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.