Elphaba

I'm not a mind reader. It's what he wrote. As far as musicals go, all the reviews say it's excellent. Then it's a good thing I never said that.Elphaba

I didn't say he wasn't read by others. You had said "read widely," which I took to mean what it usually means when no audience is specified: read widely by the public at large. Obviously, such was not the case for Nibley.It's true he was read by others in his field, but even then, I don't think it was enough to have been considered "read widely," but I could be wrong about that. Additionally, I didn't respond to it in my last post, but you also included B.H. Roberts as widely regarded in his day. Again, people outside the faith knew of him and his work, but not enough of the public at large knew who he was for him to be considered widely regarded by it, in his day or otherwise. Perhaps you can give a few examples of "read widely" and "widely regarded" so I can better understand what you mean. Was that in response to my comments? Elphaba

That's an excellent way to put it.Elph

I think this school has clearly overstepped its bounds; however, the fact is, some of the parents don't know how to provide proper food for their kids. The ever-growing obesity and diabetes problems among American children today are a result of that.Additionally, poor nourishment negatively affects the cognitive abilities of school-age children, and I suspect this was a consideration in the school's decision. Again, I think the school was wrong to do so, but if the factors listed above were instrumental in its choice, I can see why it did. Elphaba

How are they killing your beliefs? That's just nonsensical.Elphaba

What do you mean by "read widely"? Are you saying Nibley read a lot or that a lot of people read him? If it's the first, I would agree. If it's the latter, then I would disagree in that his only audience, for the most part, was a LDS one and in the field of scholarly works, that's just a drop in the bucket.The same holds true for being "recognized." Very few people outside of the Church would have any idea who Nibley was, both in his day and in ours. But within the Church he was, of course, highly recognized and beloved by the members. I have seen a number of criticisms of his work over the past five years, particularly that he was careless in some of the connections he made. I have no idea if that is true or not, as I read these criticisms on other websites in forums similar to this one, as opposed to an actual scholarly analysis of his work, and therefore am not convinced one way or the other. There have been many accomplished Mormon intellectuals since Nibley's days. I've only read the works of the historians, the most recent being the scholar Richard Bushman. His phenomenal book, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling is only four years old, and it's hard for me to imagine someone topping it. But toppings usually do happen and it will be interesting to see who does it. Elphaba

Over at The Book of Mormon Musical Response thread, in this post MOE linked to an article at SLATE about the musical. I was reading the comments to that article, and found the following, written, ironically, by someone who called himself "John Doe": The commenter's main criticism is about how the leadership portrays the Church's history, (something about which I disagree with him), and I was struck by how timely it was to this thread.I won't link to it as I'm concerned it would violate the forum's rules; however, if you want to read it for yourself it's not too far down on the first page of comments. Elphaba

I have not talked to hundreds of former LDS as Mute has, but I have talked to dozens, and I agree with him that there are often a number of reasons someone leaves, but ultimately, for the majority of these people, it all boiled down to a profound inability to gain a testimony, despite desperate attempts to do so. With these people, what other members did had little or nothing to do with it. When they did complain about other members it was usually after the fact in that those particular people were ostracized by them, including beloved family members, which was extremely painful to them. Some of them saw their marriages fail because of it, and were extremely critical of their spouse's decisions to end them. I'm not saying criticizing the leaders never leads to apostacy, as I think I've seen it. I say "I think" because I don't know all the details, but when I was active I knew one member who left who was extremely critical of the leadership (this was in the '70s and his criticism was about the racial ban), and later another who constantly criticized our bishop (which shocked me because no one criticized the bishop out loud, but more so because it was unwarranted. In fact, in retrospect I've often wondered if this person weren't mentally ill because much of what he said was so bizarre, but I really don't know.) I met every single person who left the Church for disbelief on the internet, so obviously, it's possible some of them lied; however, given it was also the only reason I left, I believe most of them told the truth. In the same venues I also met some people who it wouldn't surprise me had started on the road to apostasy by being critical of the leadership. A few of them could not write one word without bitterness dripping from it. I found it extremely off-putting and eventually I just ignored them. So, while I believe that criticizing the leaders can lead to apostasy, I also think more people leave from disbelief than most members recognize; however, it's been two decades since I've been in the pews, so maybe more members realize it than I think. Elphaba

I'm an anglophile, so I thought this was hilarious. Elph

I thought it was a great point that the Church is not so naive about the tragic circumstances so many people in Africa face, and I really enjoyed hearing about all the ways the Church has helped alleviate the suffering of so many. I already knew about the wheelchairs, but I did not know about the rest of it. I suspect that missionaries at the MTC, prior to landing in Africa, are told about these endeavors, so it makes sense that they are not as naive as the musical presumes. One thing that Otterson, and many Mormons I've seen comment angrily about the musical, seems to have missed that was mentioned in the countless reviews I've read is how the musical, while completely irreverent, ultimately celebrates the Mormon faith. I can understand how that sounds like nonsense to Mormons themselves, given how the show's approach (language, subject matter, etc.) clearly violates the Church's standards. Yet, I read the same thing in almost every single review. People actually came away seeing the Church in a better light. These included reviews by people who have been very critical of the Church, particularly because of its role in the passing of Prop 8. I have no idea if the show does, indeed, actually celebrate Mormonism. What I'm saying is that if someone is going to criticize it using information gleaned from the reviews, as Otterson does, then that point should be acknowledged. Elphaba

Sometimes they’re both, as is true in Whittle’s video. I never said they were. But whenever they are present to the degree they are in Whittle's video, they are red flags that a person's political beliefs are fashioned, to an extreme, by his/her ideology, and whenever this is the case, his/her interpretation of the data should be suspect. And the way he chose to “entertain” speaks volumes as to ideology. Okay, I see I’m not being clear. Whittle’s jokes are not the problem. It’s YOUR choice to present Whittle to me as, literally, “proof” of something that is the problem. Whittle seriously mocks and belittles liberals, something conservatives not ideologically motivated generally do. (ETA: I meant this to read "something conservatives not ideologically motivated generally DO NOT do.) So, I immediately realize he is probably an ideologue. Given ideologues interpret data through the lense of their ideology, and thus are rarely one-hundred-percent accurate, I am immediately suspicious of Whittle‘s interpretations. Yet, you presented it to me, as “proof” of something, and expect me to completely ignore he is an ideologue. That’s absurd. Look at it this way: I present to you, as “proof” of something, a video by Victor Victorville wherein he presents his interpretation of the data, but also says: “I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a deserter. What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar, and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants. And every time a conservative tells you Obama is lying s/he‘s the one whose really the liar because Obama never lies.” Are you going to tell me you’d seriously consider Victorville's data and interpretations without any suspicion of their accuracy whatsoever? Of course you wouldn’t, nor should you. And whose fault would that be? Victorville’s? Yours? No. It would be mine for choosing that as my “proof” to you, given his mockery of Bush and conservatives so obviously betrays his ideology. In fact, Victorville could be 100 percent accurate, but I would never, ever expect you to consider it such given he’s betrayed what his ideology is. You’ve done exactly the same thing by presenting Whittle to me as “proof” of something. So, barring me spending countless hours trying to verify which parts are, and are not, accurate, which I’m not willing to do, I have no way of knowing which is which. That’s your job. So, if you want to offer me “proof” of something, you should never present me with a source that is so blatantly ideological, just as I would never present you a Michael Moore-type source as “proof” of something, even if I believed every single word he said in that particular piece were accurate. You would laugh me out of the room, and rightly so. I do. You ignore at least some of “all the research, information and perspective” every single day, particularly if conclusions are reached that you disagree with. It’s impossible not to. You choose the interpretation to take seriously based on your belief system. As do I. Does that mean you always choose the interpretation that is correct? Of course not. Nor do I. And that’s precisely why I reject Whittle’s interpretations. It’s simply too hard to discover all the interpretations of data out there that are accurate, so I take clues that give me reason to suspect a person’s interpretation very seriously. And that’s the bottom line. If you couldn’t find anything that supports Whittle’s conclusions from a more reliable source, why in the world do you expect me to consider him as "proof" of anything?Elphaba

I can't think of anyone who deserves it more, and I'm so happy to hear you're going for your master's. Elph

I read all of your posts and appreciate the time and effort you put into them. The fact that you are actually in the ME (or were), makes your perspective invaluable to me. So, if it matters that one person does read your posts, please keep writing them. Elphaba

You two make me think some people really are meant for each other. Elph

What can I say? I have never heard any liberal claim the wars are entirely responsible for the deficit, and I read a lot of political blogs, both liberal and conservative. Additionally, I searched a number of different word combinations, and did find a few conservatives claim liberals said this, but could not find one instance of a liberal actually saying it.That does not convince me it's never been said. I am hardly an expert at what words make an effective search and perhaps I didn't use them. I don't doubt both you and PoL have seen it said. But I am not convinced enough liberals have said it to warrant "well-worn." If PoL had used "well-worn" to describe many liberal's claims that the wars, Bush's tax cuts, and the Medicare prescription drug plan are entirely responsible for the deficit, then I would agree with him. Far too many liberals have said that with no regard to Obama's contribution. But I have never seen a liberal say only the wars are responsible for the deficit in its entirety. While I haven't seen the claim that the wars are responsible for the deficit, I agree with you completely that those liberals who claim Bush, and thus the right, is entirely responsible for the deficit are motivated by ideology. However, if we're going to be pointing out when someone's claims are ideologically charged, I think the author of PoL‘s video needs to be included as guilty of the same. Most often when someone makes ridiculous, all-or-nothing statements like: “Many of us on the right knows that the left only wins when it can find only one sob story and sell that,” that speaker’s motives are ideologically charged. People who say that kind of nonsense are usually not interested in persuading people to their points of view. They’re usually only interested in entertaining those who already share their ideology. Both sides of the spectrum have pundits guilty of this. From the left, Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz come to mind. From the right Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and this Mr. Whittle, fit the bill. If people are truly interested in persuading me that their facts are accurate, they don’t make rude fat jokes to dismiss someone‘s position, they don’t disparage the group I belong to, and they don’t call American citizens who genuinely disagree with them, and who exercised their Constitutionally guaranteed rights to free speech and freedom of assembly the pejorative “mobs." I'm not saying there's anything wrong with him targeting the audience that agrees with him ideologically. I am saying that when someone's ideology is so obviously a motivation, it's probable that his/her facts are interpreted through that ideology, and thus, I would never consider it as "proof" of anything, which is what PoL presented it as. Elphaba

What websites? Elphaba

I have been in your shoes for the past year and a half, and it is rough.My daughter was engaged to the man she'd been in a relationship with for three years, and we all thought he was wonderful. When he proposed, I was ecstatic. I was so happy she had found such a great match, and looked forward to grandchildren. Then two months after he proposed he called it off. It was devastating to both her and me; however, it turns out he was not such a great person after all. I'm not saying that simply because he dumped my daughter; rather, it turns out he really wants a life of virtually no responsibilities, and every time we think he's sunk to a new low, he proves us wrong. It took me a long time to be able to forgive him for what he did, but I did come to realize that marrying her, knowing how he truly felt, would have been a far worse crime, and now I honestly worry about him. But there's nothing I can do for him and so I don't dwell on it. However, my daughter is still not over it, and it continues to break my heart every single day. Things have actually gotten ugly between them these last two weeks and I'm hoping this is what finally gets her to see that she HAS to LET GO, once and for all. She has known that's what she's needed to do for a very long time, but knowing it and doing it are two completely different things. I really have no advice for you, as I haven't been able to make everything okay for my daughter, much as I've wanted to. It's a very fine and squiggly line between letting her know I understand why she's in so much pain and giving her tough love when she needs to hear reality, and I feel like I'm always falling off that line. Right now, though, your sister's feelings are probably so raw that nothing you or anyone else says will really make it better. I do think my physical presence helped my daughter over those really dark days. She's a hugger, and I am so grateful for that, because it really does seem to help her feel better (it never did me, so I have a hard time understanding it). Perhaps the same will be true for your sister. My heart goes out to the both of you. Elphaba

Where?Elphaba

"Well-worn"? I'm a liberal and I stay fairly well informed, and I've never heard any liberal claim that the wars are entirely responsible for the deficit. I don't deny it might have been said. But it's never been said enough to warrant your "well-worn" claim. Elphaba

Well, I'm converted. All it took was the right canon. Elph

Yes. It's 2011. I was interested in apexviper's response.Elphaba

What I get from your post: Don't ask questions because it doesn't matter what the answers are. Don't clarify your questions if they haven't been answered because it means you didn't like the answer(s), even though it was no such thing. Don't explain what you already know because it will be ignored and repeated as if you hadn't. Elphaba

Thank you so much for pulling all that together MOE. None of it was feeble whatsoever, and all of it was very helpful, in that I better recognize where my assumptions were accurate, inaccurate, or speculation due to a lack of more precise information. It really was just what I was hoping for.Elph

I know I have forgiven him. Most often people who abuse their children were abused themselves, and this was true for him. His childhood was horrific, and while I hate that that happened to him, knowing about it made it much easier for me to forgive him. Knowing my mom and my siblings, if they haven't forgiven him yet, they will. The one brother for whom it would be the hardest was annihilated by my father. Today, that brother is a very committed Christian Mormon, and so, while I suspect it would be harder for him than the rest of us, I have no doubt that if he hasn't yet forgiven him, he is/will work on it. That was a very good point. Thanks for that. Elphaba