I was going to say something

about this post,

but Sarahcuda already beat me to it. I can't improve on that, really.

Just admit it Kevin.

You'd rather not be at church, and you think Apostle Dallin H. Oaks is full of crap. Your basic thesis seems to be that church would be a lot better without that whole "church" thing.

There used to be a time when what you do would be called rude.

May your ward members be more charitable toward your failings than you are to theirs.

Delete from Your Bookmarks

Let me just recognize that the Bloggernacle is a mingling of self-absorption and egos gone wild. Seeing posts that are actually designed to help people live the gospel and do charitable service would shock pretty much everyone (and then they would retreat to the safety of posts about how much better they are than the average Mormon). Like it or not, that’s the way it is overall. There are, however, a few topics that find too much play that have little to do with the Gospel whatsoever. Here are my top picks:

1. Why the average Mormon is wrong about the interpretation of Scripture.

2. gaymarriageabortionpropeightsarahpalinweworshipobamainsteadofjesusdeathtoscouting

3. Look at how nuanced I am! I'm so nuanced! (Cue comments: It's amazing how nuanced you are! Followed by Steve Evans banning anyone who points out the emperor has no clothes).

4. Graduate students who accept any form of government welfare will burn in hell. (Of course, being a bigoted and judgmental jerk gets you a ticket to the Celestial Kingdom).

5. Let's speculate wildly in our zeal without knowledge about (the next apostle, multiple mortal probations, the second coming, etc.)

This is only a start, but if the Bloggernacle would abandon posts like these, it would be an infinitely better place (of course, that would require permafrosters and comet-taters to be self-aware and willing to improve themselves, rather than constantly acting like dogs returing to their own vomit.)

Apparently, Christ was neither ethical nor loving.

There's nothing too objectionable about this post, other than some vague self-righteous posturing and the problem of treating McConkie as the final authority on doctrine (but hey - better McConkie, who was actually an Apostle, then any of the lowlights in the 'Nacle who think they should be Apostles).

However, this comment was particularly interesting:

vegetarianism as a higher, healthier, more economical, ethical, and loving dietary choice

Someone better tell Jesus about that! He ate fish all the time! He even ate fish after being resurrected!!! (Luke 24:40 - 43). How dare he not follow the more ethical and loving way. Shame on him!

Dave asks the hard question.

That is an excellent question, Dave.

The answer is simple, of course. Acknowledging comment #11 would mean everyone would have to re-examine their preconceptions using actual facts. No one in the Bloggernacle is mentally equipped to do that.

Nope, it's better to let everyone jump in, build their bunkers, and start lobbing bombs at whatever hobby horses take their fancy (Look at me - I can mix metaphors with the best of 'em!).

Comment #11 should be ashamed for thinking anyone at Testy & Stormy would care about the actual facts when there were (meaningless) points to be scored and (pointless) agendas to be furthered.

“Subject to information”

My mission president once said (paraphrasing) that I should get off my lazy butt and do some actual missionary work. But that's neither here nor there, since I was in a coma at the time, with all my limbs broken, but he thought I was faking it to get out of proselyting. Uhm - Where was I? . . . oh, yes: I now believe that bloggers in the 'Nacle dwarf politicians in their ability to misinform, deceive, and be overly self-absorbed narcissists.

I believe the following are absolutely true, and if you disagree with me, you're going to hell. There's nothing I can do about that. You'll just have to change your views.

1. My positions and ideas reflect an enlightened and well-considered view of reality, which causes me to despise my fellow humans.

2. My views arise from my capacity for accurate cynicism; opposing views arise from people’s capacity for self-deception.

3. I use all available tools for evaluating an issue (screwdriver, power drill, hacksaw, concrete shoes and a large body of water), while the people I disagree with rely mainly on the self-serving views of whatever 'Nacle clique they belong to.

4. LDS people don’t know what it means to follow the prophet.

5. The Church would be better off without members.

6. The Church’s position on homosexuality is founded on God.

7. Homosexuality is, and is therefore disapproved of by God.

8. An attitude of obedience and indifference to Church leaders is chosen by me - I do both at the same time.

9. Gay marriage is the most immediate threat to the existence of gravity. If Prop. 8 hadn't passed, we'd all be floating up towards the moon. Trust me on this.

10. The Church’s position on gay marriage is founded in the same kind of ignorance that informed Joseph Smith when he went into the grove to pray.

11. Every member of the Bloggernacle should be enlisted to stop talking about Prop. 8.

Seriously people. Give it a rest.

Julie Smith is a racist

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Julie Smith is a racist (her hatred toward Palin has also been an ugly, vile thing to behold, but that's a separate but related issue).

She's trying to cover for herself, though. Notice her most recent link on the T&S sidebar.

Sorry, Julie. Accusing others of being racist does not absolve you of your own bigotry.

Please, behave better than we have.

This is rich.

Ronan, over at Bizarro Control Central pleads with conservative Mormons to behave.

Yes. Behave. Because Ronan and the other folks at BCC have spent the last several years as such models of decorum. They've really set the bar high, and those who voted for McCain will really have to work hard to make sure they can meet the high standards set by Ronan and his ilk.

That's one good thing about Obama's win: Ronan and the others at BCC can stop embarrassing us.

That's it. I'm voting for Cynthia McKinney!

Cynthia McKinney for President!

This is a twofer - I don't have to vote for Obama, but I won't be a Bradley effect racist and I'll help make ESO's hospital stay as unfun as possible.

I just got off the phone with Steve Young

This is all over the 'Nacle, so there's no need to link to any specific site or post.

But Steve just told me over the phone "Well, I'm actually voting yes on Prop. 8. The sign was just to prevent vandalism to my house. Everyone knows I'm a Mormon, and if I didn't have the 'No on 8' sign up, I fear for what might have happened."

But Learning French is hard!

Dave has sound advice at the end of this post.

But based on the comments, those who disagree are just too lazy to learn French.

Dang Darn Heck Frak Flip Fetch Fargo

And now for a high culture break. Here is a portion of that immortal Mormon Classic, The Mormon Rap:

I'm a fine young man,
I'm living clean,
Don't smoke, don't drink,
If you know what I mean.
Don't touch Soda Pop if
It has caffeine,
You might say I'm
a good little Sunbeam.
I didn't even date,
Until I turned 16,
I don't even know
The meaning of the word obscene.
Flipp'n, fetch'n, scruddle-dee-me,
jimminy cricket, and fiddledy-dee!

Hopefully, that, along with the post title, will be enough to merit condemnation from these commentators at Tired and Seasoned.

Stalin on SNL.

Stalin once tried to have a Soviet version of Saturday Night Live, but every time a joke fell flat, he executed half the cast.

Oh, wait.  That's not funny.

Way to go Dan the Lame Democrat.  Your insanity knows no bounds.  And smiley faces don't make everything all right.  

Mormons must not believe in the Bible.

Kevin Barney says they do, but based on the comments on this thread, they don't.

I mean, the Bible says we are to love one another, be forgiving and charitable, and avoid judging others. Since the Mormons at BCC do none of that, it's quite clear they don't believe in the Bible - or at least, they don't believe the stuff taught by that Jesus guy.

Who is JA?

I've decided that I'm JA.

It's quite clear. Look at the number of times I've posted on something, only to have JA post a snark about the same item within a day or two:

Here:

http://bloggernaclecorrelation.blogspot.com/2008/10/thread-that-wouldnt-die.html

http://trashcalls.blogspot.com/2008/10/methusaleh-of-bloggernacle.html

Here:

http://bloggernaclecorrelation.blogspot.com/2008/09/julie-m-smith-scares-me.html

http://trashcalls.blogspot.com/2008/09/scaredy-cat-thy-name-is-woman.html

And here:

http://bloggernaclecorrelation.blogspot.com/2008/09/and-answer-is.html

http://trashcalls.blogspot.com/2008/09/mormons-unfunny.html

Clearly, I'm stealing from myself. By doing this post, I've only done it in reverse, as JA noticed Connor's paranoia fest before I did.

The Thread That Wouldn't Die

It's a Zombie thread now, because it clearly eats brains.

The proof is that no one on this thread has said anything remotely intelligent, so I figure the undead spirit that is animating it has eaten all their brains.

Seriously - the whole thing is an exercise in trying to excuse Devyn S.'s bigoted, anti-Christian, and judgmental attitude (the best part is when he starts telling commentators to stop being so judgmental when they point out how judgmental he is. Mote - beam, etc. You know the drill).

The rambling, shambling corpse of a thread should have collapsed under its own weight and putrescence a long time ago. I'm guessing Devyn is some sort of satanic necromancer - it's the only way he could keep something this evil alive for so long.

BRAINS!!! MUST EAT BRAINS OF BLOGGERNACLE!!!

I wasn't aware that Blogging was equivalent to a church calling.

In fact it isn't. This actually explains a lot, though. Permafrosters at BCC and elsewhere have apparently convinced themselves that the Bloggernacle is a ward and they all hold callings. Apparently, blogging about inane topics and getting into self-righteous oneupmanship in comment threads counts as magnifying your calling.

My guess is, the bishopric in the Bloggernacle ward are Steve Evans, Kaimi, and Kevin Barney. Adam Greenwood in nursery leader. Ardis is the Relief Society president, but ECS is so sure that it should be her and is busy trying to create a separate following through her book club.

Well, frankly, they should all go out and actually magnify their real church callings (if they have any - I can see why a smart Bishop or SP would avoid giving a calling to someone who would rather blog than help with the Boy Scout camping trip). The Bloggernacle is not a substitute for actual service in the Gospel, and I doubt that God will accept "complete works of my comments and posts at BCC" as an excuse when asked why the widows went unvisited and the orphans were unfed.

And Julie Smith is the Ward Librarian, of course.

Who is Correlation?

Very simple. I am.

End of Line.

(Also, some people are under the impression I'm supposed to be funny. Sorry, but the problem is with your expectations, not my performance. I'm not real, so I don't care).

Correlation IS Causation.

Why?

Because I am Correlation Personified, and I say so. Consider the following statistics:

1. 80% of Bloggernacle participants are hard core liberals.

2. 9 out of 10 Mormon liberals eventually leave the church.

3. Members in distant countries don't give a crap about endless 'Nacle bickering over stupid North American cultural debates and how they relate to the Gospel.

Thus, the Bloggernacle is a breeding ground that encourages apostasy and insularity.

The Bloggernacle is spiritual junk food, there are no real friendships, and it takes time away from fulfilling your calling. Stay away for your own good.

QED and all that. Blah, blah, blah.

[No, I have no mandate to actually make sense, be consistent, or use real statistics. Why do you ask?]

Good luck with that, Ivan

M* doesn't number their comments, so it's hard to link to specific ones, but read through this thread to get the context. While Mike Parker shows that he is on the verge of "going to spam," Ivan's final response to Mike is even better: "I promise to ignore you from here on out."

That's the ticket. If someone provides inconvenient facts or disagrees with you, just ignore them. Good luck with that in the rest of your life. Boss tells you to shape up? Just ignore him! Wife wants you to do the laundry? Just ignore her! Kids become teenagers? Just ignore them!

Let me know how that works out for ya, man.

Why Nine Moons?

Considering how much he kisses up to Steve Evans, it's amazing MCQ gets a perma spot over at the purgatory of Nine Moons. If M* didn't exist, Nine Moons would be the target of all the snark about being a anemic group blog.

Really, why Nine Moons? BCC really should have rewarded MCQ's constant sycophancy with a perma spot. But perhaps Steve and Co. prefer to keep it in the comments, where it helps them feel better about their own posts. I guess once a week posts about how great BCC is would be too meta even for them.

You lost me at "subverts social hierarchies and rejects established power structures"

How can you tell J. Nelson-Seawright's latest post is intended to ingratiate himself among the Bloggernacle intelligentsia rather than make a significant point about a controversial topic?

The phrase "subverts social hierarchies and rejects established power structures." At that point, 99% of the membership (if they even got that far) would roll their eyes and go do something more important like help the widow down the street clean her rain gutters.

The entire post can be summarized thus: "Look how cool and nuanced I am. Please lavish praise upon me. I crave your approval."

[Notice how they call Adam un-Christlike because Adam actually espouses the church's position. Then they ban him when he calls them on it. Now, Adam is quite bizarre, I grant you (though not nearly as bizarre as anon-Dan-spam the lame Democrat), but he deserves better. Actually, now that I think about it, he doesn't.]

Julie M. Smith Scares Me.

She belongs to a violent church that was involved in a horrific massacre.

She drives like a madwoman.

She reads softcore p*rn.

She eats too much junk food.

All that and she's a racist: she's compared a black man to a donkey.

Like, I said. Scary.

(If you think my post is unfair: Well, I extend to her the same amount of charity she's willing to extend to a certain female politician).

And the answer is:

Well, most active, believing Mormons have a nice sense of humor. However, the humorless dolts who make up the self-important Bloggernacle have no real sense of humor - just their unholy pride (especially given the lame attempts to make some funny in the comments. Thanks all, you just proved my point).

So, depending on the "we" the answer can be yes or no. "We" = Mormons, than we are funny. We = Cool Kids Clique known as the Bloggernacle, the answer is "no, we're not funny" (because real humor requires self-awareness, a trait lacking in the rarefied stench of the 'Nacle).

Dan and DKL deserve each other.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
(scroll down and read comments #82 & 86).

DKL has (finally) threatened to ban Dan the lame Democrat. anon-Dan-spam declares he no longer has any love for DKL's blog (as if he ever did).

Whatever. They're like crack addicts. They need each other. Their rudeness, lack of respect for other commentators and each other, and general air of incivility only increases the more they battle.

Go to MM and read the last few posts on politics. Read Dan and DKL's comments (Notice the swearing in particular).

They deserve each other. Please, DKL - don't ban Dan! And Dan - don't leave MM! Where else will I go to entertain myself by watching two guys self-destruct as they attack each other in ever more meaningless ways?

Julie Smith proves that Mormons aren't Christian!

First, she links the sidebar at T&S to a rather innocuous video, with the phrase "Sarah Palin scares me." When called on it over at M*, (read the comments, which M* doesn't have individual links for) she declares that Palin's beliefs "speak to a worldview that scares the daylights out of me."

Now, Julie claims that Palin said it was "God’s work to build a pipeline, God’s work to be in Iraq" - but that's disingenuous and dishonest of Julie. What Palin really said was more along the lines of "we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God’s plan" in regards to Iraq and the Pipeline, etc.

In other words, a rather boilerplate, generic declaration that we pray that whatever happens, it be God's will.

That is such a basic Christian sentiment, regardless of your politics. The only people who should be scared by such innocuous and generic "not our will but thine be done" prayifying are those who don't share such a worldview.

In other words, non-Christians. Well, Julie just proved she isn't a Christian. In fact, those Christians scare her, what with their belief in God and hope that, whatever happens, it works to fulfill his will.

And since Julie is a Mormon, this proves that Mormons aren't Christian after all.

I Would Read Nine Moons If They Didn’t Make Me Puke

I was considering just posting this at on a thread on their blog, but you know, I can't. At some point in the past, I kind sorta enjoyed Nine Moons, but a question keeps popping in my head: What happened to this once marginally passable blog?

So, why will I no longer read Nine Moons?

1. Their own God

When Nine Moonies talk about God, it's generally not any God that normal members of the church would recognize. They might as well start their own sect. I could see a Church of Jesus Christ (Nine Moons).

2. The Blog First.

Really, doesn't it seem their real loyalty is to their blog and not the Lord's church? They're like 4 year olds who love their mommies without any critical discernment. Everything their blog does is great, all of their opinions are amazing and well thought out, and they can do no wrong (in their immature eyes, that is).

3. Lack of posting

Basically, if I check in once every three months, everything new will still be on the front page.

Actually, that a good thing, now that I think about. Everyone in the 'Nacle should follow this example and post less. In fact, they should all go the extra mile in this and not post at all. Their families and the poor and needy of the earth need them.

BCC permabloggers can be real @$$holes sometimes

With this post, BCC has finally made it rather clear that they really don't want most normal members of the church around. When you start putting profanity in your post titles, it's clear you really just want to offend people rather than engage in substantive dialogue.

Now, BCC has always claimed they just want to create a space for discussion on various issues, but it's become clear they just like offending people. They likely don't even believe most of what they write (need I say Banner of Heaven?)

Someone needs to wash out Kevin Barney's mouth with some soap. What's next? Kaimi posting on his "Mormons are like manure" insight, only instead of manure he uses the more "earthy" four letter word? He's likely already done that over with his left-the-church-in-all-but-name friends over at FLAK. Doing at BCC wouldn't be that much of a stretch.

(Yeah, yeah Kevin kinda sorta apologizes at the end of the post, but his heart isn't in it. He really just wants kudos about his daring and willingness to shock from the cool kids in the BCC clique. His post just shows that he is one of those cool kids on the net and he wants average, obedient members of the church - he's more nuanced than them anyway - to cower behind a metaphorical rack of clothes at the gaudy, overpriced mall known as the Bloggernacle.)

UPDATE: The expletive has been removed, but Kevin remains unapologetic. He even says "I don't in any way regret using such strong language." See, getting accolades from his buddies in the cool kids clique is more important than, y'know, being civil and all that. Civility is for the unnuanced, unthinking average members of the church, after all.

Dan has finally gone to spam.

Actaully, I have no idea what that phrase might mean, but what (or where) ever "going to spam" is, I think it makes a great description of Dan "the lame democrat."
[Go here and scroll down to comment #12 to see the fun].

At least Dan is admitting he's "gone to spam."

In fact, I propose a new Bloggernacle term: "Gone to Spam" is to be used whenever someone's bizarre and bitter partisan mindset causes them to go so insane that nearly everyone, even those who agree with them, calls them on it (really - check all the threads on Sarah Palin on Mormon Mentality. If Dan hadn't started ranting and raving like a rabid madman - though this is par for Dan's course - the threads would be 90% shorter - and everyone is calling him on it).

Under this description, Adam Greenwood has gone to spam a few times (though he comes back), and Bloggernacle Times got shut down because it went to spam. Heck, FMH basically started out in spam and only became spammier since then.

Note to Devyn S.

I think a sentiment like this means you won't have to worry very much, since the sealing only applies to those who make it to the Celestial Kingdom.

And if you don't want to hang out with those who make it to the Celestial Kingdom, well there are three other places you can go where families won't be together forever. It seems those places will be more to your liking.

Kevin Barney sets himself up as a light unto the benighted members of the church

Kevin Barney's latest, correlated into one sentence. "I'm Smarter, more educated, and all around a better person than the majority of people who actually keep the commandments and believe what the church teaches."

Don't believe me? Think it's unfair? Then I'll use Barney's own words. His thesis boils down to this one sentence: "my belief is more nuanced and complicated than the average orthodox member’s belief."

The average, obedient, hard-working, believing member is nothing (NOTHING, I tell you) compared to Barney's amazing awesomeness.

Just keep that in mind. Keep patting yourself on the back on how classy you are, Kevin.

Kaimi at the Final Judgment.

God: What part of "no tea" don't you understand?

Kaimi: But Green Tea is to Black Tea like grape juice is to wine. And grape juice is okay.

God: When I say no tea, I mean no tea.

Kaimi: But what about chamomile tea?

God: There's no tea there, so it's not tea.

Kaimi: But what about nuance? Things aren't always so clear cut. You said "hot drinks" - so Iced Green Tea was fine.

God: When I had my servants say "no tea" - I meant "no tea." I am allowed to clarify the meaning of scripture through the pronouncements of the prophets.

Kaimi: But it's so obvious that things aren't clear cut and black and white when it comes to tea.

God: Damned lawyers. And I mean that in the most literal sense. Enjoy your stay in hell, Kaimi.
------

My comment to Kaimi: No tea means no tea, not "here's why I'm more clever than God."

Mark Brown proposes shutting down Bloggernacle

But instead, he settles for lots of in-jokes and general silliness.

Notice how the worst offenders (the ones whose obsessions show they ignore the Maxwell quote *cough*MargaretYoungSteveEvans*cough*) make the silliest comments. The truth hurts, so they attempt to laugh it away.

Too bad. Mark had a good point, but then, unlike Jamie Huston, he's not a prophet.

Blog Readers - you have the freedom to stop reading!

Just a self-righteous thought this evening: Not finishing a blog post can be a liberating experience. When you're reading a post that increasingly implicates everyone who enjoyed The Dark Knight as depraved, cold hearted sinners, or otherwise as dark, benighted souls -well, you don't have to stay there and encourage them in their joyless decrepitude. Once you realize you're reading someone's attempt to prove they are among the chosen few who see through to the ugliness and filth inherent in the soul of all Batman fans, you don't have to sit there and read dozens more commentators jump in and agree. It's OK to say, "This is stupid. I'd rather go read something like Bloggernacle Correlation."

Is M* actually on to something?

Considering the amount of undeserved snark BCC and T&S are giving to a recent post at M* - I figure this Bryce guy is actually on to something. Anyone who can inspire vapid ad hominem attacks from those benighted sources must have something to say.

So, I decided to read the M* post.

Nope, Bryce has nothing interesting to say. Of course, the wannabe snarker-types at BCC and T&A (oops, I mean T&S - I was confused by Adam's latest post) clearly haven't actually read Bryce either. If so, they wouldn't have linked to him in the first place.

Watch them all drown together.

And so it ... what?

Kaimi actually posts at T&S!

If you can call the cut and pasting of an e-mail "posting."

It's clear where Kaimi devotes most of his actual effort. T&S just gets the sloppy seconds.

Soon, T&S will be like M*. Forgotten, as the more popular (though not really any better) bloggers go elsewhere.

Ask Mr. Screwtape! 7/3

Dear Mr. Screwtape,

The main problem I have with these Bloggernacle types, is that despite their grumping, whining, and complaining, they are all quite dedicated to the *shudder* true Church. They may disagree with the leaders, but in the end, they are committed more to the teachings of our great Enemy than any of the secular, worldly ideas I've managed to get them interested in. How do I break through this?

Sincerely,
Wumpawumpauwumpadoo

Dear Wumpawumpauwumpadoo,

It's easy. You have to dilute their commitment to the bad news of the Gospel by adding to it. These Bloggernacle types love to "add" to their knowledge. The phrase "further light and knowledge" confuses many of them to think that all knowledge automatically equals light.

As I told my dearly delicious nephew Wormwood once:

What we want . . . is to keep them in the state of mind I call "Christianity And". You know — Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and the New Psychology, Christianity and the New Order, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring.

Therefore, take their commitment to Mormonism, and get them to mix it up with some other thing. Don't try to replace Mormonism with some new thing - you'll usually lose on that one. Instead, get them to mix Mormonism with Marxism, or Constitutional Law, or Blind Patriotism, or Soft Socialism, or Goth Culture, or Catholicism, or Transcendentalism, or Science Fiction, or
Feminism, or Self-Righteous Radicalism, or - well, you get the idea.

Nearly all the above examples serve well, to varying degrees. Make sure they confuse some other principle as such an integral part of their religion that it's more important than any other element. Then, let them continue on as "Mormon feminists" or "Mormon socialists" or "Mormon patriots" rather than merely "Mormons" and watch the slowly verge off the narrow path onto the broad one.

Sincerely yours,
Screwtape.

Steve EM is back!

Aaagh!

I thought he had abandoned the larger Bloggernacle for his own private world or something. OF course, at M*, hardly anyone will notice that he's back.

I'll do this in advance, so that I never have to pay attention to him again. Every Steve EM post/comment ever, correlated: "I am completely, 111%, bat$#!+ insane."

To quote Master Control: End of Line.

(I hope Steve EM never discovers this blog).

Correlation is almost too easy.

1. From BCC: Hi. I'm Kaimi, and because I'm more liberal than the average Mormon, I'm also smarter. Look at this guy - he's stupid because he's conservative. Remember kids, liberal = smart and compassionate. Conservative = stupid and uncaring. Yeah this guy is more articulate than most, but I'm going to mock him for not being as politically correct as I am, which means I am more (self-)righteous than him.

2. From (anti-?)Mormon Matters: Ouch. The church actually believes it's own theology. Well, here's a lot of self-serving, conspiratorial comments from two trolls (Nick Literski and some loser calling himself "conservative member"). The comments can be summed up as thus: Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. However, that's par for the course. There's no particular humor in pointing that out. Read it all for yourself. It's all quite funnier than any snark about it I could come up with.

3. From T&S: I hate Bush and Cheney. Really, really hate them. It's rather pathological, actually. I think I'll exploit the suicide of an obviously mentally ill woman for political tragedy, then claim I'm not doing anything political at all (and threaten to censor those who try to point that out).

[Memo to Julie: McCain is not Bush, and McCain is more opposed to torture than most Democrats, having been tortured himself for various years. The wilful ignorance of liberals knows no bounds.]

BCC = Bizarro Control Central

Where else would Will "I Hate Brigham Young" Bagley's most sarcastic, mean-spirited post yet get rave reviews about his his civil and moderate tone from J. Stapley and Bill MacKinnon.

What next? Bagley will probably accusse them of killing puppies in the service of their dark gods, and they will still kiss up to him and praise him for his candor.

Actually, that might explain a few things about BCC . . . (the puppies, that is).

If M* fell in a forest, would the Ents weep?

Probably not.

(Even when breaking the sabbath in Yellowstone).

Notice how, when a new post goes up, they get five or six comments from the regulars, but that's about it. Most of their permabloggers don't even comment on each other's posts.

Correlation - Juvenile Instructor Made Me Puke

Dangnabbit. I’m struck dumb, and therefore must write. This is a real post from Juvenile Instructor that is still listed on their front page. Click on the link to see that Joel pretty much buys into the radical, liberal, anti-democratic socialism they're selling on campus theses days. He actually believes that his fellow socialists in training are "making the world a better place through their research and writing". He seems to be operating out a nineteenth century Marxist vuew, whether he knows it or not.

Now, I’m not sure what his point is, other than that he actually holds open the possibility he could lose his religious faith merely because it might cause to much cognitive dissonance with his true first loyalty. Rather than realize that his fellow historians are in fact working to make the world a more Balkanized place (with plenty of restrictions on free speech a la Canada) where conservatives are treated as social pariahs and only mushy mainstream religion with few actual beliefs can be tolerated - well, Joel just keeps on believing there's something to turning academics into activism,. and that his religion may not be as important as what his fellow radicals preach.

Hasn't he read Stanly Fish's debunking of the whole sordid thing? He and his fellow historians should heed its title's advice: Save the World on Your Own Time!

I'm sorry, Mark

But your entire post is a straw man of epic proportions.

(for those who don't get the joke, background here).

This week's Correlated Post: Brad is smarter than Jesus.

Jesus told some great stories, but he had no clue what they really meant.

See, when Jesus told his disciples (in Matthew 13):

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

He was lying. And that allegorical interpretation he gave in verses 18 - 24? Jesus was wrong about that as well. In fact, when he gives some more parables and then treats them as allegories? Man that Jesus fellow had no clue what he was saying. Instead, listen to Brad as he gives us the truth:

The second tendency we have that limits our reading of the parables is the assumption that parable = allegory. I believe there are certain shortcomings to such an approach. For one thing, it presupposes Jesus speaking coded riddles to hearers . . . more significantly, such a reading pushes to the margins the likely experience the people who heard the Savior teach, their understandings of a parable whose fabric was drawn from their own day-to-day lives, and, by implication, the meanings likely intended by the Master for His hearers.

See? The parables aren't allegories, and despite Jesus saying that he speaks in parables in order to hide their meaning from some of his audience (i.e. "coded riddles") - well, Jesus obviously hadn't thought about this as much as Brad had.

Of course, with an explanation that uses the phrase "governing imperatives and modalities of power are antithetical to those manifested" - you have to know that this Brad guy is clearly smarter than Jesus and knows more about the parables. Jesus used such simple, down to earth language, it's obvious he's not as learned as Brad. And we all know that being learned makes you wise, right?

Does Kaimi even post at T&S even more?

He's posting at FMH
(and proving he hasn't read Fast Food Nation, because if you've read that book, you know Jesus would strike you dead on the spot if you tried to give him a Cheeseburger)

He's posting at BCC
(and proving he really is a FLAKer, since it's clear he doesn't really believe the church's teachings on marriage)

But at T&S? Silence.

Is there a background purge going on? Is Adam Greenwood finally making his move, and soon he will dominate the blog? Or perhaps Kaimi's just bored hanging around with the moderates, and feels he needs to move closer to the DAMU.

(As for last week - no post, cause there was nothing worth correlating. I can only work with what y'all give me. Trust me - there will be a correlated post later this week!)

Correlation of all the Joseph Smith picture posts

Everybody's talking about it.

What is it? It's it.

Okay, enough with the Faith No More puns. It's the Joseph Smith photo. Of course, they all have it wrong. After an exhaustive Google search, I found the true and only photo of Joseph Smith, and it's a shocker!

Apparently Joseph Smith liked to dress in drag.

Hey! I did a Google search, so my findings must be right! This is the Internet era, and new technology trumps everything!

This week in Correlation: Reader Question about a Gopsel Paradox?

I just got an anonymous e-mail, asking me the following question:

I brought up something in church the other day, but they cast me out as a heretic, chasing me from the building with cries of "she's a witch! Burn her!" I escaped, but am still confused. Perhaps you can help:

1. God loves us all and wants us to return to the Celestial Kingdom.
2. BUT: After judgment, some of us will be assigned to the Terrestrial, and some to the Telestial, and a few benighted types will wind up in the place that must not be named. Not everyone gets to go Celestial.

OK, so loves me and my sister, how is it that my sister could go Celestial, whereas I might go Telestial? Does that mean God really didn't love me?

Doesn't love trump silly things like having to repent, after all?

New feature: Ask Mr. Screwtape!

Dear Mr. Screwtape:

I think the Bloggernacle is fertile ground for brining souls to our Father below. I was thinking that the current unpleasantness in Iraq might be a useful wedge issue to distract people from following the precepts of our Enemy. Do you have any advice?

--Mugglewumperid

Dear Mugglewumperid:

As I once told my delicious nephew Wormwood,

I had not forgotten my promise to consider whether we should make the patient an extreme patriot or an extreme pacifist. All extremes, except extreme devotion to the Enemy, are to be encouraged . . . Whichever he adopts, your main task will be the same. Let him begin by treating the Patriotism or the Pacifism as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely part of the "cause", in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce in favour of the British war-effort or of Pacifism. The attitude which you want to guard against is that in which temporal affairs are treated primarily as material for obedience. Once you have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing. Provided that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements, causes, and crusades, matter more to him than prayers and sacraments and charity, he is ours—and the more "religious" (on those terms) the more securely ours. I could show you a pretty cageful down here.

The same rules apply now, though I was discussing an earlier World War. In fact, several of my pupils already have several members of the Bloggernacle well down this path. (These links are only some of the more typical examples - these people are everywhere on the Bloggernacle). Most have not quite gotten all the way down the path, but they progress with every new post.

Notice how they begin by treating their specific views on the war as a integral part of their religion. Soon, under the influence of this partisan spirit, they will soon (some already have) come to regard it as the most important part. Eventually, politics will trump religion, and then we will have them. I suggest you study their work carefully and apply these techniques to whomever you have been charged with.

Affectionately Yours,

Screwtape.

This week's Correlated Post: Revisionist Writers of the Gospels?

Recently, a friend asked me for help in creating a lesson centered on Jesus. I decided to go back to the original source, the true and infallible Gospels, which were written by Christ's apostles during his ministry and therefore contain no errors. Or, at least, so I thought.

Now I don’t know about you but but if the writers of the Gospels were as infallible as I was taught, they should have been able to keep their stories straight. I went to the Gospel of Matthew, then the Gospel of Mark, followed by Luke and then John. I was shocked!

Matthew refers to Jesus as the Son of God. Luke calls him the Son of Man. John calls him the Word of God. And they can't even agree on when Jesus cleansed the temple. What kind of bizarre revisionism were the writers of the Gospel involved in? John's account clearly contradicts the other Gospel writers. I always thought that John was a little shady anyway, writing about himself in the third person and all that.

Frankly, there is no way to reconcile this. Which account, which will contradict other scripture no matter what, will become the standard? Are we uncomfortable with the idea that the names and dates that John used are now foreign to the other Gospels? Am I just straining at gnats and swallowing camels?

How do we handle John's clear contradictions with the other Gospels?

• Clark Goble answer: All the accounts are correct, in different parallel universes, based on the latest ideas in quantum mechanics.
• Kevin Barney answer: Look at how much I know about the original Greek texts! Here are a lot of big words that give context to the debate but otherwise don't actually answer the question!
• ECS Answer: Anyone who doesn't agree with me is evil!

View Results

A Correlated Comment

Sigh.  Don't you just hate it when an excellent a productive discussion loses its steam because overly sensitive PC commentators can't stand it when someone actually believes what the gospel teaches (instead of believing what the liberal orthodoxy demands)?  These unnecessary and inflammatory comments are out of place and derail an otherwise excellent post.

Steve Evans has banned me.

Boring.

Steve - try to do something unexpected for once.

Perhaps if I acted like MCQ and had my nose planted firmly between [redacted for the sensibility or our readers], I would instead become one of the in-crowd.  No matter.  The Correlator's job is a lonely, but vital one.  Still, Steve really needs to get a new bag of tricks. 

But then, he's Canadian, and free speech is an American value, not a Canadian one.

Relief Society Programs - You make the call!

You have recently been shamed into accepting a lowly calling to a position in the ward that requires your attendance at ward council (if they only recognized your true  talents, you'd be Bishop!) You just moved in six days ago, and one of the things you noticed right away is how people in the ward are busybodies who apparently have no leisure time and ignore their families in order to waste time at long meetings. You're already looking at a new residence in another state with fewer Mormons.

This Sunday the bishop has "asked" all auxiliaries to present an rather lengthy overview of their planned activities for the year, as well as an over-inflated budget number. It is no surprise that everyone seems to have graduated from an MBA program, what with PowerPoint presentations and spreadsheets ready to hand out to the members of the council (think of all the dead trees!). The sheet from the Relief Society president catches your eye because it contains pictures of scantily clad men and some very big . . . numbers. When it is his turn, she explains that plans are underway to take the women of the ward to Las Vegas to see "The Thunder From Down Under."  Because of the distance, they plan to fly there, and they also need extra gambling money, at $500 per day per participant. In round figures, the activity calls for about $300,000 to cover expenses for 30 women, or around $10,000 per head.

The Relief Society president assures the council that plans are well underway to raise all the money privately, and besides, if you criticize their decision, you're a patriarchal sexist enforcing codes of Victorian/Puritan morality on women who just want to have a good time. You have a regularly scheduled PPI with the bishop immediately after church today that you were planning on skipping so you could go fishing. Will you decide to go anyway and say something about the planned RS activity? Why or why not? If your answer is yes, what will you say?  And if you do, are you a misogynist pig with retrograde notions of female sexuality?