DiscussMormonism.com

First: thanks to the "informant" who clued me into this. Over on the ironically named Mormon Dialogue Board, our old friend "Scotty Dog" Lloyd has been saying some rather strange things.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/578 ... outsiders/

Evidently, there was a recent blog post on the US News and World Report Web site. In his OP, Lloyd praises the blog, but still goes on to nitpick the fact that the writer says, "Mormons don't welcome outsiders." And indeed, when you click on the link, you can see that the author does indeed say this.

Lloyd goes on to say in his OP that he was sufficiently irritated that he decided to lodge a complaint in the "Comments" section:

Scotty Dawg wrote:Not a bad blog about Romney here.

But the author remarked that Mormons don't welcome outsiders and that non-Mormons are not even supposed to enter the church.

I posted a comment expressing puzzlement about how she got that notion.

Clicking on the "Comments" section of the blog reveals a cavalcade of angry responses from Mormons, all of whom are outraged that anyone could overlook the "Visitors Welcome" signs posted on the front of LDS meetinghouses. (Of course, they seem to be ignoring the fact that signs don't necessarily correspond with reality. Merely saying that visitors are welcome doesn't not necessarily mean that visitors really are genuinely welcomed, but nevermind.)

You would think that Scott would have lodged his complaint, and that this would have been the end of the whole affair, but... No. It seems that this has been gnawing at Scott, really bugging him, perhaps causing a ripple of tension in his jaw. Finally, unable to restrain himself anymore, he erupted with this bizarrely hostile post:

Scott Lloyd wrote:I had a mischievous thought: We could start a campaign to flood Susan Milligan's email inbox with thousands of photos of signs on LDS meetinghouses that bear the words "Visitors Welcome."

I'm not recommending it though; only relishing the idea for my own amusement.

Hmmm. I'm fairly sure that this would constitute legally actionable cyber-stalking and harassment. And yet, good ol' Scotty Dog "relishes" the idea of this and finds it "amusing." Maybe next he's start cracking jokes about going after the author with an "assault rifle." I believe I may have observed this elsewhere, but Scott has long struck me as the kind of guy who really bottles up a ton of hostility. My read on him is that his is stewing with resentment and anger, and in times of relaxed candor, he sometimes lets this slip out.

Hmm...I just noticed that the thread is now locked. There is no explanation as to why.

LOL

Scotty Dog is such an uncreative tool.

You know it could have been a simple mistake of confusing outsiders not being let into the temple with not being let into a chapel. A comment to the blog post could have cleared that up pretty easily.

Blixa wrote:You know it could have been a simple mistake of confusing outsiders not being let into the temple with not being let into a chapel. A comment to the blog post could have cleared that up pretty easily.

You're probably right, Blixa. Then again, Scotty Dog and Co. don't tend to roll that way. They prefer reactionary gang attacks, slandering the authors' journalistic professionalism, and fantasizing about acts of cyber-revenge.

Blixa wrote:You know it could have been a simple mistake of confusing outsiders not being let into the temple with not being let into a chapel. A comment to the blog post could have cleared that up pretty easily.

That was my first thought, Blixa.

I am glad Scott stopped short of issuing a fatwa on the author.

Blixa wrote:You know it could have been a simple mistake of confusing outsiders not being let into the temple with not being let into a chapel. A comment to the blog post could have cleared that up pretty easily.

This was exactly what I thought. The indignant Mormons commenting on that thread really should have tried to be a bit more gracious in correcting Ms. Milligan.

Granted, Ms. Milligan probably should have run the post by an actual Mormon before posting it.

MsJack wrote:This was exactly what I thought. The indignant Mormons commenting on that thread really should have tried to be a bit more gracious in correcting Ms. Milligan.

Those Mormon Voices people can be an unruly bunch.

Someone called Scott out on his comment.


@scott lloyd

are you the same scott lloyd that wrote this?

"I had a mischievous thought: We could start a campaign to flood Susan Milligan's email inbox with thousands of photos of signs on LDS meetinghouses that bear the words "Visitors Welcome."

I'm not recommending it though; only relishing the idea for my own amusement. "

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/578 ... outsiders/

hecate1972 of UT 5:06PM May 16, 2012


To hecate1972:

"are you the same scott lloyd that wrote this? "

I am.

It was a comment made in jest, as should be clear from the last sentence. I have no intention of launching or promoting such a campaign.

It goes to the point though: The sign that appears on nearly every Mormon meetinghouse should disabuse anyone of the notion that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not welcome outsiders.

Scott Lloyd of UT 5:31PM May 16, 2012

[report comment]

Of course, the follow up strand needs to be about why visitors are not welcome in Mormon Temples. No "Visitors Welcome" sign on those buildings. In fact, not all members are welcome, only tithe paying ones.

And before someone spams about open days at new Temples. That only means the secrecy is not about the building or it's contents, it's about keeping the lid on what members get up to in there.