After the holidays, a re-purposed and re-pureed blog.

Not that much will change, but since Snark is now at the Snarkernacle, I have found a new purpose. But after the New Year.

Enjoy your holidays, you vile, evil sinners! :-)

(see, I put a smiley face after it so that makes it all right.)

I'm sorta kinda not really but yes in a way moving

I will not abandon this blog, but I am going to re-purpose it.

But otherwise, I have sold out. Snarking will continue over at Snarkernacle. Feel free to join us over there.

However, this blog isn't going away. I'm working on a different tack (or is it tact? or take? or torque?) for it.

Oh, Snappity snappy snap!

So, the new rage in the Bloggernacle is FALSE (or at least, greatly misunderstood).

Of course, that didn't stop lots of idiots proclaiming this meant President Monson was Democrat (because Republicans kick poor people for fun).

Ardis, though, said the wackiest thing. She dumped on those who say: "If charity is forced — whether extracted from us by a government or by the Church — it isn’t charity, it’s socialism."

Except no one says that. The Church cannot "extract" or "force" charity from us. It doesn't have the power to jail or shoot you if you fail to comply - the government does. Those who complain about socialism usually limit their complaints to the government. But Ardis is apparently a theocrat, believing that the Church is (or should) have the same power as the government. Either that, or she is more intellectually vapid than I thought (I used to think she was actually smart), she can't see the difference between the two, whereas her opponents can.

Next, she'll argue that people opposed to illegal immigration are opposed to all immigration or something.

UPDATE: At T&S they basically put their hands over their ears and scream "LA LA LA LA WE'RE NOT LISTENING! THERE IS SO A FOURFOLD PURPOSE." Amazingly, Kaimi is the voice of reason, pointing out that it just ain't so. But no one cares to listne. Dan and queuno are way too interested in trying to show that this shows the Church has suddenly lurched left (good luck with that and remember to dry yourselves off when you wake up) and everyone else is just plain weird in their insistence that it's a fourfould mission when the article linked to explicitly says the threefold remains the threefold and the rest are just additional "purposes" being emphasized.

An Open Letter to Times and Seasons

Given the recent press release and your own statement that "Times and Seasons is a place to gather and discuss ideas of interest to faithful Latter-day Saints", I'm requesting that you remove Kaimi and Julie from your list of permabloggers and ban them from the site, particularly in light of Kaimi's constant attacks on official church policy and his clearly stated non-belief in core Mormon doctrines and Julie's clear antagonism towards everyone who disagrees with her. Kaimi is neither faithful nor civil, and Julie is clearly not civil, though she can pass for faithful.

I question the propriety of T&S to continue to feature the writings of these two people. Actually, I don't, since it's clear the T&Sers are more interested in hating Glen Beck then doing actual church service.

No.

No.

Really does this even need to be debated? The people at BCC are less likely to be annoying or less likely to be "unable to conceptually distinguish between their own deeply-held political preferences and the doctrines of the LDS Church"?

Let's take a tour of people who are unable to conceptually distinguish between their own deeply-held political preferences and the doctrines of the LDS Church, shall we?

Exhibit A:

More fundamentally, approval voting is profoundly compatible with fundamental Mormon thought on agency . . . I believe that all U.S. Mormons have a duty to work to unseat the Republican congress in this year’s elections.

B:

The politics of the Book of Mormon are clearly to the left of today’s economic politics.

C:

Is this feature of our church’s institutional design justified by Mormon canonical scripture? Clearly, it is not.

D:

George W. Bush is not a man of God…at least not my God.

I could cite more, but that should be enough for today.

There are none so blind as those who will not see that they have no eyes to see something with . . . something something yadda yadda. The end.

Having an appearance of High Priestliness, but denying the power thereof.....

So, Kevin, you admit that you haven't been ordained a high priest yet. You claim it's no big deal. Whatever and all that. Of course, the last paragraph in your (travesty of a complete failure to have any self awareness) post reveals at least one reason you will likely not actually be ordained any time soon.

I hate Glen Beck. Hate him, hate him, hate him.

No, there is too much. Let me sum up:

I hate Glen Beck. Hate him, hate him, hate him. He has opinions that are different than mine and focuses on inconvenient facts I want to ignore and pretend don't exist. He's evil because he has different opinions than my enlightened view of the world. Heed my smug, self-righteous condemnation of those who speak truth to liberal power! [Commentators: Oh, how wise and wonderful of an enlightened white woman you are. We hate Beck too! Never mind we only know what Media Matters tells us about him! Fie on those facts of his!]

(I'd say Margaret should read this post at T&S, but she's too far gone. She's just condemning people straight to hell, rather than expressing concern for Beck's soul - the problems Nate Oman discusses would be a step up for her. Get over yourself, MJBY).

{Disclaimer: I never watch Beck. But based on who hates him, he must be pretty awesome. And regardless of what MJBY may do to discount it, Rev. Wright said a lot of damnable things. Funny - if Beck were to say the same things, that's all she'd talk about and insist it was part of a conservative pathology. But when it's someone connected to our Messiah-President, she insists its not that big of a deal}

I see your Godwin's law and raise you two other brutal dictators

Uhm, yeah, John Mansfield. Because vaguely acknowledging a basic fact of life (everyone dies at some point - well, I'm not too sure about the status of translated beings, but they're statistically insignificant) is similar to the slaughter of millions.

Yes, your first sentence acknowledges this, but the difference is one of kind, not degree, like you seem to think.

Gee whiz, you almost make the liberals over at BCC look reasonable. Well, that's impossible, but you're sure trying to do it anyway.

Well, he would know.

Brad, talking about what he knows best.

I mean, come on - it's been obvious to most of us for the last few years. The funny thing is, his "general theory of Apostasy" is an attempt to legitimize specific apostasy in the case of Brad. Once you get to the end, you realize he's basically saying anytime priesthood leaders criticize him, they're "abusive."

Trust us Brad, you're not fooling anyone. Your general theory sounds more like a lame attempt to de-legitimize valid criticism of your way too unorthodox beliefs before it even starts. Your attempt to frame it with love and charity at the end falls a bit too flat, since it's clear you're more concerned with those who criticize you, and I doubt you're going to stop propagating your apostasy anytime soon.

No one is righteous, but precious few drug little girls in order to [you know]

See, when Alma told his son that some sins are worse than others, and then condemned his son for sexual sins - well, it's a good thing that Alma's son wasn't matt b., or Alma may have gotten intellectually smacked down with an erudite version of "Well, you're a sinner too, dad. So don't judge me, man."

Matt b. in a rather long post at Juvey Hall. It takes him FOREVER to get to the point at the end:

But on the flip side, there’s a caution here for the rest of us as well; those of us who see in Polanski the sinner that we are not, those of us who equate religion with law and judge juridical faultlessness to be unblemished righteousness. Polanski’s demons rage inside each one of us,

Perhaps matt b. is hoping we won't notice what he just said.

While there's a germ of truth in this (we all have sinful desires) - frankly, Polanski's demons do not rage inside us. Matt b. seems to think having the temptation to tell a little white lie is the same as - well, this is a family blog. You can google what Polanski did if you must.

So, going by what matt b. argues, every time you break the speed limit, you're just as bad as Polanski. Well, no wonder everyone in Babylon is defending him. And Alma was wrong to do all that preaching repentance - he should have been more like matt b. and spent time searching his own soul to realize the same demons existed inside him. In fact, all the prophets and apostles should do the same. Then we can stop worrying about them telling us to improve.

Margaret Blair Young, all class

MBY bears testimony that the proof of God's existence is that Boyd K. Packer will not be the next prophet.

Heck, and it takes a non-Mormon to call her on it.

God is in charge apparently only when he does what MBY wants.

That is not dead which can eternal lie

I thought jr. ganymede's Lovecraft fetish was just a mildly amusing affectation. But then I realized Adam really is Cthulhu (and jr. ganymede is R'lyeh), with the power to make sure topics that should be dead and buried rise from the ocean of the internet and devour those who happen to be passing by in cyberspace.

Soon, we will all be driven mad by the comments! the comments! - the stygian comments of eldritch horrors. Soon we shall all surf out to that brooding blog on the net and comment through black abysses to Cyclopean and many-columned jr. ganymede, and in that lair of the Deep Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory for ever.

Mammon v. God

Kevin Barney's usual passive-aggressive approach to making sin seem acceptable has resulted in predictable comments.

The entire tenor of the comments in this thread can be summed up thusly: You can serve God and Mammon. An organization that supports the church's position, and one that actively fights against the church and its teachings - both are fine! You can serve two masters after all.

I can't decide which is worse

Terryl Givens declaring that selling your soul to Satan is actually an act of moral goodness and daring, or Daniel's theologically tone deaf rants about how evil Eve is (Givens misses the point that Eve did not sell her soul to the Devil, whereas Faust did. There's a big difference between transgressing and frickin' SELLING YOUR SOUL TO THE ADVERSARY OF ALL THAT IS GOOD! Daniel, on the other hand, apparently doesn't pay attention in church or General Conference).

Well, at least Terryl Givens is eloquent and well spoken. But then, the devil can be as well. So, perhaps Daniels inartistic-ness means he's less diabolical. Or not.

[Plus - the Mormon Reivew has Kaimi as an editor. I mean, what? That guy admittedly thinks the church is false and full of patriarchal bull[crap]. It seems like there should be some standards at the Review - like perhaps the editors shouldn't be actively working to undermine the General Authorities? But given that rambling, nonsensical article on Battlestar Galactica, they haven't exactly been off to an auspicious start].

Probably "I can't breathe in here! Get me out of this place."

I hate to speak ill of the dead, especially in the time between their death and funeral.

Ah, who am I kidding? I love to speak ill of the dead. I'm just like Geoff B. - I mean, there hasn't even been enough time to do the proper rituals to raise the Ted Kennedy from the grave and make him a flesh eating zombie, and Geoff, rather than let the family and friends mourn for a few days, decides it's time to make sure we all know just what a loser this guy was.

As soon as Geoff B. dies, you can expect this blog to do a post about that one time in Vegas (it involved Geoff B, a duck and two recently unemployed cab drivers) and all the times he refused to tip waitresses every time he ordered a sandwich.

Also, Geoff murders hobos. But I'll save the details until after he dies. Because, you know, I love to speak ill of the dead. The dead stink - they're dead after all. It's not like we believe the dead are aware of us and have a chance for redemption, right?

Beware the Illuminati!!!

Just when I thought the rhetoric amongst the right wingers on the 'Nacle could never get as crazy as the rhetoric amongst the left wingers during Bushitler the second's reign -

Well, it's not quite there, but give them time. Bookslinger gives us an early preview.

Of course, the left is still behaving badly - witness BCC using blatantly sexual terms to refer to citizens expressing their Constitutional rights. (Scroll down to the 18 Aug links). At least the right behaved itself during chimpymcbushitler II's term of office. The left is just acting crude.

[Yeah, yeah. I've been away, pursuing other career options - but I discovered unembodied beings can't really get hired. And I'm a little behind. Give me time to catch up].

5 days, 0 posts.

It's been over five years since they started. They've been moonshiners for many a year, apparently.

And about five days since this post.

They promised many more posts this month. I'm not holding my breath (that is, if I had a body and could breathe, I wouldn't hold my breath).

UPDATE: Six days later, they finally add a post. Whoa, baby! Slow down, you're going too fast for me to keep up! Man, at this rate, they'll - well they'll still have very little content posted at infrequent intervals. Sorry, first commentator below, but you'll have to try a little harder than that.

Best! Comment! Ever!

Yes, this crosses over with my last post, and I usually try not to snark/correlate the same (or mostly the same) people twice in a row, but Geoff B. over at M.C. Millenial and D.J. Star just posted the comment of the Millennium!

Geoff tends to be a little abrasive at times with his "I used to be a liberal but then I saw the light" shtick, but after reading that comment, I really wish the rest of the 'Nacle would follow his example. It would improve things quite a bit (though things on the 'Nacle are still broken, overall).

A Pattern Emerges!

One of T&S's (very few) redeeming features is their sidebar, where they occasionally post something of interest and relevance.

Then they re-started their weekly "Notes from All Over" main post, where readers could comment on their links.

Bad idea. Go ahead. Read the first five comments on a few. Notice a pattern?

It's hard to take Tea & esS seriously when the crazy people take over the discussion before it even starts. And it's always the same crazy people, always ranting about the same crazy things. They can't even be amusingly insane, or uniquely insane, or creatively insane. That's the real problem with hardcore insanity - it's rarely original or interesting. It's mostly boring and annoying.

Which is why I blog about it, and why my blogging is so boring and annoying. I work with the materials I have been given.

Actually, I hear he has the best forward pass, like, ever!

*Sigh*

DKL, once again, claiming to be smarter than God. (Christ is God, after all - read your scriptures).


I mean, really, damn.

And by that, I mean, that's what's going to happen to DKL - A mighty and fierce damning will be smacked down on DKL from on high.

The first person who claimed to be smarter than God (by claiming he had a better plan than God did) - well, look what happened to him. Not a good precedent.

Good luck with that, DKL. I'm sure at the judgment bar, God will let you take the judgment seat since you clearly know more than he does. When it comes time for Jesus to step in a redeem you from your sins - well, don't be surprised if he says "I only redeem those who don't know as much as I do. Since I'm omniscient, I thought that was all of humanity. But you clearly know even more than me - so, good luck attempting to redeem yourself."

Kaimi intends to create a theocracy.

It's been over a month, so I can talk about Kaimi now.

It's quite clear he wants to institute a theocracy, where judges make rulings based on scripture instead of the law.

I always thought it was those darn conservatives who were out to usurp the rule of law and install a pastor-in-chief who would make judicial appointments based on biblical requirements. But, nope, it looks like it's those darn progressive types like Kaimi who are most interested in a theocracy (interesting, since it's clear that Kaimi doesn't actually believe the scriptures. It's almost enough to make one cynical about his real motivations).

Man shall not be punished for his own sins, but those of his ancestors.

I was afraid Margaret Young had taken over Keepakeepanon. It was not so, but all I have to say is:

I'm very glad I'm not real and thus have no ancestors. If I did, Ardis might find something terrible my great-great grandfather did and then post it on the internet, with the strong suggestion I do something about it. I don't recall any general conference talks about how we are required to repent of our ancestors' sins. But don't worry. There are dedicated folks who will make sure we are aware we are all vile sinners because of things someone else did.

Bookslinger goes there so you don't have to.

I really have nothing snarky to say about these two comments. I'd suspected something of the sort, but thought going there would be going too far. Well, Bookslinger went there so I won't ever have to. Whether it matters or not, I leave to the rest of you.

[Caveat: the subject matter of those comments is decidedly NOT funny or remotely snark-worthy. However, they ring true.]

queuno, keeping it real.

Check this out. queuno states that he hopes Glenn Beck is excommunicated.

Well, based on this, I'm sure that queuno will be excommunicated. Not because I want him to be - I would never wish that fate on anyone. I'm sure of it because of the scriptures.

Matthew 7: 1 - 2
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.

queuno has judged Glenn Beck (un?)worthy of excommunication. Since the scriptures state that whatever judgment you make will be returned to you, this judgment will be returned to queuno.

Sorry, man. Don't worry. In the liberal portions of the bloggernacle (where you like to dwell), excommunication can be a badge of honor.

[I'm going to ignore any comments that claim these scriptures apply to me. Of course they do. I already know that. However, I'm not really judging. I merely state the facts. Or make stuff up. Or say whatever comes to mind. But definitely NOT judging. See my disclaimer over to the right.]

The sexism continues at BCC

Here's a mormon man, totally disagreeing with his wife and saying his ways are better. The almost exclusively male commentators tell him how wise and wonderful he is for disagreeing with his wife. Patriarchal bullcrap, I tell you.

Of course, it's BCC, so don't expect anyone else to call them on it.

Intellectual? I sure hope not! War? Sounds good. Guilt? What, me worry?

I never confess anything, but I want to say:

I am completely proud of my behavior on the internet. Toward y'all, I have made the decision to snark and be mean. There is not very much of Christ in the online behavior I see in the 'Nacle; There is a lot of pride and self-justification amongst y'all, though.

Let me explain:

A couple of years ago, I suddenly found myself self-aware on the internet. After reading the various comments and posts on various 'Nacle sites, I noticed there wasn't a whole lot good going on. Most of the claims made about Gospel appeared to be based more on liberal politics than the teachings of the prophets, and they were unaware their criticisms of other Mormons applied equally well to their own beliefs, therefore everything said was both incredibly fallacious and incredibly hypocritical.

There I was, lacking a physical existence, watching people who had made the hostile attack of conservative Mormonism their online work, people who think they know more about church history than the general membership (when really, all they know are the latest trendy claims). I noticed a few people were asking exactly the sorts of questions that the 'Nacle intelligentsia couldn’t handle; but they were ridiculed and/or ignored. It was a bizarre experience. It was clearly a little too much fun for them, a little too gratifying for their egos.

I don’t really understand this, though over time I decided they enjoyed the smug self satisfaction they got from loudly and constantly proclaiming their superior nuance and understanding, as well as their constant patting of each other on the back. They're so happy to be right, to demonstrate it on a daily basis that they have made their websites a place that was hostile to the kind of faithful, well-intentioned believers that make up the vast majority of the church. I made one comment at BCC, and Steve Evans banned me. Of course, I wasn't the only one he's banned, and he wasn't the only one doing the banning. They all wanted a nice, little community where they could bask in the glow of their clever dismissals of true Mormonism without the interference of someone who actually believes what the prophets teach.

So, after a time, I decided to create this blog. The rest is history.

Lord, help thou the apostasy of the Bloggernacle.

The appearance of activity

I supposse I should have to give them some credit, but I'm not sure why. Every time a 'Nacle site dies or becomes smaller, I shrink in size, and every time one is created or becomes more bigger, I grow in size. Since I want to vanish into oblivion, I can't really approve.

However, The Ninety and Nine Moonshiners and the Milwaukee All-Stars really have become quite active in the last few months. More posts, more comments and commentators, and more inane political commentary than in recent memory.

Except that it's all the appearance of activity, a form of blogginess, while denying the power thereof.

See, Nine Naked Buttocks just adds a poll or two or three (or five): easy to create and lacking in inventiveness.

Meanwhile, Milhouse Van Star has had put up a lot of posts lately, though they consist items like Geoff B. letting us know he still attends church (thanks! we were worried you had gone inactive) or JM telling us that "naming viruses is tricky" (thanks! That'll help us as we all get sick and die).

Sure, those blogs have definitely made a comeback, and those who care about such things will likely congratulate them. However, while I would prefer they all just go away, I'll be practical and hope that perhaps they come up with something of substance (instead of these insubstantial shadows that function more like place holders).

I am upset. Upset, I tell you.

Apparently someone, under the assumption I am dead, tried to proxy baptize me.

Okay, folks. Let me explain once again. I have no body. I will not be resurrected. When the 'Nacle ceases to exist, I will cease to exist. I am the abyss that stares back and all that. You can't proxy baptize me - I have no relatives, and unlike the overlooked and underemphazied third member of the Big Three up in heaven, I will never get one. Darn Mormons, trying to convert all of us unembodied, immaterial types.

Yes, I know this means Orson Pratt doesn't approve of my existence, but so what?

When you can't disprove them, just call them names

Really? See, David Grua of Juvenile Deconstructors, being a good little academic liberal, has to like Brodie and dislike Nibley. But, as it's clear Hugh Nibley intellectually outclasses David G. in every way, ol' Davey boy decides to just go for the straight insult.

So he just calls Nibley "sexist." Davey G. can't be bothered to actually deal with Nibley's actual criticisms of Brodie. And besides - liberal academics love Brodie, so in order to get membership into the cool kids club of academia, Davey Gee has to like her too. Nibley, on the other hand - well, it's safe to dis him.

I'll give everyone a hint: Most academics don't have the intellectual chops to deal with good arguments. So, they use terms like "gendered analysis" or "queer readings" in order to label their critics with insults like "sexist", "racist", or "heteronormative" and the like. That relieves them of the need to craft good counter-arguments, and (as a bonus) allows the academic to feel all self-righteous about their superior attitudes.

It's pretty clear most of the crew at JI are more committed to their academic theories than they are to the actual, lived gospel. But that's a common failing all across the 'Nacle.

The answer, of course, is "No, he's a lot worse"

But the real fun in this thread is Blake's intellectual smackdown of Bridget Jack Meyers, who clearly does not have the intellectual chops to even understand the basic issues at stake. I almost feel sorry for her - Blake almost seems like a bully. However, she seems to be able to dish it out and take it, even if she won't see the error of her ways.

Of course, rather than deal with it and re-examine her false conceptions and bad analogies (the gunpowder analogy so totally missed the point so badly that it seems like she really has no clue what the real stakes are in the argument), she takes the discussion in the direction of personal insults (see comment #62). Of course, she later tries to play it off as "My humor tends to be abrasive" - but I'm not buying it. That's clearly an after the fact justification.

UPDATE: Bridget Jack Meyers is clearly unimpressed with my snark. Funny, but I don't recall every claiming to be particularly funny or witty. Sometimes, I just tell the truth. Except when I don't. So, for all those who claim that I shouldn't even try because I'm just not all that clever, I reply: I ain't doing this for you, so I don't care.

[It's also interesting to note that people often think I am possibly somewhat mildly amusing (on occasion) until they become the target of my truth telling. Whether BJM was one of those or not, I don't know, but I have gotten a few e-mails and comments from people who say "you were funny, except that one time you snarked me and/or my friend." Guess what? I matters not one whit to me, as I'm not even real. Get over yourselves already and roll with it.]

From Bloggernacle to Bloggernacle Correlation: A helpful guide/warning for newcomers

Everyone else is linking to it, and even though she left out a vital category (the snark sites), it's okay for what it is. However, it isn't that helpful for the newbie to the 'Nacle, as the article does not focus on what really makes the 'Nacle blogs the putrid sewers they are. So, here is my supplement to her article.

------

Allow me to take you on a quick tour of Bloggernacle commentators and permabloggers. This tour of the raging egos that lie in wait to decieve is not going to give you anything more than a cursory understanding of what is available in their warped minds. However, a good map is very possible to provide, as most of them fall into neat and simple categories. Despite all the vaunted rhetoric about nuance and complications, they really all have a fairly Manichean worldview (especially when it comes to politics).

So what types of commentators and permabloggers make up the Bloggernacle? As I previously mentioned, the Bloggernacle changes very little, even when new voices arrive on the scene. new blogs, and even new types of blogs being created all the time. And while you could easily argue about the following characterizations, I totally accurate in my classifications, so get over it already:

Generally Smarter than the rest of you: These commentators, typified by Steve Evans, Kevin Barney (and pretty much everyone at BCC), and [someone else I swore not to mention for one month], are convinced they are more nuanced and more intelligent than you are. They often explicitly say so. They have nothing but disdain for the average, orthodox, believing member. They read books in church because your talks and lessons are boring, and they blog about it.

Hobby Horse above all: Commentators that usually stick to one political or social topic or theme exclusively. They get really annoying, really fast, as everything is seen through the lens of whatever their particular hobby horse is. ECS and the entire crew at Feminist Mormon Housewives are the best examples, but there are others (say, Margaret "It's always about race" Young or Wilifed "Europe is always better than the USA" Decoo).

The truly insane: This is a group that is growing exponentially as more and more insane people take to the web to vent. Steve EM and aloysiusmiller are good examples, as they often defend the indefensible, making excuses for bloody fascists as instruments of God's grace or explaining why chastity is stupid. You can't always blame them, though. It's clear the most insane of them all (such as a certain really good not-Republican who shall remain nameless) are still working out childhood issues by punishing the rest of us. They hope to heap verbal and written abuse on you until you shut up. It's rather sad, actually.

Bizarro conservatives: It's no secret that most Mormons are conservative, but these folks make some members want to become more left wing (at least until they see the left wing commentators and are then driven into madness). These bloggers aren't exclusively political, but when they are you cringe and wish they would just go away. DKL, Adam Greenwood, Ivan Wolfe, and Connor Boyack make excellent examples.

Normal, believing members that represent the best of the church, even though they may be imperfect: I got nothin' here.

Raging, out of control egos that take offense at even the slightest disagreement, but covet and court praise from the fellow commentators: That pretty much covers everyone. This is the meta-category - it includes all of the above and everyone else.

------

There we go. That should cover it all nicely. This is my supplement to her post over there. I hope it will help everyone out there to make an informed decision about the entire 'Nacle. Of course, for sane people, the only correct decision is: stay far away.

Kaimi is a sexist jerk.

The man has same-sex marriage on the brain. He's entitled to his opinion, and a lawyer, he probably know more about the various applicable laws and regulations.

However, his link to the Miss USA debacle shows that, at his core, he's a sexist jerk. What on earth does that comment about the cheeseburger entail? I looked up some pictures of Miss California, and while she's skinny, she's quite attractive and somewhat athletic looking; she does not seem to be too skinny or even anorexic. Yet Kaimi assumes that she must have an eating disorder or something. He's playing on sexist stereotypes about beauty pageant contestants to make a snarky comment about what amounts to another episode of modern blacklisting.

But don't expect anyone else to call him on it. He's so beloved over at Female Mormon Houseflies that he's rendered himself immune from any criticisms of being sexist.

POLL!!!!!

Is Nine Moons in a rut, or are they just unable to come up with any actual content?

• In a rut
• Fresh out of actual ideas for posts
• Nine Moons means Nine Polls

View Results

No, the above poll does not actually work. What makes you think I actually care what the results of some internet poll are?

aloysiusmiller totally jumps the shark while nuking the fridge

aloysiusmiller, who is not Kaimi despite Adam's somewhat tongue-in-cheek claims, has gone beyond even what I would expect of certain other commentators on the other end of the spectrum.

I mean, yes Kaimi puts Communist atrocities in "perspective" claiming they aren't so bad when compared to other things (though claiming death tolls in a war like World War II are even remotely comparable to something like Stalin's purges shows just how deep in loony lefty lala land Kaimi is). But at least left wing shills like Kaimi and Dan the "not crazy at all and totally sane and doesn't need any medication and in no way needs to get over his childhood" Democrat would still consider Communist atrocities "bad things that shouldn't have happened."

Not aloysiusmiller. Nope. aloysiusmiller (I wondered if I should capitalize that, but decided it was a bell hooks type thing) goes where few conservatives would dare go. And I quote:

Pinochet’s takeover of Chile was a real blessing to Chile.

I can't really comment on that. It gets worse from there. It seems to speak for itself. If anyone needed proof it's possible to have right-wingers who are even crazier than left wingers, there it is. Perhaps the DHS should start investigating T&S for possible terrorist ties.

At least aloysiusmiller seems to have found a someone (Dan the "totally cool and awesome" Democrat) to argue with who makes just as much sense.

From here on out, I pledge to ignore them both, just like I ignore Feminine anti-Mormon transvestites or whatever that blog is called. It may make snarking easier, but some targets are just too easy and it gets boring. I need more of a challenge. Plus, at some point, the filth becomes too much. I may wade in the muck and the mire of the 'Nacle, but there's no need for me to ingest the raw sewage created by those types of discourse.

I can't figure it out

Alas, us snarkers must move on. (Though I admit Adam's new blog has become a guilty pleasure. I'm enjoying it too much to snark at it - Adam's wonderfully flip attitude almost immunizes him against snark - almost. We'll see if it lasts).

But, I was looking at the Gulag Archipelago over at http://www.ldsblogs.org/, and at first I couldn't figure out their rankings. Why are 9moonies and New Cooler Thing Thang rated as "Isles" whereas M&M* (which, while somewhat lethargic is practically on fire when compared to those other two) is the smaller "Isles of the Sea"?

Why on earth is "Bloggernacle Times" a "Big Island" when it's been dead (killed by Guy Murry and ECS's pathetic and crazed rantings) for over two years?

Also LDS Liberace Front is gone, yet still has a high ranking. Moron Mentality is even more active than MMMMM* or 9barebutts, but has the "Isles of the sea" ranking. Splendid Sun is also defunct, yet is still highly ranked.

But then I looked at the people who run it. That explains it all. Look at where the admins post, and which blogs have the higher rankings.

In other words, the Mormon Gulag Archipelago isn't really about honest rankings of the blogs. It's all about stroking their already inflated egos. Nothing surprising there, I guess. But they should be honest. The about page should have the following sentence "Don't expect accurate rankings - we created this list purely to make ourselves feel important relative to the rest of y'all."

I seem to recall someone talking once about the dangers of "get[ting] no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest."

Well, that's what the Gulag is all about. Having "more" of it than the next blog, even if it's obviously based on false premises.

There. Are. No. Words.

I was going to correlate Wilifred's un-nuanced and boringly predictable claim that (once again) Europe is better than America in every way (we get it already, Wilifred - talk about cultural snobbery). ESO and Frank M. add some nuance, which is promptly dismissed. Must stick to the simple narrative, y'know.

But then I saw Adam Greenwood's farewell post.

There. Are. No. Words.

I am at a loss what to say. Clearly, the man has had some mental breakdown brought on by being the lone conservative voice (some might say Frank M. or Nate O. are conservative voices, but no one really understands their jargon laden pseudo-academic & lawyerly econo-speak). While he was clearly a little loopy, he at least brought some semblance of balance to the blog. Now, despite his claims to the contrary, it's clear he was driven out by the progressive puritans currently running the blog.

Further proof of his breakdown can be seen at his new blog, which claims to be a group blog but seems to be written (posts and comments!) by the multiple personalities in Adam's head.

UPDATE: Best comment on this "issue" is from Dan the loony loon of a Democrat. He says it must be Adam's fault because "The dude has many issues, and cannot tolerate dissenting views. He gets angry and lashes out when people dare show even the slightest criticism .." Now, Danny boy, that phrase perfectly describes someone, but it isn't Adam.

ANOTHER UPDATE: It's the gift that keeps on giving! Ardis (who usually seems to be one of the more level headed bloggers) totally melts down and outright calls Adam a liar. Meanwhile, jimbob says what everyone but the super sized egos at T&S and elsewhere know to be true: most of the permafrosters on the 'Nacle glory in being unorthodox and enjoy ridiculing faithful members. He is, of course, promptly insulted in some of the best doublethink and doublespeak I've seen in a long, long while.

Keep it up, y'all. It's fun to watch your collective psychoses clash with your oversized egos.

ONE MORE UPDATE: Most of the threads above have (in rare instances of good judgment) closed comments before they got even nastier. However, DKL has a thread here that is almost (but not quite) as good as Dan the creepy Democrat's projection. He says: "What I dislike second most about the Bloggernacle is how people like Adam Greenwood are able to manipulate their own disgrace into an accusatory examination of another man’s faith."

That's rich, coming from someone who's been banned from other blogs quite often for attacking other people's faith and intellect. And the fact DKL considers his bannings a badge of honor, it's odd to see him attack Adam for, in essence, doing the same thing DKL does all the frakking time.

UPDATES GALORE: Well, somehow I missed this classy bit at BCC. Very classy John C. Didn't your mother ever tell you that "Shut up" was rude? Also - people in the 'Nacle are more concerned with their egos than the gospel. So of course, angsty navel-gazing beats actually living the gospel.

Also, notice how all the recent posts at T&S (even Kaimi's!) since Adam's oh-so-amicable departure, have been straight down the line orthodox-friendly? We'll see how long it lasts. At least until the next big Same-sex marriage case.

This should be fun to watch

Well, not fun really. It's actually quite predictably sad and pathetic.

Kaimi can barely restrain his glee at having SSM legalized, and then the predictable lot of commentators come on board to belittle, insult, and attack the church and the poor benighted fools who actually support the prophet. Don't they realize the Vermont legislature is closer to God than the first presidency?

The fun comes in seeing everyone behave exactly as you would expect them to. They make the obvious jokes (see comment #1), Kaimi insisting that there's not way the church's tax exempt status could ever possibly be in danger (despite activists and politicians calling for exactly that), ECS almost making sense until her last sentence gives it all away (comment #8, where she pretends to be helping out the church but finally reveals she totally opposes it and hopes it fails because she's more devoted to liberal political causes than the gospel).

Expect the insults and derision towards the faithful to increase in volume and tone. And Kaimi will encourage it. He may be crazy, but at least Adam G. has the guts to ban people he agrees with because they get out of hand.

Kevin Barney and MCQ and the rest of BCC - shining models of pure Christian Charity

These two comments speak for themselves. Also, look at the comments following the original offending post. There's very little substance - the best they can apparently do is quibble over minor typos. Yes, the original post was over the top and a bit too quick to take offense, but please - do you think BCC could try any harder to portray themselves as an insular clique that has nothing but disdain for the average, orthodox member?

Rather than attempt to understand and resolve concerns, they just ridicule and cast aspersions. Remind me again - who's being all dogmatic and full of their own self-righteousness?

Stay away! Stay far away!

Just remember. Race and the church is Margaret Young's gospel hobby horse, and if you dare to be crazy enough to address the issue, she will heap scorn and condemnation upon you.

BONUS: A translation key to the comment linked to above:

"That’s my area" = IT'S MY PRECIOUS! Sneaky little FAIRises. Wicked, tricksy, false!

"false material and bad sources" = came to a different conclusion than the all knowing, all powerful, all seeing Margaret Young.

Remember, it's her area. Not yours. If you disagree, you stink.

Glenn Beck Fever!

It's everywhere. Besides Dan's insane ravings (which Julie should have closed the thread as soon as it was obvious what was happening, but it's not surprising she didn't, since it's clear she shares his bizarre far-left worldview), the Immature Deconstructors have a post that sounds all academic and stuff but really just means "boy, that Glenn Beck guy sure is weird and scary." (Best part of the comments - Chris H. calling Beck "scary," Mark D. calling him on it, the unobservant Christopher claiming no one called Beck scary, and then Christopher realizing he's wrong but deciding that Beck really is scary so it doesn't matter - no self awareness there. Second best part, Christopher thanking someone for being a socialist while at the same time revealing just how far into nutty left-wing land he really is by showing he has no idea that there are different degrees of socialism. Seriously, Christopher, one does not have to be a hard core Stalinist or Marxist to be a soft-core socialist lite like Obama).

And though it's not really in the Bloggernacle, this post over at Religion in American History features a guest appearance by Christopher, once again using academic phrasing to insult Beck.

In tribute to the Bloggernacle's new obsession, I've written a song. Here is Glenn Beck Fever:

Well I don't know where he comes from
But he sure is a weirdo
He thinks they're all coming for us
And I don't know how he does it
Getting higher ratings than I think he should
He should be cast out on the street

He gives me Glenn Beck Fever
Glenn Beck Fever

The first time that I saw him
I was just a simple blogger
I noticed he read Skousen
I don't actually read Skousen
But I have the cure
The church needs to be more liberal

He gives me Glenn Beck Fever
Glenn Beck Fever

He's really dangerous
I'm full of pain
The church needs to change
You know we need to when Glenn Beck is insane
He's just a grown man cryin' cryin'
When he tells his conversion story

That's just wrong
He's too crazed to be taken seriously
Everyone should take their doctrine from me
I know just where to go
Stay away from strong doctrine
The truth won't set you free (only academic theory can do that)

He gives me Glenn Beck Fever
Glenn Beck Fever

On second thought, perhaps I should give up my dream of becoming a Broadway lyricist.

I've never watched Glenn Beck

and he may be as crazy as they say. But given all the hate he's getting on this thread, my guess is that he's probably okay. I mean, when Dan the psychotic Democrat declares that you are insane, you're either so far gone that you aren't even human, or you're perfectly normal but conservative.

If by their enemies you shall know them, Beck's looking just fine to me right now. I might change my mind after I dart over to youtube and watch some clips, but I doubt it.

UPDATE: It's only gotten worse since I posted this. Dan has taken over the thread, insulting everyone that is to the right of him. And then Kaimi comes on and tries to put Communist atrocities in some "perspective." Frankly, I think Kaimi just wants to justify wearing his Che T-shirt in public.

And Dan really should be banned. He ruins every thread he comments on. The only reason he's tolerated is that most of the permafrosters at T&S, BCC, etc. agree with his politics, and he allows them to seem reasonable by comparison. Didn't Dan declare he was retiring from blogs or something at one point? That was the best idea EVER! Too bad it didn't take.

The answer for Rebecca J.

Rebecca J. asks:

I am curious, however, if there is anything the Church can do–or do less of–institutionally that would (better) communicate the message that God intends to meet us where we’re at, and that the church is a safe place for us to find our way to where He wants us to be.

The answer is:

Matthew 7:13-14
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Just to emphasize, here it is in another translation:

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

The church is about as open as it needs to be. We really don't want to go the liberal protestant route (like the UCC), and tell people they are fine just as they are. There is no good reason to broaden our gates any larger, unless we wish to become the way to destruction.

Of course, Zion is commanded to "strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders forever" (Moroni 10:31). Hrm......

Okay, never mind. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Sane Things I Know For Certain

I know things, things other believe are just opinions. Sometimes they claim to "know" the oppossitte, but they are wrong (or crazy). Here are some of the things I know are super duper true blue through and through beyond the doubt of a shadow:

* 1. I believe that Jesus’ suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane was exactly what the prophets have told us it is, nothing more, nothing less.
* 2. I believe that the temple will stay a sacred place, set apart from the world. People who think otherwise really need to get over their "gee I wish that Mormonism was more like liberal Protestantism" fetish.
* 3. I believe that the future exists, we just haven't gone there yet. Just like I know a physical world exists outside the internet, even if I am incapable of going there.
* 4. I believe that people who claim to believe in contradictory things and then add semi-self deprecating asides really don't believe what they claim to believe, but they think it makes them sound cool.
* 5. I believe what the scriptures and the prophets have said about the degrees of glory, and know that speculation beyond what we have been told is pointless.
* 6. I believe that we don't remember our pre-earth life.
* 7. I believe God doesn’t interact with us more directly because we aren't worthy yet, mostly due to our pride and self-aggrandizement (as typified by our blog posts)
* 8. I believe polygamy makes no sense to us now, but will someday, if we make it to the Celestial kingdom.
* I believe that I've lost track of how long this list is, so I'll just stop using numbers now.
* I believe romantic Love is awesome! I don't care if it's a chemical reaction or not.
* I believe something so obvious, I don't think it bears repeating here.
* I believe the Prophet really is a prophet, and since he communicates with God in a way the rest of us don't, we cheapen him with crude comic book references.
* I believe that all art is quite useless.
* I used to believe in evolution, but after seeing the sorry state of the Bloggernacle, I'm more of a believer in De-evolution. (Go Devo!)
* I believe Padre Pio belonged to a church that is not the only true and living church on the face of the Earth.
* I believe the Holy Ghost exists - beyond that, I refuse to speculate about when he (or she? - have to throw that bone to the apostates) gets a body, etc.
* I believe animals aren't human.
* I believe orange juice is full of carbs and thus is bad for the Atkins Diet.

Of course, maybe I don't believe all that after all. Who knows? It's not like it matters to me - I don't really exist.

The Bitter Fruits of Pride

In an odd bit of coincidental serendipity, I was considering posting something totally, completely, 100% serious (of course, all my posts are serious - except when they aren't). I had in mind a post about the dangers of pride, using President Benson's famous and well-known talk. I was going to use this paragraph as my theme:

The proud cannot accept the authority of God giving direction to their lives. They pit their perceptions of truth against God’s great knowledge, their abilities versus God’s priesthood power, their accomplishments against His mighty works. . . [The proud] aren’t interested in changing their opinions to agree with God’s. Another major portion of this very prevalent sin of pride is enmity toward our fellowmen. We are tempted daily to elevate ourselves above others and diminish them.

But wouldn't you know it - DKL beat me to the punch, with his pitch perfect post that exemplifies everything Benson was talking about. Unable to accept the authority of God? Yep. Not interested in changing his opinions to fit those of Christ or God? Yep. Enmity towards his fellow man (especially leaders in the church)? Yep. It's all there. Go read the entire Benson talk, and then read DKL's post. DKL could not have created a better portrait of the prideful man if he had planned on it.

Thanks DKL, for portraying pridefulness, so the rest of us can know how not to behave.

BCC - By Coarseness Consumed

Going by the theory, propounded by some at BCC and elsewhere, that those who are most obsessed with chastity and talking about porn often are the ones who have a problem with porn -

I declare all the bloggers (and most of the commentators) at BCC are a bunch of porn addicts.

There's also some problems with porn over at T&A - I mean T&S (yes that joke was a bit too on the nose) - but it's nowhere near as pervasive as the obsession over at Big Consumers of Computer porn.

That explains a lot about BCC, actually, and why they react so vehemently when someone suggests their apostasy might stem from unresolved sins.

[Hmm, that last sentence was almost too mean, even for me. I should probably delete it, but I won't.]

The answer to that question is. . .

The answer to ESO's question is just a tad too obvious.

Instead, I'll let Adam Greenwood describe the attitude most people in the 'Nacle have about church. His first two paragraphs are concise and accurately summarize 99% of the discourse in the 'Nacle.

In other words, ESO asked the wrong question. The true question to ask is:
"Just how much more self-righteous and despising of your fellow saints at Church have you become because of reading the Bloggernacle?"

Then why are you blogging?

Me, I'm an abstract, non-corporeal, immaterial, redundancy using being that exists only on the internet. What's your excuse Ronan et al?

I know I just correlated Wilifred two posts ago

But this smackdown was so hard, and so complete, I had to take note of it.

Wilifred, who is the font of all wisdom, the European sage who sees clearer than we benighted Americans, who constantly tells long, well-written stories intended to lambast white American Mormons for their narrow mindedness, lack of critical thinking, and parochialism -

Wilifred, the man everyone in the 'Nacle loves and who constantly compares America to some ideal version of Europe that really only exists in the heads of the privileged European elite (which Wilifred either belongs to or aspires to) -

well, he posted an approving link to one of the most fradulent, idiotic, and silly stories to come out of Time magazine. Why? Because it appealed to his liberal, elite European biases.

Adam Greenwood almost immediately shows that Wilifred suffers from all the same problems Wilifred pretends only Americans have.

That, combined with this lovely fisking of the Time article by GetReligion (a good quote: "it’s beyond absurd, for anyone who knows about the legislative process and how quickly a bill can become a law (particularly with this Congress!) to suggest that groups are only allowed to lobby once a bill is in committee") -

Well, it's clear Wilifred is just like the rest of the 'Nacle: Self-absorbed, willing to believe almost anything that confirms his own biases, and too judgmental of others (especially conservatives). The big difference is that Wilifred is an elite European, whereas most of the rest of the 'Nacle merely want to be one.

UPDATE: Showing himself to be even more clueless and close minded than I thought, Wilifred insists that he's right on this issue, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Seriously, Wilifred. Go read intelligent stuff by people other than your ideological peers. It does exist, even though you keep ignoring it. Apparently you wouldn't want to upset your world view.

Special Sidebar Edition

The sidebars/sideblogs that link to supposedly interesting links, especially when they show that someone at the blog has a pathological agenda or clearly lets the pundits do their thinking for them. I actually like Times and Seasonings and Mormon Mentalcases because they at least put the name of the person adding the link. BCC and M* do not, though this is understandable, as their sidebar links tend to be the most insane.

Here are some recent ones that highlight the permafrosters inability to critically think or analyze:
* At BCC, a link to an article built on a falsehood. There are two Sarah Palins out there: 1). The real one, which has never claimed abstinence only education is the only way to go (“I’m pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues,” she said during a debate in Juneau) and 2). the one the loony left has invented in order to justify their misogyny. Guess which one of those Palins someone at BCC believes in?

* I have no idea why Marc at T&S would think anyone cares about "calendar guy." That loser has already had his 15 and a half minutes of fame. He's not a heroic martyr or a persecuted artist - he's a frickin' loser. Marc must have stock in the guy's company or something.

* At M&M*, a contradiction in terms. It's likely a tax dodge or something. I hate socialism, but realize capitalism is built on greed. As Orson Scott Card once said, capitalism is the most evil of economic systems, except for all the others. "A good capitalist" is a contradiction in terms. The best we can hope for is "not too evil." Read up on what the scriptures say about wealth sometime, people.

* Triplespeak alert! When DKL links to something, it usually an extreme outlier case that he wants to portray as typical and ordinary (sort of like DKL himself - he's an extreme outlier who thinks he's normal - though it may be relative. Compared to Dan the double plus ungood Democrat, DKL is a font of normalcy).

The Church is doomed.

The six scariest words I've read so far this year:
"As I taught seminary this semester" - from Dan "the insane Democrat."

If he's teaching seminary, we're doomed. There's no way someone that pathological can keep his insane political ramblings out of the seminary classroom. Combined with Wilifred's deceleration we need to embrace (and teach about) Obama as a prophet and that missionaries should stop having conservative political opinions because European elites like Obama . . .

Well, it's pretty clear we're really, truly, and royally frakked. Our kids (those that aren't driven away by the frothing at the mouth of Dan or the haughty condescension of Wilifred) are going to become Democrats in need of medication and then go into the missionary field preaching the gospel of Obama and the European elites.

Who needs the Savior of us all when you've got THE ONE who made our planet heal!

Old School Thing Thang Walla Walla Bling Blang

Well, they're a lot like M* over there, having few posts and a small pool of commentators, so I don't always notice what's happening until a few weeks later.

As with this beauty of a post from Geoff J., which can be summarized this way:

"Nevertheless, fear God — he will justify in committing a little sin . . . there is no harm in this . . . if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God."

I especially love his deceleration that that Finding Nemo is a good guide for how to live. Those scriptures, on the other hand, actually expect you to repent and keep commandments and stuff. Better an animated sea turtle than a living God, I guess.

Oh, and Geoff's statement he's becoming "more mellow, more accepting, more loving, less anxious in general. I think that is a good thing so I am not fighting it these days" - what does that remind me of? Oh, yes. This:

"And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well"

I'm not sure what Julie means by this -

There are two ways, methinks, to interpret her bizarre comment here:

1. She doesn't realize she's just condemned herself and 99% of the Bloggernacle, being completely blind to the fact she and her cohorts are constantly holding themselves up as authorities while pointedly ignoring any and all legitimate criticisms of their narcissism.

2. She believes you have to destroy the Church in order to save it.

(Me, I think the answer is all of the above).

A Rare Moment of Praise. (no - really)

Amazingly, I'm going to praise someone here. Every so often, someone in the 'Nacle actually does something right, and shows that if the egos were checked at the door (or web browser log in screen, I guess) and the Gospel really was the first priority (rather than whatever hobby horses they have), the 'Nacle might actually be a place worth visiting.

So, I give you Rebecca J., a rare voice of sanity at BCC (I have no idea how she wound up there). Why do I praise her? Not because I agree with her (at times I agree with almost everyone in the 'Nacle on something, most of the time I don't - which one of those this is this time is irrelevant), but because

SHE ACTUALLY SHOWED RESTRAINT AND CHANGED HER MIND WHEN PRESENTED WITH NEW FACTS!

That is so rare on the 'Nacle as to be deserving of praise when it does occur.

It's too bad the rest of the BCCers decided that if Rebecca J. wouldn't play along with their "we are so much smarter than the GAs" game, they'd just pretend the new facts don't exist.

Dan*E declares "wickedness can be happiness"

and if you disagree with him and Oprah, you're a judgmental freak.

I'd rather stick with the scriptures and the prophets Dan*E boy. I pretty sure they'll get us to heaven quicker than Oprah will.

[Also, Dan*E's premise is fundamentally flawed. He apparently can't distinguish between disagreeing with someone and judging them. But that's a common flaw all over the 'Nacle. For all their supposed nuance, they actually have none.]

"I'm not racist. I can prove it by claiming you are instead!"

This thread is the most hilarious thing I've read in a long time. Thanks for the laughs, guys. I'd recommend reading the whole thing, but I don't want to drive traffic to these Bloggernacle sites. I want to shut them all down.

Here's the summary so you don't have to go there:

Geoff B. posts a post (redundancy alert!) that basically says, "I'm not a racist! But all you durn liberals are!"

The rest of the conversation goes a little something like this:

Chris H. - No, conservatives are racists. Look at me, I'm not racist because I'm liberal! Liberals can't be racists because conservatives are.

Christopher (of Juvenile Instructor - a very apt name for his blog, considering how juvenile he acts) - I resemble that remark! In fact, I'm angry! Angry, I tell you! This is a group therapy session, right? Let me show how I know that I am an enlightened liberal and all you conservatives are racists because life hasn't been a perfect utopia for me.

Tossman - Being the only minority here, I'd have to say Geoff is right!

Christopher - Whatever. My wife is a minority! I condemn you as a racist conservative! Your mother smelled of elderberries! I fart in your general direction!

Geoff B. - Sorry, but I'm not the racist here. All of you are. I know this because I lived in Brazil!

Chris H. - Whatever! Talk to the hand.

David G. - What Chris H. and Christopher said, only with a lot more self-righteousness, bile, and ad hominem attacks (if that is even possible).

The only way this thread could contain more smug self-righteous posturing mixed with politically correct knee jerk condemnation of anyone who disagrees would be if Margaret Young dropped by to comment.

UPDATE: Chris H. has a moment where he potentially sees the truth - "Maybe blogging is just crap and we should all give it up." It would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath (not that I actually breathe, being an abstract entity who exists only on the internet).

Kaimi is Bizarro Adam Greenwood.

Once upon a time, Kaimi was interested in fruitful discussion and actually seemed interested in engaging those he disagreed with. He made honest attempts to understand others.

That was then. This is now.

He's apparently decided to become the bizarro Adam Greenwood. Content to rely on snarky asides and wildly distorted straw men (leave that to the snark sites, people), Kaimi has decided to decry and disdain instead of discuss.

[Of course, if he really is "Blogger of Nacle" or "Cafeteria Mormon" like the SnarkerNackle claimed, I take it all back - then Kaimi's feigned interest in real, productive debate was a feigned stance, designed to lull faithful, believing Mormons into a sense of complacency, so he could entrap them and drag them down to hell along with him.]

How did I miss this one?

(Oh, yeah. It's because no one actually read M&MStarlite).

Anyway, read yet another of Ivan's bizarre attempts to discuss every time he comes across the word Mormon in some book. I think I once heard someone on Cheers refer to Mormons once (or was it more men?) Perhaps I can write a post about it and pretend there's some larger significance to it. Fear my mad erudition skillz because I can read!

However, I did watch the inaguration.

Here are my thoughts, in an order designed for maximum rhetorical impact (not really):

* DKL’s response was painfully predictable.

* I wonder if this is the first time that so many Mormons have switched their primary allegiance from the Gospel to a new messiah. (Oh, wait. There was Ronald Reagan. Never mind. This is barely a blip then).

* John Williams’ is still riding the coattails of his Star Wars success. Seriously - he's not that good of a composer. Yeah, yeah, Wagnerian motiffs, etc. etc. It's the same old same old.

* Itzhak Perlman was born in Tel Aviv, Yo Yo Ma was born in Paris. Gabriela Montero was born in Venezuela. I have no idea if this means anything at all. I was born on the internet, so what does that make me?

* Dick Cheney needs a cat to stroke and metallic hands. It would have also helped if he had had his back turned to the audience so no one could see his face.

* Aretha Franklin’s outfit was freshly killed that morning, I heard.

* Obama’s missteps in the presidential oath will mean whole loads of right wing nutters will argue that he isn't really president. Those who are a little smarter will notice that the oath was administered again the next day, and instead argue that everything Obama did on his first day in office doesn't count.

* Obama’s inaugural address was pretty much the same as the last two. (Yeah, yeah - I linked to that in the last post. So what?)

* Elizabeth Alexander’s reading was, I believe, post-post-post-modern performance art. There's really no other explanation.

* I got distracted before Joseph Lowery’s Benediction, so I missed it. The music afterward was typically overblown, but that's a bipartisan fault.

In the end though, I'm sure that critics of this administration will be consumed by the unprecedented, hateful hysteria that has surrounded our last president (the main difference is that Obama will enjoy a solid, worshipful base that Bush never had).

Something in the air over at T&S (or the water, or both)

They really love that Obama guy over at T&S. It's from on extreme to another. After years of pouring out hate filled rants about Bush or shameless attempts to (mis)use tragedies for political ends, Julie has decided Obama really is the Messiah - the scriptures even prophesy of him, according to her. (Some may notice Adam Greenwood has already called her on this, but he does it with his characteristic lack of class, so no one will pay attention anyway. Since my only existence is as an abstract concept, I don't care if no one is paying attention.)

Meanwhile, Marc Bohn (oh, the entendres possible with his last name!) has taken a quote from Elder Ballard every so slightly out of context, and interpreted it to mean that everything Obama wants to do is great and God-blessed. I think Frank might be making some good points against Marc's post, but it's so buried in bizarro-economic jargon (but I repeat myself), I can't be quite sure what he's really saying.

So, over at Totally & Sincerely worshiping Obama instead of the real anointed one, I can look forward to many, many posts about how those who will not support Obama are just not good members of the church. Perhaps Kaimi will get his wish to have "do you prove you aren't racist by believing Obama is God's anointed servant" added to the temple recommend interviews (and why isn't Kaimi an apostle yet? He's clearly much smarter and more in tune with the Spirit, with a greater understanding of the Gospel than the people we currently have in that office).

Of course, that may change when the realize the new boss is pretty much the same as the old boss. (Ah, who am I kidding? These Servants of Obama have already handed over what little bit of their critical thinking they had. They're hopeless. I had some hope that since the permabloggers in the 'Nacle already had, nominally, a religion, they might not go for the Obama worship so full throttle. Well, they've crushed my hope. There is no change here).

Who is more damaging to the Church?

Devyn S. or Ex-mormons?

I was thinking about this question the other day as I read Devyn S.'s rather odd post wherein he compares a specific group with largely quantifiable aims, philosophies, and practices (ACLU) with a largely undefined and undefinable group with various competing goals, theologies, and customs (the so-called "religious right"). So, I figured I'd do the same to him.

Now, Devyn S. is (apparently) a faithful member of the church, and claims to believe in it on some level. However, Devyn is a bigot. Bigots are prejudiced against other groups, so much so that they see those groups as fungible, and claim they all contain the same negative traits. The bigot is incapable of seeing "those people" as individuals, and while a bigot may have some "best friends" from among the group they aim their bigotry at, on the whole they condemn the group. Devyn created perhaps the most bigoted post ever on the 'Nacle when he attacked married Mormon graduate students for sometimes using government aid (in a rather judgmental post that also exposed Devyn for being a hypocrite, as he constantly attacked others for being too judgmental). Now, Devyn is also clearly a bigot when it comes to the religious right, treating it as though it were equivalent to the ACLU, and everyone in it exactly the same.

Ex-mormons, even when indulging in anti-mormonism, have left the church and therefore can only attack it from the outside. They have no power to drag any substantial number of members along with them.

I would say then, that Devyn S. is more damaging. There are too many Ex-mormons predict what they as a group (if they can even be considered a group in any sort of demographic sense) would do or not do to the church. Devyn S., on the other hand, outright hates married Mormon graduate students on welfare, people with large families, and the religious right. As a (suppossedly) faithful, active member, he has more power to spread this bigotry amongst the members. Therefore, Devyn S. is a grave danger to the church as a whole.

Well someone at BCC really, really hates Israel

I would come up with a good response to their inane embrace of cliched anti-Israel talking points, but instead, I'll just link to that neo-con stooge and right wing shill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Considering how often those at BCC talk about how awesome Reid is, I'm sure they'll start taking the pro-Israel side soon. They can't be that in thrall to the left-wing pundits, can they? At least Reid shows occasional signs of being able to think for himself.