DiscussMormonism.com

Dr. Shades wrote:So we agree that the captions were inaccurate--the only difference between us being whether they were accurate enough.

Right?

Good grief, Shades. Are you trying out for a new career as an apologist? Your hyper-technical scrutiny is effectively meaningless. It is clear to me that this fellow Shumway has a reasonably accurate take on Mormon culture. So, it is accurate. Is it 100% accurate? What in the hell ever is in the eyes of an apologist? Or now, I suppose, your eyes.

Kishkumen wrote:It is clear to me that this fellow Shumway has a reasonably accurate take on Mormon culture. So, it is accurate.

So, "reasonably accurate" = "accurate?"

Dr. Shades wrote:So we agree that the captions were inaccurate--the only difference between us being whether they were accurate enough.

Right?

Every single caption was 100% accurate except for the one about Sabbath day activities, which was only 75-80% accurate.

MsJack wrote:

Dr. Shades wrote:So we agree that the captions were inaccurate--the only difference between us being whether they were accurate enough.

Right?

Every single caption was 100% accurate except for the one about Sabbath day activities, which was only 75-80% accurate.

Agreed.

The Sabbath comment was consistent with my experience growing up.

Buffalo wrote:The Sabbath comment was consistent with my experience growing up.

Mine too. I still don't understand the hostility that has arisen from the photo essay.

Runtu wrote:Mine too. I still don't understand the hostility that has arisen from the photo essay.

I do.

It's the same hostility that arose when I made comment #23 on this blog post, here.

An outsider dared to accurately describe Mormon beliefs and practices that do not portray Mormons in the most positive light.

Insiders are allowed to discuss such things, but you ex-Mormons and non-Mormons better butt the hell out.

MsJack wrote:

Every single caption was 100% accurate except for the one about Sabbath day activities, which was only 75-80% accurate.

From my personal experience in southern California in the 60s & 70s his description of Sabbath day activities is 100% accurate.

MsJack wrote:It's the same hostility that arose when I made comment #23 on this blog post, here.

Fun thread. Stak's comment made me laugh out loud.

For the length of discussion on it, I found one glaring omission. When motherhood is brought up as the female compliment to the priesthood, that is demeaning to women, sure. Men can be parents too. The list of things fathers cannot do that mothers can is extremely short and related to simple bodily functions rather than things that matter. It's easy to see why this demeans women. But, the thing is, it also demeans men. It implies there is something superior or reserved in what women can do as parents that men cannot that really matters. Knowing the sexist ideas this comes from, in the mind of the user it probably means a emotionally closer, more nurturing, more influential relationship with children. Today, we intuitively know this to be false, so our gaze turns on what this says about women. But what it wants to say is that men are second-class parents. And that is a spot of high sexism directed squarely at men. Both genders lose with that ill-thought cliché.

MsJack wrote:

Runtu wrote:Mine too. I still don't understand the hostility that has arisen from the photo essay.

I do.

It's the same hostility that arose when I made comment #23 on this blog post, here.

An outsider dared to accurately describe Mormon beliefs and practices that do not portray Mormons in the most positive light.

Insiders are allowed to discuss such things, but you ex-Mormons and non-Mormons better butt the hell out.

Truth.

MsJack wrote:It's the same hostility that arose when I made comment #23 on this blog post, here.

Wow, that Ardis Parshall is really unhinged, isn't she?