Mormon Meltdown on Facebook

[_Drifting]

Hey Kevinator.......

Just read your's and Loyd's conversation on Facebook, and it was very CLEAR to me that he was using YOUR stupid argument back at you by stating a "fact" about your wife.

You were crying that O'Donnell didn't say anything "factually" inaccurate, yet Loyd wasn't arguing about that, but arguing against the "way" things were said. And guess what, JUST LIKE what Loyd said about your wife. He simply said a "fact"..... just like you claimed O'Donnell was all about "facts". But you took Loyd's comment against your wife badly didn't you? That's because the "way" he said something about your wife WAS offensive, but like you claim, factually accurate. Likewise, a Mormon would take O'Donnell's presentation as offensive.

haa haa..... You show how dumb you really are Kevin. He was proving his point by playing your game against you.

by the way..... Show my response to your wife, so she can understand the context of what was actually happening and how stupid you actually are, when you pretend otherwise trying to always make yourself superior to Mormons and Mormonism to her by comparing yourself to us and trying to destroy her faith.

Loyd was attacking your argument with YOUR OWN flawed logic and judgment, not actually saying something against your wife.

(Kevin I hope you don't take offence at my following post)

ldsfaqs,

Do you believe that the greatest eternal achievement that Kevin's good lady wife can achieve is to be a servant in the Celestial Kingdom?
Do you believe her to have been less valiant in the pre-existence?
Do you believe God has marked her with a dark skin as a sign of being cursed?
Do you believe that, if she becomes righteous that her skin will literally turn white?

[_Yoda]

Hey Kevinator.......

Just read your's and Loyd's conversation on Facebook, and it was very CLEAR to me that he was using YOUR stupid argument back at you by stating a "fact" about your wife.

You were crying that O'Donnell didn't say anything "factually" inaccurate, yet Loyd wasn't arguing about that, but arguing against the "way" things were said. And guess what, JUST LIKE what Loyd said about your wife. He simply said a "fact"..... just like you claimed O'Donnell was all about "facts". But you took Loyd's comment against your wife badly didn't you? That's because the "way" he said something about your wife WAS offensive, but like you claim, factually accurate. Likewise, a Mormon would take O'Donnell's presentation as offensive.

haa haa..... You show how dumb you really are Kevin. He was proving his point by playing your game against you.

by the way..... Show my response to your wife, so she can understand the context of what was actually happening and how stupid you actually are, when you pretend otherwise trying to always make yourself superior to Mormons and Mormonism to her by comparing yourself to us and trying to destroy her faith.

Loyd was attacking your argument with YOUR OWN flawed logic and judgment, not actually saying something against your wife.

All of this doesn't matter. It was in very poor taste for Scott to use that example. There was absolutely NO NEED to involve family members in the argument, even if he was trying to prove a point.

Scott should apologize.

[_maklelan]

All of this doesn't matter. It was in very poor taste for Scott to use that example. There was absolutely NO NEED to involve family members in the argument, even if he was trying to prove a point.

Scott should apologize.

Scott?

[_Yoda]

All of this doesn't matter. It was in very poor taste for Scott to use that example. There was absolutely NO NEED to involve family members in the argument, even if he was trying to prove a point.

Scott should apologize.

Scott?

Aren't we talking about Scott Lloyd?

[_Buffalo]

Man, what a dick.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Anyone gonna get banned for a week? Hello?

That said...

Hot Brazilian chicks follow (NSFW):

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=b ... 82&bih=544

[_maklelan]

Aren't we talking about Scott Lloyd?

No, the guy's first name is Loyd. I don't know how he feels about his full name being on this board, though.

[_Kevin Graham]

Loyd Ericson posted a clip from Lawrence O'Donnell....

He is hardly an apologist but I was surprised the way he was complaining about this, calling him an anti-Mormon and then attacking everyone in the thread who didn't agree with him. Here is how our exchange went before he went off on my wife.

Kevin: I don't understand. What did he say that was so horrible? What did he say that was untrue? Romney and his religion will be put under the microscope by the media, that's just politics.

Loyd: Oh please Kevin. Did I say that anything he said was untrue? You're a smart boy, you very well know that there is a difference between how things are said and what is said. If you don't see it than you need to poke yourself in the eye.

I think he was making a rhetorical point, that it's possible to turn something good, into something bad.

If he's friends with you on Facebook, I imagine he's fully aware of just how beautiful your Brazilian wife is. Certainly not the wisest choice to make as a comparison - a moment of stupidity. I really don't think he meant any offense to your wife. It was just a very poor example of what he was trying to illustrate. Was he unaware that your wife is LDS? If he can read your profile, then he shouldn't be.

Kevin: And my wife read this. She is LDS and appalled.

She need not be, I think, and maybe, because English isn't her first language (?), she may be reading more sinister things into his comments than were intended, with a little "help" from you, Kevin?

Excuse me Ray? More ignorant speculation... Jesus.

My wife called me at work to ask me what the hell is going on on Facebook. I was posting from work, she was reading as the discussion took place. But nice jab there. Insinuating that I have some vested interest in painting bad images of Mormons for my wife to see. Good grief. Trust me, they need no help from me.

[_Kevin Graham]

I participated in the discussion too, and I don't think Loyd was off regarding O'Donnell's anti-Mormonism. I also don't think he likes to back down from an argument.

The interesting thing about all this is that there was no argument. He asserted and I merely asked him what bothered him so much about the commentary, since he believed it was all truthful. His response was that he didn't like the "tone." OK, well, if that's it, then he needs to really get a grip on reality. Tone is in the eye of the beholder and so you can't't really argue beyond this point. His perspective seems to be based on an unawareness that this was first and foremost a political commentary. This is what we see day and night on these TV stations. In my view, O'Donnell was rather even handed given previous attacks on Obama's minister. He did his job. He reported on a controversial issue related to a Presidential candidate and he allowed both sides to say their piece; he made sure the LDS Church got their word of defense in, which is what he is supposed to do. He didn't pass judgment one way or the other. He presented the facts and let the audience interpret it as they will. It seemed to me that Loyd was overreacting, expecting the Mormon Church to get a free pass, or maybe thinking people in the real world give a crap about being called "anti-Mormon." This doesn't have any power outside the LDS mind.

Typically you don't see the media go after the Church on issues like this, and if this piece had appeared out of the blue and had no connection to Romney or the election season, then I could see how he'd be wondering why this guy is talking about it at all. But given the context, it is to be expected. And you can expect much, much more the closer we get to the election.

The two of us have gotten in plenty of our own. I responded to Kevin's request for specification of what O'Donnell said that was incorrect, but I stopped following the discussion shortly after that, and I didn't see comments about Kevin's wife. I don't agree with including anyone's family in that kind of rhetoric, and Loyd has since said that he's embarrassed with his behavior.

Well, then I guess ldsfaqs must feel now like an idiot if Loyd was willing finally to admit he is embarrassed by his behavior. This is the first time I've been online since posting this thread and apparently he erased all the comments on Facebook, so I never saw his change of heart.

I found the comment rather misleading that Wiesel's name was on a list of names scheduled for baptism after his death. It appears his name was just accidentally entered in a genealogical database in a field for deceased persons, and when it was pointed out that he was still alive, the error was fixed.

Come on, we both know the Church is never going to be able to live up to its promise of neglecting to baptize every person who is Jewish. There is no reason to believe it has any intentions of doing so either. The gripe was legit. The Church promised to refrain from doing this, and then it got caught doing it again. Obviously there were no efforts made by the Church to refrain from baptizing dead Jews. That would be a nightmare trying to filter all those names.

Loyd also posted this clip from YouTube, which pretty clearly shows that O'Donnell is quite enamored with the standard anti-Mormon rants, and is pretty belligerent about it:

Oh? Why can't it be just a case where he was invited to appear on a show designed for heated debate, and the host asked him to comment on Romney's religious speech? These kinds of things are what drive ratings.

The first thing he got wrong was his comment about blacks not being allowed to be in the Church until 1978 (no mention of priesthood), but for our race-conscious society, this is a really distinction without much of a difference. He also probably got confused by mentioning Joseph Smith's name instead of Brigham Young's. Wrong to be sure, but the point I think still stands. The Church does have a history of racism. Romney doesn't want to address these issues. He does wish he could just cruise along without having to answer for them. And Romney's tactic is brilliant. He talks about the "faith of his fathers" as if we're supposed to believe he's only a Mormon out of loyalty to his family heritage, not because he necessarily believes all the controversial doctrines therein. I've never once heard a Mormon get up at a podium and explain his membership in the CHurch in the context of it being the "religion of my fathers." Why doesn't he be honest and bear his testimony the way he does during sacrament meeting? Why doesn't he tell the world that he knows this is the only true CHurch, that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet, that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, etc etc? Isn't that what Mormons are commanded to do, testify when they have the opportunity? Well, Romeny has a wider audience than any Mormon alive right now, and he is completely screwing it all up for the Church and instead seeking out what's best for his personal ambitions.

[_maklelan]

The interesting thing about all this is that there was no argument.

Not in the technical sense, no, but obviously there was a contradiction and no one wanted to back down.

He asserted and I merely asked him what bothered him so much about the commentary, since he believed it was all truthful. His response was that he didn't like the "tone." OK, well, if that's it, then he needs to really get a grip on reality. Tone is in the eye of the beholder and so you can't't really argue beyond this point. His perspective seems to be based on an unawareness that this was first and foremost a political commentary. This is what we see day and night on these TV stations. In my view, O'Donnell was rather even handed given previous attacks on Obama's minister. He did his job. He reported on a controversial issue related to a Presidential candidate and he allowed both sides to say their piece; he made sure the LDS Church got their word of defense in, which is what he is supposed to do. He didn't pass judgment one way or the other.

I don't think this is accurate. He was quite clearly passing judgment.

He presented the facts and let the audience interpret it as they will.

I disagree.

It seemed to me that Loyd was overreacting, expecting the Mormon Church to get a free pass, or maybe thinking people in the real world give a crap about being called "anti-Mormon." This doesn't have any power outside the LDS mind.

Typically you don't see the media go after the Church on issues like this, and if this piece had appeared out of the blue and had no connection to Romney or the election season, then I could see how he'd be wondering why this guy is talking about it at all. But given the context, it is to be expected. And you can expect much, much more the closer we get to the election.

Well, then I guess ldsfaqs must feel now like an idiot if Loyd was willing finally to admit he is embarrassed by his behavior. This is the first time I've been online since posting this thread and apparently he erased all the comments on Facebook, so I never saw his change of heart.

Come on, we both know the Church is never going to be able to live up to its promise of neglecting to baptize every person who is Jewish. There is no reason to believe it has any intentions of doing so either. The gripe was legit.

Concern with the mistake is legit, but the mistake was intentionally misrepresented. Wiesel could not have been on any list as "ready to baptize." That his name was there is just obviously a mistake. As the rep from the church stated, had the form gone through the whole process with the mistake, the name would have been rejected.

The Church promised to refrain from doing this, and then it got caught doing it again. Obviously there were no efforts made by the Church to refrain from baptizing dead Jews. That would be a nightmare trying to filter all those names.

I agree with the final sentence, but the notion that the occasional slipping through of a name indicates there were "no efforts" is another misrepresentation. The church has made clear that steps have been taken.

Oh? Why can't it be just a case where he was invited to appear on a show designed for heated debate, and the host asked him to comment on Romney's religious speech? These kinds of things are what drive ratings.

All the signs of anti-Mormonism were there. He got belligerent about the rote and inaccurate gripes (blacks not allowed in the church until 1978? This is stuff you find on bad anti-Mormon websites) and when mitigating facts were pointed out he just abandoned it to move on to another. I don't understand why you feel it necessary to try to deny that this guy is an anti-Mormon.

The first thing he got wrong was his comment about blacks not being allowed to be in the Church until 1978 (no mention of priesthood), but for our race-conscious society, this is a really distinction without much of a difference.

I disagree entirely.

He also probably got confused by mentioning Joseph Smith's name instead of Brigham Young's. Wrong to be sure, but the point I think still stands. The Church does have a history of racism. Romney doesn't want to address these issues. He does wish he could just cruise along without having to answer for them. And Romney's tactic is brilliant. He talks about the "faith of his fathers" as if we're supposed to believe he's only a Mormon out of loyalty to his family heritage, not because he necessarily believes all the controversial doctrines therein. I've never once heard a Mormon get up at a podium and explain his membership in the CHurch in the context of it being the "religion of my fathers." Why doesn't he be honest and bear his testimony the way he does during sacrament meeting?

Because it's a presidential campaign, not a fast and testimony meeting.

Why doesn't he tell the world that he knows this is the only true CHurch, that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet, that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, etc etc? Isn't that what Mormons are commanded to do, testify when they have the opportunity?

Not really, but the shape of the testimony is nowhere legislated.

Well, Romeny has a wider audience than any Mormon alive right now, and he is completely screwing it all up for the Church and instead seeking out what's best for his personal ambitions.

No Mormon in political office is responsible for manipulating his office in that way, and the suggestion that they are is reprehensible.