tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post7752049905264668537..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Imagine Fewer Dragons (and More Data): Initial Reactions to the Film Believer with Dan Reynolds and John DehlinJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-9187283112373436332019-01-23T17:01:42.309-06:002019-01-23T17:01:42.309-06:00Those might-makes-right personalities that only be...Those might-makes-right personalities that only believe in wrong when it is convenient for them are amazing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-41646983344942006582019-01-23T11:41:30.075-06:002019-01-23T11:41:30.075-06:00What a bizzarre moral universe you have. If you c...What a bizzarre moral universe you have. If you can insult incessantly, the why can't he? At least he is not a stalker with confessed impulsivity problems like you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1470659474084048032019-01-23T10:58:48.579-06:002019-01-23T10:58:48.579-06:00Yeah, I figured Mormography would find some way to...Yeah, I figured Mormography would find some way to insult me based on the answer I gave him.Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-19277575010814166712019-01-23T01:58:07.853-06:002019-01-23T01:58:07.853-06:00Ramer - You see, you failed to provided a single ...Ramer - You see, you failed to provided a single example of "twist just about everything positive anyone says about the Church so that they're suddenly condemning the Church" With regards to other people, you proved you resort to double standards, one person generalizes, another twists.<br /><br />So we see the hate that fills your heart and that anti-Mormon is just a religion identification slur in the sense that Jeff that uses word slur.<br /><br />Your inability to follow the teachings your religion is not condemning your Church, it is condemning you. But we all get that you do not understand the difference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-33163098342990896082019-01-22T20:15:33.142-06:002019-01-22T20:15:33.142-06:00I don't recall any time you've actually sa...I don't recall any time you've actually said that phrase; he seems to be indicating what critics such as you often seem to think we believe will happen if people join the Church. If you had actually said that in a context different than the one Jeff's presenting it in, then yeah, he would be twisting your words. As it is, it's just a generalization.Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15582753126520633742019-01-22T17:28:40.922-06:002019-01-22T17:28:40.922-06:00Ramer -
Sorry missed posted the above about the F...Ramer -<br /><br />Sorry missed posted the above about the Fed.<br /><br />On your topic of twisting. Jeff says about my words "we will be instantly cured of all ills, get better teeth, maybe gain two or three inches in height or whatever and other cool magic,"<br /><br />So, Ramer, are you going to be consistent and accuse him of twisting my words?<br /><br />-MormographyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-20974039883539003782019-01-22T17:22:47.068-06:002019-01-22T17:22:47.068-06:00You had me with you, until the whole Fed thing. R...You had me with you, until the whole Fed thing. Remind us what your beef with the Fed is.<br /><br />Our money should have “In The Fed We Trust” written on it. Like all human systems it is fallible, but so far we have been fortunate to have intelligent men and women in it help us clean up our messes.<br /><br />Even Milton Friedman complained that the Fed did not do more during the great depression. Huh? Do more? Limited government guy wanted the Fed to do more?<br /><br />The Fed did not decide whether or not to support Israel in the 70's. Arthur Burns may have put a conservative like Nixon in a corner and forced him into price and wage controls, but then came Paul Volcker, backed by Reagan, to save the day.<br /><br />The Fed did not create the internet or the internet bubble. Alan Greenspan failed to further limit margin rates, but imagine that, had the Fed not limited how much stocks can be bought with borrowed money the internet bubble would have been even bigger. Had the Fed not lowered interest rates post pop, the pop would have been even bigger.<br /><br />The Fed did not create the credit rating agencies or encourage them to commit fraud. It did not create the credit default swaps on questionable mortgages. In 2008, when the fraud became evident to all and the financial system froze because no one could figure out who owned these credit default swaps, it was the Fed that help softened the blow and kick the can down the road.<br /><br />So from US support of Israeli, to Internet bubbles, to our collective mortgage fraud induced financial Armageddon of 2008, the Fed has been there walk us through it.<br /><br />Can you imagine if congress had to walk us through these economics crisis-es. Thank goodness congress outsourced the job to the Fed. You really want congress to start doing it again? The same congress you just complained about? Erratic interest rates every election cycle? Really? That is what you want?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-85439629137404330712019-01-22T17:13:41.315-06:002019-01-22T17:13:41.315-06:00Right, and I gave him what he demanded (he deleted...Right, and I gave him what he demanded (he deleted the post - you will have to ask him why). He demanded something, I graciously gave it him, and then he deletes the post without explanation or follow up. Without follow up on his part to something he demanded, I am left to conclude how I wish, unless he wishes to clarify. Sorry Ramer, that does not make me the one twisting things. But now that we all see how you jump to the conclusion of twisting, we know how orbital your assessments are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-10795807423598249202019-01-22T16:04:56.008-06:002019-01-22T16:04:56.008-06:00So you concede your "recent lapses in this ar...<i>So you concede your "recent lapses in this area where" you "have improperly called" LDS people antis.</i><br /><br />Right there is a perfect example of twisting someone else's words. Actually reading Jeff's comment shows that he was asking where these supposed lapses were.Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40385569712685023002019-01-22T07:42:01.135-06:002019-01-22T07:42:01.135-06:00So you concede your "recent lapses in this ar...So you concede your "recent lapses in this area where" you "have improperly called" LDS people antis. That is OK. The miracle of forgiveness awaits.<br /><br />I am most definitely anti. Anti-bully. I donated $50 to school buss monitor Karen Klein when that punk bullied her and later to Jeremy Runnell's website when his Stake President picked on him. As for anti-Mormon, I have no problem being anti-Mormon ... if you back it up. After a decade of trying, you and fairmormon have been unable to back it up and proven when you do it out of name calling bullying only. <br /><br />If you get to self declare a believer, than so does Dan Reynolds. I hope I taught you an invaluable lesson and helped bring you closer to Christ.<br /><br />Your comments on the Stake President are curious. The LDS church is in fact a big tent. There is no litmus test if a person believes in local or global Biblical flood, etc. A LDS person can believe that polygamy is required in heaven, or not, and still get a recommend. There is no requirement that a person be orthodox Mormon to get a recommend. In fact, there is no requirement that a person actually believe, just think they believe, or not be lying when they say they believe. I have even seen people get baptized Mormon with Virgin Guadalupe medallions around their necks.<br /><br />So I most definitely would give you a recommend. I know of a LDS bishop that refused to give people recommends for watching rated R movies. Not long after, God took him to heaven with a freak accident for that corrupt, unrighteous dominion, ha ha.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-11956470823709096662019-01-22T06:49:35.289-06:002019-01-22T06:49:35.289-06:00Another Anon said, "condescending tone (e.g.,...Another Anon said, "condescending tone (e.g., equating homosexuality to gambling, drug abuse, and pedophilia, suspecting Dan Reynolds holding a secret grudge)". No, I was referring to Reynold's own statement about his heterosexual activities that got him booted from BYU. He publicly defended that on TV as something that felt so right, so how could it be bad? I observed that many vices have that appeal but it's not an adequate justification. So my statement was about his BYU story, not homosexuality. <br /><br />The BYU story may be relevant. That it was not mentioned in the movie, while another young man booted for the same reason was held up as a victim of the Church, might say something about Reynolds' attitudes and anger toward the Church. Or it might not, but it's something that can be considered and raises a question mark about the way he is positioned in the film. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-33089767723219866372019-01-22T06:42:17.304-06:002019-01-22T06:42:17.304-06:00"I'm not convinced Jeff Lindsay really co..."I'm not convinced Jeff Lindsay really counts as a believer..."<br /><br />Yes, I thought that was you, Mormography. I'll turn the other cheek on this one and accept your claim to being a non-believer. In fact, I marvel at just how arduously you strive in your non-believing. By the way, as a zealous disbeliever, would it offend you if someone concluded you might be a little "anti"? Or is that a taboo word for you also? Just curious. It's a word I try to avoid, but thought I'd ask. Market research. <br /><br />For the record, I am a believer, really, though I'm sorry my belief doesn't meet your standards for what Latter-day Saints need to believe. Something about having more cognitive dissonance and also thinking that once we believe, we will be instantly cured of all ills, get better teeth, maybe gain two or three inches in height or whatever and other cool magic, I guess. I believe in miracles, but not guaranteed ones on demand. Looks like I'd never get a temple recommend if you were my Stake President. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-80848844028763088312019-01-22T00:02:35.022-06:002019-01-22T00:02:35.022-06:00Ramer -
Apparently I have been renting space in ...Ramer - <br /><br />Apparently I have been renting space in your head. Hope my rent is not late, u might have to file for eviction with the Judge.<br /><br />With regards to making fun, demeaning, etc., I usually only do this to people who do it first, regardless if they are LDS or not. And thank goodness, because if I didn't, who keep u in check and stop u from embarrassing the LDS further? Isn't that pro-LDS?<br /><br />With regards to twisting, any specific examples? Or r u just making stuff up again? And why would I want to condemn the LDS church over a few imperfect people like yourself? I know way too many outstanding LDS who would be appalled to think they should be condemned because of u.<br /><br />-MormographyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-65745908875021563242019-01-21T11:11:12.364-06:002019-01-21T11:11:12.364-06:00I'm not convinced Jeff Lindsay really counts a...I'm not convinced Jeff Lindsay really counts as a believer:<br /><br />1. His post on cognitive dissonance clearly shows he never truly experienced it, a sign of a less active heart instead of a more vigorous one. Having never tasted the salt, he just does not get what it means to believe.<br /><br />2. Repeatedly narrows (not expands) the faith by openly eliminating (not adding) doctrines he determines are passe. A believing apologist defends the faith, an apologist that does not believe renounces ownership. He jettisons prior doctrine as "offensive caricatures".<br /><br />3. Rejects canonized DC 10 as scripture.<br /><br />4. Here, we see him suggest faith in Jesus does not heal as promised. Here he doubts the promise of the restored gospel to radically change ones life instantaneously.<br /><br />5. The Gospel only "tends" to make us healthier. The Gospel is just another social club for a healthy lifestyle, like being vegan or yoga.<br /><br />6. Mormon latter-day prophets are not the fantastical prophets, seers, revelators with magical powers, but administrative leaders of a social group that write generic statements about the value of families. Prophets are just some kind of prophet like the rest of us are some kind of prophet for a least a moment or two.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-84672671680928467092019-01-21T10:28:18.192-06:002019-01-21T10:28:18.192-06:00Interesting tactics and condescending tone (e.g., ...Interesting tactics and condescending tone (e.g., equating homosexuality to gambling, drug abuse, and pedophilia, suspecting Dan Reynolds holding a secret grudge).<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-3745316344969212292019-01-21T09:57:09.235-06:002019-01-21T09:57:09.235-06:00I'm puzzled by Mormons that feel they are not ...I'm puzzled by Mormons that feel they are not anti-Christian. Statements about great and abominable churches, protestant ministers working for Satan himself, and even God declaring "<b>all</b> their creeds were an abomination" "those professors were <b>all corrupt</b>" teaching "for doctrines the commandments of men". Sure hasn't looked very pro- or neutral, and the tone and accusations sure seem to fall in the anti-camp. If Christians are as bad as you say, maybe being anti-Christian is something to be proud of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-35957889975125798762019-01-20T17:21:34.571-06:002019-01-20T17:21:34.571-06:00Nope, calling you Mormon has never remove Christ f...Nope, calling you Mormon has never remove Christ from the name Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints before so no reason it should start now. So for all the reason already mention you should like being called Mormon.<br /><br />Also, if people should not be offended by the word anti-Mormon, then you should not be offended by being called anti-Christian because you declared the priesthood of 1 billion Christians apostate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-8336717352877158442019-01-20T16:03:42.362-06:002019-01-20T16:03:42.362-06:00Anon 2:53 PM -
Because it removes the name of Ch...Anon 2:53 PM - <br /><br />Because it removes the name of Christ from His church.Ramernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40782314391219627102019-01-20T14:53:18.133-06:002019-01-20T14:53:18.133-06:00But why are Mormons so hesitant of the Mormon word...But why are Mormons so hesitant of the Mormon word? If someone truly thinks their religion possess an extremely special quality, is it shameful to suggest a unique distinguisher for their religion? If someone actively proclaims their religion and no other speaks for Christ, wouldn't they want a brand name that would not confuse them with any other Christian. And if you think "Mormonism" is pure awesomeness and you want to shout it from the mountain tops, why shy away from being called Mormon?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1327768085902178302019-01-20T11:14:02.445-06:002019-01-20T11:14:02.445-06:00"And if you think "Mormonism" is pu..."And if you think "Mormonism" is pure evil and you denounce it, why be angry to be called anti-Mormon?"<br /><br />You see. Just because, despite all your intelligence and reading, you are incapable of winning an argument you started does not mean the person exposing you thinks "'Mormonism' is pure evil" and denounces it. The fact you think it does just shows how much hate consumes your person. Who is the angry one?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-30122237469247686322019-01-19T22:08:39.535-06:002019-01-19T22:08:39.535-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-96569814844517922019-01-19T19:07:47.177-06:002019-01-19T19:07:47.177-06:00Impolite people are not necessarily anti-Mormon. B...Impolite people are not necessarily anti-Mormon. But why are people so afraid of the anti word? If someone opposes Trump vocally, is it shameful to suggest they might be anti-Trump? If someone actively denounces Communism, could they be anti-Communist? And if you think "Mormonism" is pure evil and you denounce it, why be angry to be called anti-Mormon? The word has to have some meaning. But I do seriously try not to use it much. And don't think I've used it often against serious fellow LDS people who disagree with me on an issue or many issues. Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-47755245883280609222019-01-19T18:59:46.353-06:002019-01-19T18:59:46.353-06:00Anon @12:49 said, "just about everyone here i...Anon @12:49 said, "just about everyone here is Mormon. As you know, you call many of them anti-Mormon." No, I really don't know this. I don't use that word lightly to describe many people, unless I'm having serious mental lapses or am writing without thinking, as does sometimes happen. So I'd appreciate you pointing out my recent lapses in this area where I have improperly called many fellow LDS people antis. <br /><br />And what makes you think just about everyone here is Mormon? Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-61203595004541008642019-01-19T18:37:22.614-06:002019-01-19T18:37:22.614-06:00I don't know about someone that argues (that i...I don't know about someone that argues (that is just life), but isn't someone that makes fun, demeans, or twists just plain old obnoxious, rude, insensitive and impolite, not necessarily anti-Mormon?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-30153913043059357712019-01-19T16:10:03.556-06:002019-01-19T16:10:03.556-06:00Except for maybe Catholic Defender (CD), just abou...<i>Except for maybe Catholic Defender (CD), just about everyone here is Mormon.</i><br /><br />Catholic Defender (I haven't seen him on any recent posts, so it's curious he would be brought up...) is far from the only non-LDS commenter on Jeff's blog. James Anglin, Mormography, Orbiting Kolob... I'm pretty sure none of them are LDS. I would not, however, call all of them "anti-Mormon" (which, by the way, is NOT how Mormography defined it). Catholic Defender, for example; I have read many of his comments on older ones, and he doesn't seem to be here to attack, make fun of, or argue with Jeff or other Latter-day Saints. He debates, yes, but I can tell that he tries to do it respectfully, and in a way that doesn't demean anyone. Thus, I would not call him an anti-Mormon.<br /><br />Mormography, however, DOES do all of those things - he attacks, makes fun of, AND argues with Jeff and other Latter-day Saints, and frequently demeans them. He also tries to twist just about everything positive anyone says about the Church so that they're suddenly condemning the Church, or "conceding" the critics' viewpoints. I would definitely call him an anti-Mormon.Ramernoreply@blogger.com