Bloggernacle Rant

[mikbone]

First I would like to express my gratitude to the members of this website.  I love discussing LDS doctrine, and appreciate the respectful tone that generally occurs in the forums.

Anyways, I occasionally hit other ‘Mormon’ websites to see the other discussions that come up.  For example:

http://www.ldsblogs.org/

Last week while on vacation I stumbled upon this blog and couldn’t help myself.

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2019/06/17/the-angel-at-gethsemane/

I posted relevant material but my post was deleted without explanation.  Perhaps I didn’t have sufficient documentation but I was on vacation and posted from my iphone...

Anyway when I got home I reposted with extensive documentation.  After my post and a response to answer a question posed by the OP, she closed comments on the post - and rudely in my opinion.

I can’t handle the bootlickers and the pseudo intellectuals there with their semi-apostate book publishers and need for uninspired ‘scholarship’.

/rant off

[Vort]

In general, I have rather liked reading Ardis Parshall. She is obviously both intelligent and well-read, she seems to value her testimony of the restored gospel, and she appears to be a much more careful historian than many (most) who identify themselves as such in LDS circles. I used to read her blog fairly often. But she appears to partake to some degree in the intellectualist sport of LDS iconoclasm, which I find distasteful.

Now I'm as willing as the next guy to identify silly ideas that have crept into LDS circles and even to call them out on occasion*. But in the final analysis, we are a Church and kingdom led by men of God under revelation, and definitely not by the learned who carefully parse literature and Think Deeply About Stuff and then pronounce their pontifications. That describes the various Catholic schools of thought as well as the Muslim madahib. The restored kingdom of God doesn't work like that.

I have no advice for Sister Parshall. I am not on her level, certainly not as pertaining to LDS history. But I, like you, get annoyed by much of this iconoclasm. It strikes me as self-serving and as not building the kingdom. Perhaps Elder McConkie's speculations were ill-considered, or perhaps they simply shouldn't have been shared. But I really don't think that the doctrine of "Michael as comforting angel to Christ during the atonement" is a widespread idea in LDS circles or one that threatens to unbalance our understanding of Christ's atonement for us.

*For example, "Jesus was left alone during the act of atonement because God could not bear to witness the sufferings of his Son. The Father fled to the furthest corner of His universe to escape this evil." This particular idea enjoyed a brief period of popularity when I was a youth and young man, and really, if you read it carefully and consider its implications, it is simply appalling. So I have little problem dismantling such nonsense, though I also realize that some people more tender in the gospel might put stock in such things and could be bruised by a vigorous attack against it. So we proceed with caution. But the point is that iconoclasm per se is not what I object to.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

In general, I have rather liked reading Ardis Parshall. She is obviously both intelligent and well-read, she seems to value her testimony of the restored gospel, and she appears to be a much more careful historian than many (most) who identify themselves as such in LDS circles. I used to read her blog fairly often. But she appears to partake to some degree in the intellectualist sport of LDS iconoclasm, which I find distasteful.

Now I'm as willing as the next guy to identify silly ideas that have crept into LDS circles and even to call them out on occasion*. But in the final analysis, we are a Church and kingdom led by men of God under revelation, and definitely not by the learned who carefully parse literature and Think Deeply About Stuff and then pronounce their pontifications. That describes the various Catholic schools of thought as well as the Muslim madahib. The restored kingdom of God doesn't work like that.

I have no advice for Sister Parshall. I am not on her level, certainly not as pertaining to LDS history. But I, like you, get annoyed by much of this iconoclasm. It strikes me as self-serving and as not building the kingdom. Perhaps Elder McConkie's speculations were ill-considered, or perhaps they simply shouldn't have been shared. But I really don't think that the doctrine of "Michael as comforting angel to Christ during the atonement" is a widespread idea in LDS circles or one that threatens to unbalance our understanding of Christ's atonement for us.

*For example, "Jesus was left alone during the act of atonement because God could not bear to witness the sufferings of his Son. The Father fled to the furthest corner of His universe to escape this evil." This particular idea enjoyed a brief period of popularity when I was a youth and young man, and really, if you read it carefully and consider its implications, it is simply appalling. So I have little problem dismantling such nonsense, though I also realize that some people more tender in the gospel might put stock in such things and could be bruised by a vigorous attack against it. So we proceed with caution. But the point is that iconoclasm per se is not what I object to.

Of course tearing apart ill conceived intellectual ideas as you have noted above is more than appropriate and should be the work of the faithful. Tearing apart revelation and guidance from the church leaders and the like is another matter entirely.

[estradling75]

I don't know... If the very first post of the comment section is the owner of the site saying
 

Quote

 

The point of this post isn’t to invite your own speculations about who the angel might have been, as is happening on the Facebook announcement.

Please don’t record such speculations here.

Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — June 17, 2019 @ 10:23 am

 

And then some one ignores that... repeatedly...  Then yeah... I can totally empathize with the owner of the site deleting out of hand.  It is not them being rude... but rather the poster who thinks they above the clearly given directions that is being rude.

[mikbone]

She totally ignored the commentary by Tad Callister (served as both Presidency of the Seventy and the Sunday School) whose book The Infinite Atonement has had a wide circulation.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/general-conference/speakers?lang=eng&speaker=/church/leader/tad-r-callister

Notice the cover on the Illustrated Edition.  It appears as if Tad Callister cared enough about the passage (Luke 22:43) that he commissioned the above artwork.

 

And no one else in the entire thread mentioned it either...

That's probably what happens when your library consists of books from alternate ‘Mormom’ publishers...

https://religionnews.com/2017/04/11/new-mormon-publishing-house-aims-to-reach-people-who-feel-they-dont-have-a-place/

Name calling Cleon Skousen was also charming.

From here on out, I only what sycophantic replies to follow this post.

Thank you.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by mikbone

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, mikbone said:

From here on out I only what sycophantic replies to follow this post.

Thank you.

And it was your money that was paying for the site (or you were given authority by them) you could have that.  But you are not.... so you do not get want you want.

(Unless of course you want to start your own site where you can publish anything you want and only allow the comments you like... You could have it then.)

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Name calling Cleon Skousen was also charming.

Skousen was well-respected among many Latter-day Saints a couple of generations ago. Intellectual sneering at Skousen arose in opposition to that, and seems to have fed on itself since then. Throwing brickbats at Skousen has been all the rage for at least a generation now.

(Is this sufficiently sycophantic?)

[Vort]

39 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I don't know... If the very first post of the comment section is the owner of the site saying
 

And then some one ignores that... repeatedly...  Then yeah... I can totally empathize with the owner of the site deleting out of hand.  It is not them being rude... but rather the poster who thinks they above the clearly given directions that is being rude.

To be fair, she presents the idea that the comforting angel was Adam, then proceeds to tear it apart. It's 100% relevant to point out that other LDS leaders or prominent (meaning published) members may have spoken along these same lines.

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

To be fair, she presents the idea that the comforting angel was Adam, then proceeds to tear it apart. It's 100% relevant to point out that other LDS leaders or prominent (meaning published) members may have spoken along these same lines.

“We know that an angel came from the courts of glory to strengthen him in his ordeal, and we suppose it was mighty Michael, who foremost fell that mortal man might be.”  McConkie  April 1985 GC

The above statement is also interesting as it was given in General Conference and instead of using the Pronoun “I” Brother McConkie used the word “We”.

And I doubt that he had a mouse in his pocket, Just saying.

Edited June 29, 2019 by mikbone

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

And it was your money that was paying for the site (or you were given authority by them) you could have that.  But you are not.... so you do not get want you want.

(Unless of course you want to start your own site where you can publish anything you want and only allow the comments you like... You could have it then.)

I don't pretend to be an LDS scholar.  But I do understand critical thinking and scholarship.  

If someone is going to express an opinion they should be able to defend his or her reasoning.  

Censorship, name calling, and  this type of reaction does not reflect scholarship.  

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

I don't pretend to be an LDS scholar.  But I do understand critical thinking and scholarship.  

If someone is going to express an opinion they should be able to defend his or her reasoning.  

Censorship, name calling, and  this type of reaction does not reflect scholarship.  

You miss the point so far it is not even funny.

You like this place because we because we by and large agree with you... So you have not had to deal with moderator actions.

But I can personally guarantee you that we have deleted, blocked, banned many, many, many posters..  Who argument is a variation on yours.. If we are going to 'express an opinion (aka religion) we should be able defend our reasoning.... And we get accused of Censorship, Name Calling and <Gif Reaction>.  And we are then told such a reaction does not reflect being Christian.

The response is crap when it leveled against us...  And it is crap when it gets leveled against some one else.

Being able to defend your reasoning, logic, and beliefs is not the same as allowing someone to use your resources against you.  The First makes sense... the Second is stupid. 

Case in point... when the LDS scholars do counter other scholars.. The ones countering post their counter on their own website... not in the comment section.  You want to counter something said by someone in the Bloggernacle... go right ahead... but do it on your own site (or a neutral to friendly third party site)... Do not demand that the person you are countering also pay for it as well.

 

[mikbone]

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

You miss the point so far it is not even funny.

You like this place because we because we by and large agree with you... So you have not had to deal with moderator actions.

But I can personally guarantee you that we have deleted, blocked, banned many, many, many posters..  Who argument is a variation on yours.. If we are going to 'express an opinion (aka religion) we should be able defend our reasoning.... And we get accused of Censorship, Name Calling and <Gif Reaction>.  And we are then told such a reaction does not reflect being Christian.

The response is crap when it leveled against us...  And it is crap when it gets leveled against some one else.

Being able to defend your reasoning, logic, and beliefs is not the same as allowing someone to use your resources against you.  The First makes sense... the Second is stupid. 

Case in point... when the LDS scholars do counter other scholars.. The ones countering post their counter on their own website... not in the comment section.  You want to counter something said by someone in the Bloggernacle... go right ahead... but do it on your own site (or a neutral to friendly third party site)... Do not demand that the person you are countering also pay for it as well.

 

I am not being critical of your personal Senior Moderator decisions.  (Unless you are the aforementioned Ardis).

I don't mind if someone disagrees with me.  It is the best way to learn (especially if you are wrong, and I have been wrong on many occasions)...

On her website, I was quite polite, and carefully listed the documents in question, despite the fact that my prior post had been censored without explanation.

On her website http://www.keepapitchinin.org/about/professional-services/ she also lists her research skills.  

I just happened to pass over her post on the bloggernacle and even though I have no background in LDS scholarship I was able to recall 2 prior prominent mentions of Michael as the Angel that strengthened Christ.  I though it might be pertinent.  

 

BTW, she did censor my first post.  She did the name calling.  And she did close down the comments of the post.  

[estradling75]

25 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I am not being critical of your personal Senior Moderator decisions.  (Unless you are the aforementioned Ardis).

I don't mind if someone disagrees with me.  It is the best way to learn (especially if you are wrong, and I have been wrong on many occasions)...

On her website, I was quite polite, and carefully listed the documents in question, despite the fact that my prior post had been censored without explanation.

On her website http://www.keepapitchinin.org/about/professional-services/ she also lists her research skills.  

I just happened to pass over her post on the bloggernacle and even though I have no background in LDS scholarship I was able to recall 2 prior prominent mentions of Michael as the Angel that strengthened Christ.  I though it might be pertinent.  

 

BTW, she did censor my first post.  She did the name calling.  And she did close down the comments of the post.  

Still missing the point...

On someone else's webpage you do not have the Right to Free Speech..   To think otherwise is an entitlement mind set.

You post a comment on anyone else's page... They have to pay for it...  Forcing them to pay for something they do not want is thief and robbery.  You do not have the right to rob anyone.

Many sites extend the 'privilege' of posting. Said privilege exist for only as long as the owner wants it to.  Calling what they did censorship implies you have the right to rob them by forcing them to host your content.  You do not have such a right.  The sooner you realize that the sooner you can stop making clearly foolish arguments and focus on where you have stronger points.

[mikbone]

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Still missing the point...

On someone else's webpage you do not have the Right to Free Speech..   To think otherwise is an entitlement mind set.

You post a comment on anyone else's page... They have to pay for it...  Forcing them to pay for something they do not want is thief and robbery.  You do not have the right to rob anyone.

Many sites extend the 'privilege' of posting. Said privilege exist for only as long as the owner wants it to.  Calling what they did censorship implies you have the right to rob them by forcing them to host your content.  You do not have such a right.  The sooner you realize that the sooner you can stop making clearly foolish arguments and focus on where you have stronger points.

I didn’t realize I was costing her so much $$.

I will refrain from visiting her site in the future.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I didn’t realize I was costing her so much $$.

The amount is irrelevant.

Ownership is ownership. Whether my car is worth $100,000, $1000 or $1 you don't have the right to it. It's mine.

If a site belongs to someone else, you have no rights pertaining to it.

(Note: I'm not discounting your understandable frustration.)

Edited June 29, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[estradling75]

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The amount is irrelevant.

Ownership is ownership. Whether my car is worth $100,000, $1000 or $1 you don't have the right to it. It's mine.

If a site belongs to someone else, you have no rights pertaining to it.

(Note: I'm not discounting your understandable frustration.)

Neither am I discounting his frustration...  Frustration caused by feeling entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor (no matter how tiny) is a frustration that can only righteously be dealt with by losing the sense of entitlement.  @mikbone was never entitled to post on her site. He was privileged to post and lost that privilege (at least in this instance)

[Vort]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Still missing the point...

Mikbone may not have a God-given right to post on Ardis Parshall's site, but I daresay you're missing his point. He seems to feel that Sister Parshall is, well, partial when it comes to comments allowed. Indeed, if she is presenting her site as a place to give honest feedback and a host of robust discussions, then deleting or shutting down mikbone's well-documented discussion because she doesn't like the opinion expressed is dirty pool, and mikbone has every right to make a stink about it. In that case, it's not entitlement at all. And note that I'm not saying Ardis Parshall did or did not do so, but that seems to be mikbone's view. It seems to me that it would be more useful to deal with that issue than just to call mikbone names like "entitled".

[Just_A_Guy]

The Bloggernacle, like any community, has a certain number of presuppositions; and has little patience for those who question them.  In their mind, they’ve already invented the wheel and they have no use for people who want to take all their time re-inventing that wheel or asking if everyone’s SURE the wheel really works. 

We here at ThirdHour are kind of like that too, in point of fact.  The difference is that at ThirdHour, a) we don’t pretend to be infinitely open minded; and b) our sacred cows reflect the statements of LDS leaders who (i) had priesthood authority, (ii) lived/live righteously, (iii) sincerely and undeniably loved the Lord, and (iv) had/have our best interests at heart (sorry, ‘nacle, but you guys are mostly 0 for 4 on that score).

By the way, LDSblogs.org/Mormon Archipelago was developed by the proprietors of bycommonconsent.org (which frankly includes some genuinely evil people) to drive traffic to their own site; and IIRC they include at least three openly anti blogs on their list (“anti” as in, their owners/major regular co-bloggers have been excommunicated). NothingWavering.org is a better collation of LDS-oriented bloggers who haven’t completely lost their cookies.  

Edited June 30, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

34 minutes ago, Vort said:

Mikbone may not have a God-given right to post on Ardis Parshall's site, but I daresay you're missing his point. He seems to feel that Sister Parshall is, well, partial when it comes to comments allowed. Indeed, if she is presenting her site as a place to give honest feedback and a host of robust discussions, then deleting or shutting down mikbone's well-documented discussion because she doesn't like the opinion expressed is dirty pool, and mikbone has every right to make a stink about it. In that case, it's not entitlement at all. And note that I'm not saying Ardis Parshall did or did not do so, but that seems to be mikbone's view. It seems to me that it would be more useful to deal with that issue than just to call mikbone names like "entitled".

And so what if she is?    We are partial here when it comes to comments as well.  And those we shutdown feel its because we didn't like the opinion expressed... 

Those people also feel they have the right to make a stink about it... and they very rarely do so in a manner that makes any noticeable difference.  Most of the time they do exactly what Mikbone has done.  Resulting in being blocked and therefore no longer being heard by the very audience they were looking to be heard by.   

If we really think we are in a better position then those on the Bloggernacle then we need to employ better tactics when we engage them on their home turf... then they do when they come here.  And we can't really call them hypocrites when they use the same tactics as we do without pointing a big old hypocritical finger back at ourselves

 

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Frustration caused by feeling entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor (no matter how tiny) is a frustration that can only righteously be dealt with by losing the sense of entitlement.

It depends, honestly. Ownership does not relegate fraudulent and uneven discriminatory interactions moral. I have in mind the current situation with Youtube and Steven Crowder and the hidden and practically fraudulent one-sided application of "rules" on Facebook and Twitter.

Merely owning something doesn't mean those sorts of practices should be viewed as acceptable and right. And feeling frustrated at them isn't necessarily an unrighteous act or based on entitlement -- at least no more entitlement than is allowed others.

You might as well say that a restaurant, being owned by an individual, and through said individual's biases African Americans are not served, due to said ownership, any frustration any black individual feels at the situation is unrighteousness on their part, and they simply need to lose their sense of entitlement.

Moreover, if a rule applies, then it must apply evenly. If no name calling is allowed but a moderator allows people that agree with them to name call but comes down hard on people that they don't agree with for name calling, then a certain level of fraud is being perpetrated. It is deceptive. The rules aren't actually rules in those cases...but tools to discriminate unevenly and unfairly. It may be within the rights of the owner(s) to be deceptive...but it's not exactly "entitlement" (with the pejorative implication you've given it) to be frustrated by that. At least having a large "no blacks allowed" sign in a window is honest.

Note: I'm not talking about @mikbone's experience since I don't know what the site rules actually are or how evenly they're applied. I'm just talking in principle.  And, of course, to hear myself talk..........er.....I mean to read myself writing....

Edited June 30, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

our sacred cows reflect the statements of LDS leaders

Something feels.....off.....about this statement.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

And so what if she is?    We are partial here when it comes to comments as well.  And those we shutdown feel its because we didn't like the opinion expressed... 

Those people also feel they have the right to make a stink about it... and they very rarely do so in a manner that makes any noticeable difference.  Most of the time they do exactly what Mikbone has done.  Resulting in being blocked and therefore no longer being heard by the very audience they were looking to be heard by.   

If we really think we are in a better position then those on the Bloggernacle then we need to employ better tactics when we engage them on their home turf... then they do when they come here.  And we can't really call them hypocrites when they use the same tactics as we do without pointing a big old hypocritical finger back at ourselves

 

It strikes me, based on how long certain individuals who I will not name at this time (*cough* Rob Osborne *cough*) that the moderators/owners of Third Hour go out of their way to not simply clamp down on every thing they disagree with.

[Just_A_Guy]

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Something feels.....off.....about this statement.

Church welfare farms, I understand, contain many sacred cows.  As did tithing yards, back in the 19th century.  

[estradling75]

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It depends, honestly. Ownership does not relegate fraudulent and uneven discriminatory interactions moral. I have in mind the current situation with Youtube and Steven Crowder and the hidden and practically fraudulent one-sided application of "rules" on Facebook and Twitter.

Merely owning something doesn't mean those sorts of practices should be views as acceptable and right. And feeling frustrated at them isn't necessarily an unrighteous act or based on entitlement -- at least no more entitlement than is allowed others.

You might as well say that a restaurant, being owned by an individual, and through said individual's biases African Americans are not served, due to said ownership, any frustration any black individual feels at the situation is unrighteousness on their part, and they simply need to lose their sense of entitlement.

Moreover, if a rule applies, then it must apply evenly. If no name calling is allowed but a moderator allows people that agree with them to name call but comes down hard on people that they don't agree with for name calling, then a certain level of fraud is being perpetrated. It is deceptive. The rules aren't actually rules in those cases...but tools to discriminate unevenly and unfairly. It may be within the rights of the owner(s) to be deceptive...but it's not exactly "entitlement" (with the pejorative implication you've given it) to be frustrated by that. At least having a large "no blacks allowed" sign in a window is honest.

Note: I'm not talking about @mikbone's experience since I don't know what the site rules actually are or how evenly they're applied. I'm just talking in principle.  And, of course, to hear myself talk..........er.....I mean to read myself writing....

Which while true  does not change the facts of this case.  The owner of that site explicitly stated from the get go in that thread that there was to be no speculation on the identity of the angel. What did Mikbone do (per his own words)??... Quote speculation about the angel.  What did he do when the post got removed (per his own words) Quote more speculation about the angel "with citations" because he assumed it was the lack of citations that was the problem.  Not the direct flouting of the directions the site owner had given.  There is nothing unfair or unjust or fraudulent about the owners actions here.

 

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It strikes me, based on how long certain individuals who I will not name at this time (*cough* Rob Osborne *cough*) that the moderators/owners of Third Hour go out of their way to not simply clamp down on every thing they disagree with.

While true to a point.  If we state in a thread... "Do not do a certain behavior"  Or "Stop a Certain behavior" and the behavior continues the clamps do come out and the hammer falls.  And almost always the people we hammer claim to be "innocent" or otherwise justified 

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Which while true  does not change the facts of this case.  The owner of that site explicitly stated from the get go in that thread that there was to be no speculation on the identity of the angel. What did Mikbone do (per his own words)??... Quote speculation about the angel.  What did he do when the post got removed (per his own words) Quote more speculation about the angel "with citations" because he assumed it was the lack of citations that was the problem.  Not the direct flouting of the directions the site owner had given.  There is nothing unfair or unjust or fraudulent about the owners actions here.

Like I said, I wasn't commenting on @mikbone's specific experience.