Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:LOL! Good one Mak. I just found it quite ironic that you were criticizing another poster for being condescending when if we're all honest we all do quite a bit of that, yourself included.
The criticism was for being condescending while also using nonsensical language in an attempt to sound erudite. I'm perfectly aware of how much we all do it, including me.
Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:Your reasons for being LDS make no difference in my life, that isn't to say I'm not curious as to why a man in his 20s would join the LDS Church, it just doesn't really matter. When you know about the origins of both organizations and their recruitment methods then for those without a vested interest in either there are quite a few striking similarities and the claim that there aren't any shows a lack of awareness on the part of the person making the claim.
The rather broad and generic similarities (using interview shots mixed with voiceovers during wider action shots?) are eclipsed numerous times over by the stark and innumerable differences in both style and substance. To say their "advertising" is "very similar" is just inaccurate. A handful of videos may appear to be shot with the same basic techniques, but that, as I am pretty sure I already said, is a small slice of a very large and distinct set of pies.
Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:Yet, when the advertizing is shown to be similar to you, you aren't even willing to admit that it is, why is that?
Because one set of videos does not constitute "the advertising." Perhaps, however, that's the only advertising you have seen from either, but the "I'm a Mormon" videos are a quite small portion of a very large and variegated set of campaigns.
Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:Any disinterested person would be willing to admit that the advertizing is very similar, so why aren't you willing to?
No, any disinterested person would not admit that. Any disinterested person once they had an adequate grasp of the information would acknowledge that similar best practice techniques are employed in some videos that make up a small portion of the LDS Church's advertising campaigns.
Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:Maybe you just aren't aware of your Church's advertizing push?
As I already said, I work for the Church's Publishing Services Department, which is entirely responsible for all their advertising. I'm far better acquainted with the Church's advertising push than you are, which, I'm beginning to think, is part of the reason we're talking past each other. I'm thinking of "the advertising" in terms of the multi-channel global advertising campaigns. You're thinking of one set of videos. Had you said the "I'm a Mormon" videos are very similar to some videos released by Scientologists we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:But links have been provided to both ads and you still aren't willing to admit that they are similar? It just comes across as you being in denial Mak.
I don't think you're really trying that hard to listen to what I'm saying. I acknowledged that there are some technical similarities in the way some videos were shot, which, I hope by now it goes without saying, does not equate to "the advertising" being "very similar."
Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:I doubt you converted during the "I'm a Mormon" campaign. I do wonder though if instead of people asking you to pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon you'd been invited to an auditing session at the Church of Scientology if the "evidence" that their Church was "true" might have led you to become a Scientologist. The belief systems and methods of attaining "truth" or gaining benefit are pretty unreliable but people feel that they do make them happy so why not?
I can tell you I would not. I was very skeptical of Mormonism when I was first introduced to it, and Scientology is on an entirely different level of charter myth.
Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:It's funny you say that because the reason I wrote it was because I figured you might be taking it all too seriously. I just found it comical for you to be talking down to people while being so condescending.
My concern was with the fumbled attempt to use $2 words, not just the fact that he was trying to be condescending. Condescend away, but at least don't screw it up so royally.
Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:The reality is that there is as much objective evidence for Scientology as there is for the LDS Church.
The objective evidence for absolutely all religious faith claims from absolutely all religion is equally null.
Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:There is probably actually more evidence contradicting LDS claims than there is for Scientology.
Another example of you either just trying to sound cute or not really knowing much about one or the other.
Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:It's interesting to consider what would lead a 20 something to join a group like Scientology or Mormonism, and the decision is most likely baffling to most people, but if it makes you happy then why not?
Yeah, if I'm happy in my ignorance, far be it from enlightened people like you to bring me grief, right? I understand the therapeutic use of this kind of discourse for many disaffected Latter-day Saints and others who feel like they've been hurt or otherwise slighted by the LDS Church, but you can also save the condescension for someone else.