[MODERATOR NOTE: If you want to use poster images, please do not include any information/images obtained anywhere other than a source that the poster has created her/himself and overtly and purposefully made public.~Jersey Girl]
Oh PISS OFF Jersey. This image was made available ON THE INTERNET. It's LOP's dumbass fault for posting such an image. On top of that, did you just pull that rule out of your ass? Why didn't Dr. Shades post it under his rules?
If you post a picture of yourself on the Internet, then it is PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Except on Dr. Shades board, where it will be moderated off by some obscure rule that a Mod decides to create ON THE FLY.
damned mods, always protecting the Mormons on this site.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[MODERATOR NOTE: If you want to use poster images, please do not include any information/images obtained anywhere other than a source that the poster has created her/himself and overtly and purposefully made public.~Jersey Girl]
Oh PISS OFF Jersey. This image was made available ON THE INTERNET. It's LOP's dumbass fault for posting such an image. On top of that, did you just pull that rule out of your ass? Why didn't Dr. Shades post it under his rules?
If you post a picture of yourself on the Internet, then it is PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Except on Dr. Shades board, where it will be moderated off by some obscure rule that a Mod decides to create ON THE FLY.
f*****g mods, always protecting the Mormons on this site.
Moderator Note: I"m editing this reply since you chose to modify your post, Infymus. No moderator, including myself, created a rule "ON THE FLY" nor did I pull it out of my ass. I pulled it out of Shades ass and via the link that will appear at the end of this post in which he makes a public policy statement regarding the image in question. If you have an issue with this, feel free to take it up with him.~Jersey Girl.
Now, "speaking as a man". The next time you decide to tell me to piss off and comment regarding moderation or moderators, try inquiring before leveling baseless accusations as if you're being persecuted. It doesn't go over well on this end.
Last edited by Google Feedfetcher on Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:42 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
[MODERATOR NOTE: If you want to use poster images, please do not include any information/images obtained anywhere other than a source that the poster has created her/himself and overtly and purposefully made public.~Jersey Girl]
Did someone get upset?
I must be missing something here, or are you saying? No...
Moderator Note: No one got "upset". No one made a report. I'm enforcing Shades publicly stated guidelines. ~Jersey Girl
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
[MODERATOR NOTE: If you want to use poster images, please do not include any information/images obtained anywhere other than a source that the poster has created her/himself and overtly and purposefully made public.~Jersey Girl]
Did someone get upset?
I must be missing something here, or are you saying? No...
Moderator Note: No one got "upset". No one made a report. I'm enforcing Shades publicly stated guidelines. ~Jersey Girl
There are no such "guidelines." I vote that Infymus re-post the image. Either that, or Infymus can go and grab the also dorky image of LoaP on his blog which he freely links to via this site. Deleting the image was silly and pointless---almost as silly and pointless as LoaP posting it online in the first place.
dartagnan wrote:Mike, I don't think you were trying to offend. Let me go ahead an say that I like you as well. When I had my apostasy from FAIR, you were the only person from their inner sanctum, who tried to email me off list and maintain a friendship. And even though we didn't keep in touch, I remembered that, and I appreciated it. You were always one of my favorites at FAIR, but you never really posted much. I've never seen you fight with anyone, and I think that is something only Kevin Barney can say.
Thanks, Kevin. Although we disagree, I've frequently learned from your posts.
You're reading too much into it, Kevin. It's interesting that of all the people I know who heard the title before it was published, I never heard such an interpretation until some critics saw it.
Maybe that's because most LDS really do believe it is a spiritual disorder of some sort? You can't tell me that LDS members do not generally interpret doubt as a spiritual deficiency of some sort. Most doubters don't seem themselves as suffering from any kind of syndrome.
Shaken Baby Syndrome is not a disease or a disorder. It refers to the damage done to the baby from being shaken-- that damage is death or neurological problems. The damage done to an LDS testimony from challenging information is testimony death or a change in how one views the Church, leaders, etc.
I haven't taken a poll but even if the average member sees doubt as a spiritual deficiency (and I'm not convinced that this is the case) my book is designed to dispell numerous popular myths.
It is simply a matter of trying to reconcile uncomfortable facts with preconceived notions.
True. But that's the case with many things in our life outside of religion as well.
Mormonism is unique in that, unlike most other religions, becomes an integral part of virtually every aspect of an adherent's life. It is designed to leave its footprint in every corner of a Mormon's spiritual, social and personal life, so that leaving it requires adjustments to one's life that are so drastic, that many would rather just stick with it and live a miserable life of doubt. I know several people like this who stick with it because that is the only social scheme they know. They can't afford to leave it because they have too much invested.
Here I would disagree to this being unique to Mormonism. I've seen the same thing among Catholic friends (typically Catholic friends outside of the US).
#1 certainly would agree with the way you understand the term; #4 would not.
Well, #1 is how most people understand it.
Not so among those I polled before publishing. In fact, not a single person understood it in that context.
I thought it was a clever way of depicting the very real damage that happens to the faith (often fragile, as noted by someone else on this board), when they encounter issues that challenge their faith.
Yea, but the picture of a person suffering from a spiritual disorder resonates well with most LDS.
Members who are struggling with difficult issues are often emotionally upset.
Those who go through deconversion often struggle with a host of feelings-- including anger, frustration, sadness (or even happiness).
Yes, of course. And how are you helping people get through this? By assuring them that the Church is true after all?
You haven't read my book. I obviously point out my belief that the Church is true, but my main point is to show that these are complicated issues and that we should be careful not to take negative evidence as face value. I discuss the feelings, cog. dis, etc. All of these things are real. I don't brush the aside.
The negative feelings are serious, and as a believer I think that Shaken Faith Syndrome aptly describes the turmoil that some members encounter when they struggle with faith-shaking issues
The negative feelinsg are serious. But it isn't a psychological turmoil the way you might think. It is the same kind of turmoil a kid might go through the minute he finds out Santa Claus really doesn't exist.
That's contrary to the many exit stories I've read where some people are consumed with psychological turmoil.
It could be a good thing if you let it, but by assuring the kid Santa really does exist, who are you really trying to help?
Since I belive the Church is true, I'm helping those who struggle.
Still at work & getting busy. May not get a chance to peek in again till tomorrow.
[MODERATOR NOTE: If you want to use poster images, please do not include any information/images obtained anywhere other than a source that the poster has created her/himself and overtly and purposefully made public.~Jersey Girl]
Did someone get upset?
I must be missing something here, or are you saying? No...
Moderator Note: No one got "upset". No one made a report. I'm enforcing Shades publicly stated guidelines. ~Jersey Girl
There are no such "guidelines." I vote that Infymus re-post the image. Either that, or Infymus can go and grab the also dorky image of LoaP on his blog which he freely links to via this site. Deleting the image was silly and pointless---almost as silly and pointless as LoaP posting it online in the first place.
[MODERATOR NOTE: If you want to use poster images, please do not include any information/images obtained anywhere other than a source that the poster has created her/himself and overtly and purposefully made public.~Jersey Girl]
Oh PISS OFF Jersey. This image was made available ON THE INTERNET. It's LOP's dumbass fault for posting such an image. On top of that, did you just pull that rule out of your ass? Why didn't Dr. Shades post it under his rules?
If you post a picture of yourself on the Internet, then it is PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Except on Dr. Shades board, where it will be moderated off by some obscure rule that a Mod decides to create ON THE FLY.
f*****g mods, always protecting the Mormons on this site.
Moderator Note: I"m editing this reply since you chose to modify your post, Infymus. No moderator, including myself, created a rule "ON THE FLY" nor did I pull it out of my ass. I pulled it out of Shades ass and via the link that will appear at the end of this post in which he makes a public policy statement regarding the image in question. If you have an issue with this, feel free to take it up with him.~Jersey Girl.
Now, "speaking as a man". The next time you decide to tell me to piss off and comment regarding moderation or moderators, try inquiring before leveling baseless accusations as if you're being persecuted. It doesn't go over well on this end.
That's not a "guideline," Jersey, and Shades was obviously wrong in his rationale, as I later pointed out via the posting of a link. He originally reasoned that the pic shouldn't be up because Shades thought that I'd somehow "hacked" into a non-public Photobucket account in order to get it. Well, that's not what happened at all. LoaP himself freely posted that image. I could have continued arguing as to why the original posting should not have been deleted by Shades, but decided to let it go. That said, you had no business waving the scepter of censorship in this thread.
I am not sure which is sillier, the puppet or the picture of the man himself.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
[MODERATOR NOTE: If you want to use poster images, please do not include any information/images obtained anywhere other than a source that the poster has created her/himself and overtly and purposefully made public.~Jersey Girl]
Oh PISS OFF Jersey. This image was made available ON THE INTERNET. It's LOP's dumbass fault for posting such an image. On top of that, did you just pull that rule out of your ass? Why didn't Dr. Shades post it under his rules?
If you post a picture of yourself on the Internet, then it is PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Except on Dr. Shades board, where it will be moderated off by some obscure rule that a Mod decides to create ON THE FLY.
f*****g mods, always protecting the Mormons on this site.
Moderator Note: I"m editing this reply since you chose to modify your post, Infymus. No moderator, including myself, created a rule "ON THE FLY" nor did I pull it out of my ass. I pulled it out of Shades ass and via the link that will appear at the end of this post in which he makes a public policy statement regarding the image in question. If you have an issue with this, feel free to take it up with him.~Jersey Girl.
Now, "speaking as a man". The next time you decide to tell me to piss off and comment regarding moderation or moderators, try inquiring before leveling baseless accusations as if you're being persecuted. It doesn't go over well on this end.
That's not a "guideline," Jersey, and Shades was obviously wrong in his rationale, as I later pointed out via the posting of a link. He originally reasoned that the pic shouldn't be up because Shades thought that I'd somehow "hacked" into a non-public Photobucket account in order to get it. Well, that's not what happened at all. LoaP himself freely posted that image. I could have continued arguing as to why the original posting should not have been deleted by Shades, but decided to let it go. That said, you had no business waving the scepter of censorship in this thread.
Take your "could have" up with Shades.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb