bob Loblaw »

Chap wrote:Actually we have established something much more interesting - that Joseph Smith was a truly florid example of the religious entrepreneur who makes the wondrous discovery that messages from God can give you access to lots of women, and exploits it fully and cynically as far as he dares. And a remarkably large proportion of the people who came to know what he was up to were prepared to tolerate it, and to help him lie about it.

We are not obliged to speak politely about such a man.


When you get people to hang on every word you say, you start thinking, What else can I get them to do? Sex is an obvious choice.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: A Guide to Online Mopologetic Behavior

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

That's a pretty darn good write-up, Dr. Cam. The heartening thing is: we are now living in an era of purely [u]online[/i] Mopologetic behavior. Now that FARMS has been dismantled, there is no "official" Church arm for carrying out this kind of behavior. For that, at least, we can rejoice: no more officially-sanctioned attacks on TR-carrying TBMs; no more "official" smear campaigns; no more "official" hit pieces.

All that said, has anybody read Dan Peterson's most recent blog posts? These are worrisome because they sound very close to all-out insubordination:

Although inevitably, with the passage of time, “all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil; and wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell,” although I’ve certainly seen flaws and lamented shortcomings, I’ve never really lost that enthusiasm. I’ve never become jaded. I’ve never been able to be cynical about Brigham Young University. But my recent treatment by at least one or two people in authority at the University has wounded me deeply, and has left me more disheartened than I can ever recall. It hurts, and I can’t pretend that it doesn’t.


By coincidence, my wife and I ran into a BYU colleague at Heathrow Airport who was returning from a pair of academic presentations at a very prestigious European university. This colleague was a victim of some unusually fierce academic politics a number of years ago, at a particularly vulnerable personal time, which led to a transfer from one BYU department to a department in an entirely distinct BYU college. (It could have led to dismissal from the University altogether, though there was not the slightest justification for that.) I knew something of the circumstances then, but learned much more yesterday. Things have worked out for the best for this colleague, whom (for reasons of feared consequences) I won’t identify, but it was terribly, terribly painful. My colleague’s very first comments were of shock at the way I’d been treated and of support, and of assurance that others on the faculty support me. (I hope that’s true.) We shared flights home, and we shared horror stories. I was surprised to learn of common elements in our stories, and . . . well, I won’t elaborate further.


At least he's got the wherewithal and restraint to avoid naming names, but it's fairly clear that he's talking about Gerald Bradford, and probably, President Samuelson, and perhaps one of the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

It’s time to go home, but I’m not looking forward to it. I’ve discovered many new friends, and discovered the deep loyalty of some I had already known as friends, but I’ve also recognized a few previously unsuspected enemies, and that’s been profoundly disheartening.



Such, I guess, is life. Ever since the Fall.


Is he insane? I have a hard time seeing how BYU admin--and Church leadership, for that matter--is going to tolerate insinuations like this. The Mopologists can say what they like about John Dehlin, Joanna Brooks, et al., but as far as I know, even they don't label Church leaders "enemies."
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Post Reply