DCP Invokes Orwell

[_Kishkumen]

Winter is coming
Older bones feel deeper cold
The lion looks back

(Well, at least it's 5-7-5 and it does mention the season!)

I quite like that. I am impressed.

[_sock puppet]

As the lion approaches winter, the late autumn winds leave a chill in his bones. He's not looking for a new den, to sire a new pride, but to find and hold up in one of his old ones, lick his wounds and bear out as much winter as he can. Old scores are the only ones now.

You should really render that in the form of a haiku.

Winter is coming
Older bones feel deeper cold
The lion looks back

(Well, at least it's 5-7-5 and it does mention the season!)

Excellent work, Chap!

[_Chap]

Sock Puppet liked it -
My attempt at a haiku:

Excellent work, Chap!

(Sorry, but it's hard to stop, especially when confronted with a 5-syllable line like that ... No more, promise.)

[_Gadianton]

The broader point is this: MI (unnecessarily) made a statement that, while possibly true in a hypertechnical sense (and given my limited knowledge that appears to be far from a given), was presented in a way that is at best disingenuous.

Some Mopologist over there put it that way.

Now, if this is true, and if it qualifies the MI as Orwellian, then how much more reason do critics have to question the Smiley face the Church puts on its history?

Perhaps the apologists ought to consider the MI might be engaged in "faithful narrative"?

[Guest]

I think Tom O is being thick.

A mountain is being made out of a molehill here.

Daniel should pursue the best revenge, which is being a success at putting together a new apologetic juggernaut.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Wow, they are still going at it over there, and DCP is making sinister insinuations about Grant Palmer:

With regard to Grant Palmer, was it not absolutely fair game, in view of his claim (made on the cover of his book and central to its marketing) to be an “insider” and an academic historian of Mormonism, to note — among pages and pages and pages of substantive critiques of his book — that he was no more an “insider” than any other seminary instructor is, and that this was his first apparent publication in Mormon history? Academic writers ROUTINELY publish articles discussing the genesis and evolution of various books; do you really believe that such information ought to be censored or suppressed with respect to Grant Palmer?

Trust me, though. The reviewers said far less than I know.

[_Kishkumen]

Why doesn't this guy just shut his flapping pie hole?

I don't give a crap what he knows.

Wow, he is such a sad man, sitting there on pathetic.com, whining about how wronged he was, given what a valuable asset he has been to the Church, and making himself look terrible.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Why doesn't this guy just shut his flapping pie hole?

I don't give a s*** what he knows.

Wow, he is such a sad man, sitting there on pathetic.com, whining about how wronged he was, given what a valuable asset he has been to the Church, and making himself look terrible.

The poster called "BYU Alum" used the reviews of Quinn as an example of the sort of hostile "reviews" that classic-FARMS used to publish, and DCP responded by linking to a review written by Camile Paglia. This was meant to serve as illustartion that it's okay to mention an author's sexual orientation in a review. I wonder: does he really not understand what's different about what Paglia is doing versus the kinds of things we read in the Review?

[_Kishkumen]

I wonder: does he really not understand what's different about what Paglia is doing versus the kinds of things we read in the Review?

I wouldn't doubt it at this point.

If he'd mangled Camus, he'd mangle Paglia.

[_Racer]

Wow, they are still going at it over there, and DCP is making sinister insinuations about Grant Palmer:

With regard to Grant Palmer, was it not absolutely fair game, in view of his claim (made on the cover of his book and central to its marketing) to be an “insider” and an academic historian of Mormonism, to note — among pages and pages and pages of substantive critiques of his book — that he was no more an “insider” than any other seminary instructor is, and that this was his first apparent publication in Mormon history? Academic writers ROUTINELY publish articles discussing the genesis and evolution of various books; do you really believe that such information ought to be censored or suppressed with respect to Grant Palmer?

Trust me, though. The reviewers said far less than I know.

I have heard the mopologists bring up this false "insider" claim. Palmer admitted the "insider" tagline was inserted by the publisher to add some sizzle. However, I would like DCP to tell us what criteria must be met for one to qualify as an "insider" to the LDS church. In my opinion, a guy who has grown up in the LDS culture, served a mission, performed temple ordinances, served in Ward and Stake leadership positions, was employed by CES, and spent decades teaching LDS scripture, and LDS history qualifies as an "insider" who knows the inner workings and mindset of the LDS, and is qualified to communicate these things to those who are unfamiliar with Mormonism.