Jersey Girl wrote:I read the comments section earlier and noticed that DCP actually mentioned his "Malevolent Stalker". I don't want to be mean here, but seriously, the man doesn't have the sense God presumably gave him. If it were me, I would have ignored every single "attack" comment and gone about my merry way saying whatever I felt was relevant to the article and photographic images. If he'd done that, it would have made the critics look like nutters. Instead, he validated every single criticism by responding to it! No street smarts at all! Amazing!
I assume this must be a lot like putting MI/FAIR published "scholarly" work into a real academic environment, Mormon apologist end up looking like fools. Poor Dan could stand his ground in his own backyard, among those that know him, but simply look like "nutters" in the real world.
It's kind of sad, in a psychologically fascinating way!
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents "I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
Yep, just for fun i grabbed a couple of screen captures...He has gone to full nutter and he is "liking" all anti-MI comments...This one made me laugh as its directed toward Willy...
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents "I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
Darth J wrote: You know, every time Simon Belmont gets on a thread, it's suspense. You're like, "How could he possibly make even more of a fool of himself?"
Well, in this instance, he has gone on and on trying to take issue with a metaphor he didn't understand. A person who knew that a nuclear meltdown and a nuclear explosion are very different things would not have posted that picture of a nuclear warhead detonating.
The reason why a meltdown is an apt metaphor is because three Maxwell Institute apologists tried to deflect from something that made Mormons look quaint, folksy, and maybe a little bit weird. In so doing, they made Mormons look like smug, hypersensitive assholes with chips on their shoulders (which is an accurate assessment, in the case of those three). They did this on Time's website, for the whole world to see, and were stunned that they did not get the usual fawning and praise for their petty vindictiveness by their mouth-breathing fanbois from the Bloggernacle (like Simon Belmont). This very public obliviousness to how they come across to the rest of the world is what made it a meltdown on a nuclear scale. Their rush to defend the Church from nothing makes Mormons look even worse than what they fantasized they were responding to.
This.
Who needs critics anymore? The mopologists are doing all the work for them!
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Full meltdown in process - its not "ironic" when its true. LOL:
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents "I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
Stormy Waters wrote:Insulting the quality of the photography was petty and vindictive.
But what if the photographs really weren't all that great? They looked, to me, like someone handed his or her 12 year-old kid a camera and set him or her loose to snap a bunch of random shots.
I have to admit this is how I felt about the photos. I don't have any problem with Shumway's description of his upbringing in Utah. I think he descibes a typical segment of Utah Mormon culture. He seems focused on the lower middle class areas of Utah county. When I think of Utah Mormon culture, I think of Federal Heights and the areas in Bountiful around the temple: huge mega-houses with fancy yards maintained by illegal immigrants.
"I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Darth J wrote: You know, every time Simon Belmont gets on a thread, it's suspense. You're like, "How could he possibly make even more of a fool of himself?"
Well, in this instance, he has gone on and on trying to take issue with a metaphor he didn't understand. A person who knew that a nuclear meltdown and a nuclear explosion are very different things would not have posted that picture of a nuclear warhead detonating.
The reason why a meltdown is an apt metaphor is because three Maxwell Institute apologists tried to deflect from something that made Mormons look quaint, folksy, and maybe a little bit weird. In so doing, they made Mormons look like smug, hypersensitive assholes with chips on their shoulders (which is an accurate assessment, in the case of those three). They did this on Time's website, for the whole world to see, and were stunned that they did not get the usual fawning and praise for their petty vindictiveness by their mouth-breathing fanbois from the Bloggernacle (like Simon Belmont). This very public obliviousness to how they come across to the rest of the world is what made it a meltdown on a nuclear scale. Their rush to defend the Church from nothing makes Mormons look even worse than what they fantasized they were responding to.
This.
Who needs critics anymore? The mopologists are doing all the work for them!
I think this is hyperbole. Yeah, the story was on time.com. But I doubt it was read by that many people, and of those who did read it, what percentage would have looked at the comments section? And of the few people that looked at the comments section, how many would have read enough of the comments to get a feel for the discussion?
I didn't see a comment from anyone who seemed to be a real "third party". In fact, it looked like a typical discussion between Mormon forum "insiders" like we see on this board. So in my opinion, I don't think the "rest of the world" saw anything.
"I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not." Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
sock puppet wrote:What I find amusing is when mopologists try to ditch an individual's Mormon experience by chalking up certain aspects to that individual's "rogue" local LDS leaders.
I don't find it amusing. I find it highly offensive. If there is one thing that I hate, it is the disingenuous downgrading of many LDS people's personal experience in the Church to some isolated quirk, when we all know what we have lived. It is one of the things I truly hate about apologetics. We have people on this forum that do it all the time, and I lose respect for them every time they take this tack.
They are lying when they say things like, "I've never heard of such a teaching. You must have had a rogue Bishop." I've moved a lot in my life, and been in a lot of different wards in different states. They all teach pretty much the same thing. In fact, isn't that what makes the church so great? No matter where you attend, the message is consistent. If you've never heard that watching TV and playing with friends are not appropriate Sabbath activities, you haven't attended enough church to understand the issues.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
