Freedom?????s just another word for ?????nothing left to lose?????

[_The Dude]

By the way, I haven't seen No Country for Old Men yet. It never played here in my little hamlet in southern Utah. I need to go get the DVD and watch it --- it's been released on DVD, right?

You mean you don't have Netflicks? How do you live?

I thought it was fantastic and I watched it again last night on DVD. You liked Fargo, didn't you? If so then you'll like this too, unless you need happy endings. The plot is strong in the first half but then it unravels and starts to seem more like real life... stuff just happens, and it isn't what you expect and it isn't clean.

[_wenglund]

And a happy April Fool's Day to you too, Will.

(Too bad that you're unaware that every word you wrote is true, however.)

Alas, I expected this reaction. I guess I should have waited until tomorrow . . .

I would hope, for your sake, that your post is truthful. However, you don't seem either angry or sad enough to be genuine.

So, are you suggesting that an unspecified level of anger and sadness is the litmus test for genuine ex-Mormonism? If so, then how angry and sad does an ex-Mormon have to be to qualify as genuine?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_William Schryver]

By the way, I haven't seen No Country for Old Men yet. It never played here in my little hamlet in southern Utah. I need to go get the DVD and watch it --- it's been released on DVD, right?

You mean you don't have Netflicks? How do you live?

I thought it was fantastic and I watched it again last night on DVD. You liked Fargo, didn't you? If so then you'll like this too, unless you need happy endings. The plot is strong in the first half but then it unravels and starts to seem more like real life... stuff just happens, and it isn't what you expect and it isn't clean.

I like Fargo enough. I still don't think it's among their best films.

And I don't need happy endings. Otherwise, why would I have ever read the Book of Mormon a second time? ;-) Happy endings are for suckers. After all, everyone's going to end their sojourn through this vale of tears in a mouldering heap of putrification and maggots.

Amadeus remains one of my all-time favorite films. No happy ending there. Salieri absolving all of us for our mediocrity . . . yeah, I love that. Always makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. You might say I have a strong testimony of the movie Amadeus.

Anyway, I'll have to go check out No Country and then I'll let you know how I liked it.

[_Mister Scratch]

By the way, I haven't seen No Country for Old Men yet. It never played here in my little hamlet in southern Utah. I need to go get the DVD and watch it --- it's been released on DVD, right?

You mean you don't have Netflicks? How do you live?

I thought it was fantastic and I watched it again last night on DVD. You liked Fargo, didn't you? If so then you'll like this too, unless you need happy endings. The plot is strong in the first half but then it unravels and starts to seem more like real life... stuff just happens, and it isn't what you expect and it isn't clean.

I like Fargo enough. I still don't think it's among their best films.

And I don't need happy endings. Otherwise, why would I have ever read the Book of Mormon a second time? ;-) Happy endings are for suckers. After all, everyone's going to end their sojourn through this vale of tears in a mouldering heap of putrification and maggots.

Amadeus remains one of my all-time favorite films. No happy ending there. Salieri absolving all of us for our mediocrity . . . yeah, I love that. Always makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. You might say I have a strong testimony of the movie Amadeus.

Anyway, I'll have to go check out No Country and then I'll let you know how I liked it.

So, Will--- I'm curious. Which specific aspects of Mormonism do you find untenable/untrue/unlikeable? Perhaps you can dispel the skepticism of the naysayers by stating something no believer would ever say---e.g., criticize some aspect of the endowment ceremony? Or perhaps you can publicly criticize one of the Brethren?

[_William Schryver]

By the way, I haven't seen No Country for Old Men yet. It never played here in my little hamlet in southern Utah. I need to go get the DVD and watch it --- it's been released on DVD, right?

You mean you don't have Netflicks? How do you live?

I thought it was fantastic and I watched it again last night on DVD. You liked Fargo, didn't you? If so then you'll like this too, unless you need happy endings. The plot is strong in the first half but then it unravels and starts to seem more like real life... stuff just happens, and it isn't what you expect and it isn't clean.

I like Fargo enough. I still don't think it's among their best films.

And I don't need happy endings. Otherwise, why would I have ever read the Book of Mormon a second time? ;-) Happy endings are for suckers. After all, everyone's going to end their sojourn through this vale of tears in a mouldering heap of putrification and maggots.

Amadeus remains one of my all-time favorite films. No happy ending there. Salieri absolving all of us for our mediocrity . . . yeah, I love that. Always makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. You might say I have a strong testimony of the movie Amadeus.

Anyway, I'll have to go check out No Country and then I'll let you know how I liked it.

So, Will--- I'm curious. Which specific aspects of Mormonism do you find untenable/untrue/unlikeable? Perhaps you can dispel the skepticism of the naysayers by stating something no believer would ever say---e.g., criticize some aspect of the endowment ceremony? Or perhaps you can publicly criticize one of the Brethren?

No problema, Scratchy!

You want a temple name shout out? Jonah! I always kind of identified with the story of the guy running away from his calling. I always found that easy to do in my life. I used to think it was because I was weak. Now I know it's because my real self was doing battle against the deluded side of me, and that was just how it manifest itself in my actions.

The endowment ceremony? I wouldn't know too much about that since I haven't been to the temple in so many years. I was never like so many people who I have heard would lie to their bishops and stake presidents about their "worthiness" for a recommend. I figured it was their clubhouse, and if I wasn't willing to abide by the rules for admittance, I wasn't going to pretend just for the sake of "keeping up appearances." I don't get too worked up about the whole thing, anyway. Let 'em do what they want to do in their secret sacred ceremonies.

Now, as far as criticizing one of the brethren, no problem at all. That's easy, in fact. My pet peeve of all time is the awful speaking style of Richard G. Scott. Nothing could be more annoying in this entire world than having to listen to Scott breathily intone word upon boring word. "The ... Lord ... wants ... you ... to ... repent ... and ... be ... cleansed ... of ... your ... iniquity." Blah, blah, blah. Buddy, if I really wanted to repent, don't you think I would have done it before now? After listening to you and the rest of your Mormon country club buddies go on and on and on and on and on about it for years? Enough already.

If they had enacted this program 20 years ago, they might have kept me around. But now it's too late:

link

I'm out the door and down the street, and I won't be looking back . . .

[_John Larsen]

And a happy April Fool's Day to you too, Will.

(Too bad that you're unaware that every word you wrote is true, however.)

Alas, I expected this reaction. I guess I should have waited until tomorrow . . .

I would hope, for your sake, that your post is truthful. However, you don't seem either angry or sad enough to be genuine.

So, are you suggesting that an unspecified level of anger and sadness is the litmus test for genuine ex-Mormonism? If so, then how angry and sad does an ex-Mormon have to be to qualify as genuine?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For Mormons who were strong in the faith, leaving is very very difficult and is usually met with overwhelming emotion that finds its way out. Much like someone whose parent or child has died. Likewise if someone comes into work and announces that their father just died, you would expect the person to be sad and somewhat emotionally effected, as that would be normal. There is no litmus test of sadness or anger. I am just suggesting that, after observing many people leave their faith, Wills confession seemed a little off. It might be true.

It is typical for members to underestimate the emotional hardship encountered in leaving the Church, so unlike Will's, I think your remarks are par for course. However, I don't expect you to understand something you have not encountered yourself. So I hold no ill will towards you.

[_Who Knows]

I thought it was fantastic and I watched it again last night on DVD. You liked Fargo, didn't you? If so then you'll like this too, unless you need happy endings. The plot is strong in the first half but then it unravels and starts to seem more like real life... stuff just happens, and it isn't what you expect and it isn't clean.

As I watched the movie, i was entranced. I thought it was amazing. Then for the last 20 or so minutes, i was like "what the fu..? that's it?" Not sure I'd be interested in watching it again.

The Anton actor was amazing though.

edit - I read one other cormac mccarthy book - the road - and hated that book. they both have the same feel - especially the endings.

edit2 - the ending didn't necessarily bother me because it wasn't 'happy', but because it just doesn't really end. it's like it just cuts off at the end, where there's supposed to be 20 more minutes of the movie to go.

[_Sethbag]

Will stop, you're freaking me out. You're wayyyyyyyyyyyy too good at this. ;-)

[_beastie]

Will stop, you're freaking me out. You're wayyyyyyyyyyyy too good at this. ;-)

That is because, my friend, he is An Actor.

And now that he's left the church, let the adoring fans approach!

[_cksalmon]

You want a temple name shout out? Jonah!

I think that this might be instructive for parsing posts Will makes in future.

Mr. S calls for Will to say something crazily-apostate in nature. Will responds: "You want a temple name shout out? Jonah!"

Now, was "Jonah" Will's temple-given name? Doubtful. (Even if it were, who could demonstrate such?) So, did he lie here? In a strict sense, absolutely not. He never suggested that "Jonah" was the name he was personally given in the Temple. He hasn't committed himself to anything so concrete. His wording is ambiguous. But, his response to "Scratchy" is clearly meant to entail (however jokingly) an answer to Scratch's query.

So what? Will merely wants to prolong his prank via ambiguous language? Okay. It is April 1st, after all.

Good enough.

Will's thread here is reading you your Miranda rights, though, all you potential foolees. Everything (apologetically useful) you write herein can and will be used against you, I'd guess.

His linguistic slipperiness is both intentional and premeditated.

Apply that insight as you deem appropriate within the larger context of Will's posts both prior to and post April 1, 2008.

CKS