Lemmie, Meadowchik
All it takes in a several minutes into the video to hear Mike's own words describe what went down. He claims he was offered a very large amount of money to do this, it was real and he was going to do it and that he does not understand what all the fuss is about that he has no issues with porn or with doing it but he is choosing not to do it because of the outcry. Try listening to it yourself and see if the description Lemmie quoted fits what Mike said, or if what I'm saying is what Mike admits to.
Mike Norton to sneak into temple to film porn?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6752
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am
Re: Mike Norton to sneak into temple to film porn?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6752
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am
Re: Mike Norton to sneak into temple to film porn?
candygal wrote:Don't mind me, I don't post often..but this thread is a big "ouch" on so many levels. I listened to Norton and Mormon Stories last month...felt that I understood him more and that there were basic reasons for the things he does. That all being said, I don't dig porn.....anywhere...but the saddest thing I see here is two people I really admire seem to be on the outs...Jersey Girl and Rock....love ya both!
I love you too candygal!
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6752
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am
Re: Mike Norton to sneak into temple to film porn?
And who does not find the first couple of minutes of silence, looking at a light fixture, awaiting Mikes staged entrance whistling "I hope they call me on a mission" troubling? The man has serious issues.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6752
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am
Re: Mike Norton to sneak into temple to film porn?
Jersey Girl wrote:Where?RockSlider wrote:We have here an example of escalation of bad behaviors.-
One would think a professing Christian woman would be able to see the escalation of troubling behavior.
Convicted of trespassing -> breaking and entering (Bill Reel's Stake Center) -> trespass, possible breaking and entering to film porn.
And yet one might also think a professing Christian woman would not attack others in the viscous way you have done to me in this thread.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:00 am
Re: Mike Norton to sneak into temple to film porn?
Lemmie wrote:That's what I was thinking, too. No matter how much he denies it, or buries his involvement. That amount of money could be pretty tempting in his position.Maksutov wrote:But, that little suggestive piece sure is interesting, interesting and disturbing. I don't know how he'd really effectively distance himself from it if it does indeed go forward without him, since he was already so celebratory about it. He'd still be a part of that historical footnote.
That was me, ME! ;) ;) S'okay, I'm not mad.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:00 am
Re: Mike Norton to sneak into temple to film porn?
RockSlider wrote:Lemmie, Meadowchik
All it takes in a several minutes into the video to hear Mike's own words describe what went down. He claims he was offered a very large amount of money to do this, it was real and he was going to do it and that he does not understand what all the fuss is about that he has no issues with porn or with doing it but he is choosing not to do it because of the outcry. Try listening to it yourself and see if the description Lemmie quoted fits what Mike said, or if what I'm saying is what Mike admits to.
Jersey Girl wrote:
Did you watch the video of the live stream? He could have changed his mind based on self interest or empathy or both.
What's your take on that?
I don't have the stomach for it. I don't watch General Authorities or the President, either. But I will read transcripts.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 10590
- Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm
Re: Mike Norton to sneak into temple to film porn?
Lemmie wrote:That's what I was thinking, too. No matter how much he denies it, or buries his involvement. That amount of money could be pretty tempting in his position.meadowchik wrote:But, that little suggestive piece sure is interesting, interesting and disturbing. I don't know how he'd really effectively distance himself from it if it does indeed go forward without him, since he was already so celebratory about it. He'd still be a part of that historical footnote.
meadowchik wrote:That was me, ME! ;) ;) S'okay, I'm not mad.
Oops, my mistake. I corrected the original, and above.