I thought for a Friday we’d keep it a bit light and just explore a few recent trends occurring around the Church. These are pretty random and just my own observations. You might add your own or disagree with mine. So here goes.
The Most Visibly Recognized Mormon Leader is not a Mormon leader at all. It’s Warren Jeffs, the Prophet/President of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints (FLDS). Jeffs was recently convicted of two felony counts of child sexual assault for which he received a life sentence. As hard as the mainstream Mormon/LDS Church tries to distance itself from the FLDS, there are still some news organizations that cannot seem to get the lack of connection correct. The FLDS is an offshoot of the Mormon Church back from the days when polygamy was banned from the LDS church and several breakaway groups were formed to continue the practice. In most cases, they call the “FLDS” a Mormon fundamentalist group, which irritates the LDS Church and Church members no end. Most people in the US probably recognize and associate Warren Jeffs with the Mormon Church more than current Church President Thomas S. Monson. UPDATE: here is a link to an article by Peggy Fletcher Stack in the Salt Lake Tribune Comparing Joseph Smith and Warren Jeffs Polygamy.
The Most Visible Current Church Spokesperson is not part of the Church’s PR department but is a San Diego State University Literary Professor. Joanna Brooks is all over the news media these days, blogging in the Washington Post, appearing on NPR and in various other media outlets as the current “go-to” person to explain the Church to others. On one hand, Joanna, who is an articulate speaker and an excellent writer, is a model from the “I am a Mormon” mold. She is also least likely to be a Church Spokesperson. After all, she is from a part–member family (her husband is Jewish) and she has not been through the Temple, the Church’s highest ordinances. The fact that she is a woman is not so important because the Church does have a woman spokesperson now, Kim Farah. But Kim probably meets all the requirements of a Church employee. And Joanna is a very liberally-minded, which is a clear minority of the Church members in the US.
The Most Visible Mormon Book is not a book at all, but an award-winning Broadway musical titled, “Book of Mormon.” Since its publication in March 1830 and some 150 Million copies printed in multiple languages, The LDS Church’s sacred book of scripture, the Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ does not have the same recognition as a satirical look at the LDS Missionary experience which burst on the Broadway Musical scene only less than a year ago. Believe me, this is no “Sound of Music.” It’s irreverent, somewhat crude, misrepresents a number of things about the LDS Church and, particularly its missionaries. But it is been extremely successful, having won multiple Tony awards, played to packed houses and had the soundtrack be a top seller on ITunes. The Hill Cumorah Pageant dreams about that kind of success.
The Most Visible Church Member right now, at least in the Bloggernacle, appears to be an “openly” Gay man in San Francisco that recently received a calling to be his Ward’s Executive Secretary. The initial reports screamed that an Openly Gay man was called to “the Bishopric” in his ward, which typically means as a Bishop’s counselor, but it turned out to be a bit of a stretch. Still, if the facts on his website are true, it is a very interesting development in the Church in its position on Gays. Supposedly, he was in a gay relationship up to a year ago and broke it off and has been celibate since that time. However, had the same thing happened to a heterosexual man, it is unclear to me he would have been called to that kind of a position after only a one year “repentance” period. But who really knows? It was also unclear from the website whether he actually repented on that situation or just ended it. It is not for me to judge that. Again, this is from the website which some have said might be a fake.
The Most Visible New Mormon Splinter Group appears to be called the “Mormon Stories Support Communities,” the latest venture of Dehlin Enterprises. According to the website they have groups in 42 cities, 3 universities and in 6 different countries. These support groups, subtitled “Finding your identity as an Uncorrelated Mormon” are sort of a “Know Your Former Religion” activity. Not sure how big it has grown and where it all goes, but it is an interesting phenomena in the start of a new off shoot of the LDS Church. If they actually go on to form a new Church, what would be the name? “RULDS, The Real Uncorrelated LDS Church?”
Any others that I missed?
Wheat & Tares 
I wonder how big the audiences are for these “most visible” characters. I suspect were I not a reader of blogs I’d know nothing about some of them.
I think one thing to remember, Paul, is that much of Mormonism is inconsequential to the world in general. (I heard it like this in a discussion about membership numbers. Whether it’s more accurate to say that there are 14.1 million members or some number below that…well, that’s a really inconsequential amount of people.)
Of that, the online Mormon blogging community is obviously going to be a smaller (and more splintered) population.
When the representatives of Dehlin Enterprise see that you’ve called their group the latest splinter group, there will be madness.
Very nice Jeff. I would love to see the musical. If only I could afford to go to NY and get a ticket. Honestly, I quite like Joanna Brooks, but I’m not so sure about her recent publicity. It’s too much for me. Same goes for the MormonStories community situation. I’m not much of a group support kinda guy, so new groups kinda turn me off.
the book of mormon musical is not any less accurate at portraying mormonism and its history than the actual church, so its not too fair to say that.
but i’d agree, with the exception of Jeffs, these are things thats are visible to blog reading people. I doubt someone who doesnt read lds blogs knows joanna brooks.
and the gay executive secretary is not more visible than say mitt romney, jimmer fredette, marie osmond, etc.
Paul,
I am thinking that to the outside world, this is some of what reflects Mormonism today. Funny, though, I failed to mention our Presidential hopefuls.
Andrew,
Well, Andrew, you know what they say, “If the shoe fits….”
JMB,
As a musical person who loves musicals I have an innate curiousity to see it just at that level, but my own self is telling me no at this point. If i found myself at Times Square in front of that discount ticket office and they had a ticket, I just might….
I also like Joanna but I can see her bias in the writing about the Church, so I am a bit put off by that. I wonder if the MSSG can exceed the CofC membership! Firetag?
I need to listen to the podcasts to the SLC event to really see where they are coming from, though.
hmm,
“the book of mormon musical is not any less accurate at portraying mormonism and its history than the actual church, so its not too fair to say that.”
Probably do not agree with this point at all. But, the rest I could and I did say that the Gay EX Sec was known in the Bloggernacle as the most visible member at this point.
The Most Visibly Recognized Mormon Leader is not a Mormon leader at all. It’s Warren Jeffs, the Prophet/President of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints (FLDS).
Notwithstanding the efforts of the LDS church to trademark the word, “Mormon,” as their exclusive property in the United States, the position that only LDS are “Mormons” is simply not tenable. Whether you like it or not, those faiths which trace their origins to the ministry of Joseph Smith Jr. are “Mormon,” despite their diversity. Frankly, if we determined “Mormon” by similarity with the religion originally established by Joseph Smith Jr., the modern LDS church wouldn’t qualify.
The Most Visible Church Member right now, at least in the Bloggernacle, appears to be an “openly” Gay man in San Francisco that recently received a calling to be his Ward’s Executive Secretary.
Why the scare quotes, Jeff? What is it that freaks you out about that word?
The Most Visible New Mormon Splinter Group appears to be called the “Mormon Stories Support Communities,” the latest venture of Dehlin Enterprises.
Jeff, why do you conclude that a “splinter group” exists in terms of these individuals, when John’s own stake president investigated similar allegations and took no action? On what basis do you slam John’s motives with the profit-insinuating “Dehlin Enterprises?”
I think the LDS church has always suffered from an inability to control the message to the outside world, as hard as it tries. Your post is a perfect illustration of this.
But what Warren Jeffs brings to Mormons is notoriety, and this is priceless in terms of media value. It is better to be loathed than to be ignored.
jeff – have you seen the BOM musical? what do you think they got wrong?
have you seen any LDS paintings about the translation process, which aspects of it do they get right?
Nick,
“Why the scare quotes, Jeff? What is it that freaks you out about that word?”
I was just emphsizing the word that was used in the things that I read. “Openly” tends to imply sexually active, which Mitch is not. I never understood why anyone has to be “openly” anything.
“On what basis do you slam John’s motives with the profit-insinuating “Dehlin Enterprises?””
John is supporting his family using his varous projects while he is going to school. That is pretty well known. And he does have a varied set of projects. So, not judgements on his motives, which have I thought always been pure in many ways. But, he is making money from these activities.
hmm,
“Jeff – have you seen the BOM musical?
What do you think they got wrong?” From what I’ve seen and read, It’s satire so things are exaggerated at best, inaccurate at worst.
John, I disagree with your suggestion that being “openly gay” is synonymous with being sexually active. You don’t have to be sexually active to be forthright about your heterosexuality, do you?
Re Hmmm
That is an interesting point. And it might be accurate. I don’t know because I haven’t seen it yet. I don’t really get the impression that its purpose is to be accurate in any case. There is certainly no question that the church itself whitewashes its history. Clearly the disturbing bit (I’m guessing) to members is that the entire message is enshrined in a crude, rude, irreverent package that walks a fine line between respect and mockery. But that’s precisely why I want to see it personally!!
Err…that should be “Jeff, I disagree with…” Sorry!
Nick,
“John, I disagree with your suggestion that being “openly gay” is synonymous with being sexually active.
That is certainly your right. But, how often do you hear the phrase “openly” used in any context other than Gay these days, Nick?
I will like to say, for you dark netizens of the web, that the entire musical was posted on YouTube a while back…it was kinda low quality, and interestingly, it was an earlier (preview?) version of the musical, and some of the song lyrics were a bit different in part.
The non-sung parts of the musical (since I have listened to the soundtrack…extensively) did offer some differences on the overall idea of the musical.
I can get how it’s a huge in-joke at Broadway musicals in general. But how good of a satire it is on the church in specific really depends on how *smart* you think Parker and Stone were. If you really think they knew what they were doing, then the parallels between what the Book of Mormon musical “fudges” and what liberal/progressive/Splinter Group Dehlin Enterprises/disaffected Mormons feel the church “fudges” are truly remarkable. It’s like an insider did it.
But it’s also pretty easy to say that Parker/Stone only stumbled upon a lot of these parallels, and the rest of us are just looking too into it.
As to some of the other items, I agree with Jack of ClobberBlog fame that the whole Mitch Mayne thing is overrated.
But, how often do you hear the phrase “openly” used in any context other than Gay these days, Nick?
That may be, Jeff, but you’re missing the point. Perhaps I’m not being clear enough. Whether a gay person is open or closeted has nothing to do with whether or not they are sexually active. A person can be openly gay and celibate. A person can be closeted and celibate. A person can be openly gay and sexually active. A person can be closeted and sexually active. Sexual orientation and level of sexual activity are two entirely different concepts.
It almost sounds as if you’re actually defining gay as “sexually active with members of the same sex.” If you are, I hope you’ll reconsider that assumption. After all, the same logic would dictate that nobody is heterosexual until they lose their virginity–a silly conclusion at best.
you can be openly a lot of things besides gay. communist, atheist, etc
Nick,
“but you’re missing the point.”
No, I don’t think I am and perhaps we are spliting hairs here. I do not disagree at all with your explanation and you’re proabably right.
What I wrote was: ““Openly” tends to imply sexually active,…”
To most people who are not gay, I think this is the case. It does not have have to be logical or factual as established in a court of law. I just think that most people assume that.
“you can be openly a lot of things besides gay. communist, atheist, etc.”
Of course, the point we are discussing is usage of the term.
I don’t think openly gay implies sexually active. To the extent that many (most?) non-gay people think that, I think it’s because these people have several assumptions/stereotypes about gay people anyway.
yeah openly gay doesnt mean sexually active . it just means that you dont deny your attraction to same gender.
I don’t think “openly gay” means sexually active, and I really don’t think the average person (whoever that is) thinks that.
But I do like the original post. You know, I like the idea of having a kind of a news summary of all the Bloggernacle topics every now and then. Like “Bloggernacle Times,” but real. It would be a way for me to participate in the contention (which I love), without having to take in the nuance.
Interesting, Syphax…interesting.
I’m with Nick on the use of the word Mormon and Warren Jeffs. He’s as Mormon as anyone else. Maybe he’s not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but he follows (more closely than CoJCoLDS) the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, so that makes him Mormon. He might say that you aren’t Mormon because you don’t practice the eternal law of polygamy.
As to the Book of Mormon musical, regardless of my opinion, I’m a little disturbed by people who criticize (or praise) it if they have not seen it.
Just as you (Jeff) would be upset by someone reviewing the actual Book of Mormon without reading it, you are basically doing the same thing.
Both points above point to an important issue: The Golden Rule. If you don’t want someone else to control the word Mormon, then you can’t either. If you don’t want someone who’s never read a book to comment on it, then be careful doing the same thing about a musical.
The door swings both ways, ya know.
Well, Mike,
“Maybe he’s not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but he follows (more closely than CoJCoLDS) the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, so that makes him Mormon.’
Let’s see, you criticize me for not having seen “Book of Mormon, the Musical” but yet having an opinion on it based on what I have read about it and seen on YouTube, the TV etc, and then you turn around and make a statement that the FLDS church more closely follows the teachings of Joseph Smith?
Are you a member of that Church? Have you ever been to one of their meetings? Do you know precisely what they teach?
Was raping young girls and forcing them to marry much older men against their will and kicking young men out of the Church because they might have completed for wives part of Joseph’s Teachings? In the Book of Mormon? Did Joseph teach everyone to wear the same clothing and women to never cut their hair?
Where are these Teachings of Joseph that I am unfamiliar with?
Again Mike,
“Just as you (Jeff) would be upset by someone reviewing the actual Book of Mormon without reading it, you are basically doing the same thing.”
I would? it been done for years, why do I care?
“If you don’t want someone else to control the word Mormon, then you can’t either.”
Was anything I said about controlling the use of the word, Mormon? it was about equating the FLDS with the LDS Church and its leaders and who’s more visible.
I really do not care about the use of the word Mormon.
I think this post is an example of a phenomenon I’ve noticed lately: whenever a person defines the scope of the term Mormon they consider their own particular level of orthodoxy, whatever that may be, as the line that cannot be crossed. Those who hold fewer literal beliefs than the speaker find the authenticity of their faith called into question, while those whose beliefs are more literal are given a pass.
What if this post were extended with summaries of blogs and groups that lean more towards the correlated than Wheat and Tares does? What would such a post say about the good folks over at Meridian Magazine, for example, and about their extremist opinion pieces? Would it be speculated that Meridian is about to form a new church? Probably not. Meridian is to the right of W&T and is therefore considered to be safely in the fold.
Here’s another thought experiment. What would happen if a site like Meridian did its own exercise in boundary maintenance? In which column would Wheat and Tares find itself listed? In the eyes of that crowd, what appears here at W&T would likely be viewed as indistinguishable from a Mormon Stories podcast. The Meridian folks would see W&T as MINO near-apostate drivel. There’s not much leftward tolerance.
A relative of one of my in-laws is an active Mormon who believes all LDS truth claims literally, including the Tower of Babel as the origin of human linguistic diversity. His overall world view is apocalyptic, and he uses cherry-picked scripture and statements by LDS leaders to back up some very extreme ideas. His political views include capital punishment for homosexuals. He is building a cannon to protect his food storage. No, I’m not making this up. I’ve never heard anyone accuse this guy of apostasy. He is protected by the fact that LDS orthodoxy is a bigger tent on the right side of the aisle than the left. No one would dream of saying this guy isn’t Mormon, yet the distance between this fellow’s beliefs and the typical reader of W&T is probably greater than the distance between a W&T reader and the typical Mormon Stories participant.
Mormon is a term of self-definition. Left, right or center, in the end is it really worth the effort to make a list of people to shun?
“Mormon is a term of self-definition. Left, right or center, in the end is it really worth the effort to make a list of people to shun?”
It seems more to be an attempt by those who actually self-exclude themselves to retroactively include themselves.
These comments seems to me to be more about the commenter than the post itself. I only made some statement and now others are actually trying to qualify them.
And where does the “shunning” come from. Is it in the OP? I think not.
Two words, Jeff; Fanny Alger
three words, mcarp: VERY different situations
I’m not making ANY statement in saying that other than Fanny Alger and Warren Jeffs are VERY different situations.
Interesting post, Jeff. It really is interesting to see that the most visible faces of Mormonism right now, in many ways, aren’t stereotypical Mormons.
Jeff:
I have no opinion about some of those you listed here. They are certainly real phenomena, but other than subscribing to John and Joanna as friends on Facebook, I don’t know that the interest in the larger American community will continue to grow if Romney isn’t the Republican nominee. The Mormon “moment” is not necessarily the Mormon “hour”.
I am very surprised that you make no reference — even to express annoyance — at another conservative Mormon who’s neither a church leader or political candidate, but can still draw more media attention than anyone in the FLDS. That would be Glenn Beck, who was busy driving the Jewish left in Israel crazy this week, while the Jewish right embraces him. His “Restoring Courage” series of events has drawn something like 10 articles in the Jerusalem Post in the last two weeks, including three that went up in today’s edition (i.e., too many to link in a comment).
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/read-the-entire-text-of-glenns-keynote-restoring-courage-speech/
Well, Firetag, that’s another one I forgot. But maybe I make that the subject of a entire post next week, if someone else doesn’t cover it.
Mike,
“Two words, Jeff; Fanny Alger”
Really, I was hoping for a bit more. Ray said it all.
Re #33:
I will link this one, however, because it summarizes the differences between the left and right views.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=235441
Was raping young girls and forcing them to marry much older men against their will and kicking young men out of the Church because they might have completed for wives part of Joseph’s Teachings? In the Book of Mormon? Did Joseph teach everyone to wear the same clothing and women to never cut their hair?
Sweet! It’s the “let’s distance the FLDS from Joseph Smith by focusing only on the differences while ignoring the similarities” game! It’s a great game, you know! We can even play it with the LDS!
Was gathering over ten million dollars and countless hours of free labor from members in an effort to take away the existing legal rights of a group of non-believers part of Joseph’s Teachings? In the Book of Mormon? Did Joseph teach all men to wear white shirts and ties and to shave off their facial hair? Did Joseph shorten the Garment of the Holy Priesthood from wrists and ankles to knees and mid-upper-arms? Did Joseph change the initiatory ceremony from a full-body bathing (as it was in his time) to a “symbolic” washing by a fingertip’s dab of moisture?
What are these Teachings of Joseph that I’m unfamiliar with?
Wow, Nick, you really got me on that one.
I did not get — profit-insinuating “Dehlin Enterprises?” — from Dehlin Enterprises. More, I think of John as doing many things, with others. Can’t think of a better way to put it.
I think of the revenue he generates as pretty irrelevant.
In the eyes of that crowd, what appears here at W&T would likely be viewed as indistinguishable from a Mormon Stories podcast. — 😉
MoHoHawaii — I’ve never heard anyone accuse this guy of apostasy. — Nibley accused a lot of people like that of apostasy. Just FYI.
Syphax 😉
Firetag — that article was amazing;y positive.
Just anecdotally, since you wondered out loud about its reach, if the approaching typhoon doesn’t mess up our plans, we’re having house guests this weekend from our local MSSG.
I was just on a two and a half week trip to Israel and Jordan and it was interesting to see it as a christian pilgrim from the perspective of Palestinian christians. Seeing what they’ve lost and are continuing to lose in not only Israel proper but on the west bank was very sad. One of the most chilling sites was the security wall that is now over 400 miles long surrounding the west bank cutting off farmers and merchants from their fields, orchards and businesses while poverty and unemployment increase. Israel sees itself at war and is doing whatever it thinks it needs to do to survive but the cost in lives harmed and lost is truly a tragedy. I’m afraid I don’t see anything there to be praised.
GBSmith,
If you remember my posts last year on my trip to Israel, I was most disappointed by that particular sight. I understand, at some level, why it is there, but the symbolism of a country born of oppression and murder would resort to that was ironic for me.
And I support Israel. But I also feel bad for legitimate Palestinian who are displaced.
Jeff, I totally agree.
re 39,
Stephen (and also MoHo),
You don’t need to go to Meridian to find people who are suspicious of John. I’ll reacquaint everyone with this Bloggernacle Times article.
See, now THAT’S popcorn-worthy!
“there are still some news organizations that cannot seem to get the lack of connection correct”
I think there is a problem here but in the way we -Mormons- see Jeff’s and the other wako polygamists. If we -Mormons- are indeed Christians and should be seen as such by the media due to our worship of Jesus etc, then surely they would have a point in saying that Jeff’s is also Mormon, since he worships Joseph Smith, follows and accepts the Book of Mormon, D&C and one can argue that he follows pure mormonism by practicing polygamy -albeit with the problem of marrying girls that are way too young for him.
So actually, imho, the media has it right when they call Jeff’s ‘mormon’, he is through and through, although he isn’t of the LDS Tommy Monson following variety.
I think this is an area where it is us -Mormons- who need to change our opinions and way of thinking and accept that Jeff’s is ‘Mormon’or of the ‘Mormon movement’ and probably not the media. Jeff’s is certainly a part of the later day saints movement that Joseph Smith started in 1830 New York – so he is actually in competition with us -LDS Mormons- for this coverted title of ‘I’m a Mormon’…..
We may excommunicate people for some sins, like polygamy, but that just takes away their baptismal rights and blessings -and hence doesn’t allow them to exercise mormonism anywhere- but that doesn’t mean that we can stop someone considering themselves to be Mormon. Just like the Baptist folk can’t stop us Mormons considering ourselves as Christians -although christians with a twist!
#39: I did not get — profit-insinuating “Dehlin Enterprises?” — from Dehlin Enterprises. More, I think of John as doing many things, with others. Can’t think of a better way to put it.
I think of the revenue he generates as pretty irrelevant.
There are actually hundreds or thousands of people actually DO make their living working on websites, information, etc. about the LDS Church. And we even pay for them with our tithing money. It takes a large staff to program and run mormon.org, lds.org, etc. And hundreds of people work for media outlets used to get across the Church’s message.
It seems kind of odd that we turn around and suggest that John Dehlin has less altruistic motives. It seems kind of odd when we look down on a “mega-Church” that has a PR-division and a fund-raising division.
We’re the ones with the tallest building in SLC housing people whose full-time living is creating content for the Church. We’re the ones building a multi-billion dollar mall (in which 5 restaurants were interestingly announced today to plan on serving liquor). And we’re really worried about the few hundred dollars John might get for the hundred of hours he likely spends working on things. Seriously?
Jeff and GB:
We do not end suffering by misdiagnosing the problem. I think the events of the ongoing civil wars in Libya, Syria, and Yemen (and southward into Africa), the TBD revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, the supressed-for-the-moment revolutions in Iran, Lebanon, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, etc. show that Palestinians are unlikely to be the only people in the Mid-East being oppressed by a foreign power as much as by their own self-absorbed (or worse) and self-appointed leaders.
The point in Beck’s speech about the CONVENIENCE of proving one’s support for the downtrodden by opposing the Israelis when one ignores the thousands being killed by Assad should not be lost on anyone. We have casualty reports of civilians being killed by Syrian troops daily, but did we notice that there were cross-border terror attacks on Israeli passenger buses last week that killed or wounded dozens, and then several days of mortar, missile and air strikes following.
Stirring up war against the Israelis is a reliably-expected tactic of the political struggle within and among the surrounding states, and it will probably not end unless the power relationships WITHIN those states turn toward peaceful domestic development (if then).
but did we notice that there were cross-border terror attacks on Israeli passenger buses last week that killed or wounded dozens, and then several days of mortar, missile and air strikes following.
Actually yes, with the entire Egyptian mess caused by the cross-fire deaths.
#45 – I’d forgotten about that train wreck. Now I have to go wash out my brain.
The claims that the Mormon Stories folks are trying to create a new church remind me of the claim that we’re not Christian.
MS people say, over and over and over again ad nauseum, “We’re not trying to create a new church.” But people keep saying, “They’re trying to create a new church.”
People try to say we’re not Christian. And we repeat, over and over and over, that we ARE Christian. We cite BofM scriptures, we point out the name of our church, blah blah blah, and still people don’t listen.
I participate in MS virtually and would participate in real life if I were near any other events/people, but I would be very UNlikely to participate if I suspected that they were trying to form a new church.
There are cross border attacks because the parties are at war. There won’t be a peace until Israel is in a position where it believes it’s to it’s advantage to compromise on settlements, land, etc.. Since it still can dominate it’s own populace and by that I mean arabs, christian and muslim that are Israeli citizens and in the occupied territories as well as it’s neighbors, there will be no peace. Netanyahu’s wife once told Queen Noor of Jordan that the jews deserved to be there because Israel/Palestine was “a land without people for people without land”. With generations being raised with the attitude that the Palestinians either weren’t there or have no right to be there, there won’t be any peace.
Sorry for the threadjack.
GB:
I think we have less to worry about in regard to Jews accepting the right of non-Jewish peoples to be in Palestine than with non-Jewish peoples accepting the right of a Jewish state to be present as well. Please note that Queen Noor was queen of a Hashemite dynasty that still rules over a Palestinian majority that is NOT Hashemite. A more enlightened dynasty perhaps than in much of the middle east, but again one whose policies are continually prompted toward maintaining the stability of the dynasty above all else.
Again, notice how deflecting the cause of internal political struggles TOWARD the Israelis serves the cause of the existing non-Jewish governments.
Stephen M.:
Yes, the op against Israel was in place, but only launched AFTER Egypt launched a brigade size (~5000 men) op against roughly 2000 Islamist insurgents working in the central range of the Sinai. Its STRATEGIC target was NOT Israel, but to create public pressure against the Egyptian government to realign those forces against Israel instead of the Islamists. Internal politics first.
Firetag, Egypt, Jordan, and even the Palestinians under Arafat all recognized Israel’s right exist as a state. But I’m not so sure Israel is willing to grant that same to the Palestinians. By the way did you know that Jordan is about 30% Christian and Jordan did seem to fair well through the arab spring as opposed to it’s neighbors.
And with that I grant you the last word.
Heather,
“MS people say, over and over and over again ad nauseum, “We’re not trying to create a new church.” But people keep saying, “They’re trying to create a new church.””
It remains to be seen. perhaps you are right, but I do not agree it has anything to do with the Mormons are not Christian argument.
And why not start a new Church? These are people who, by and large are not happy with the one they had.
The bottom line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that is more than 5000 years old and has been pretty much continuous since that time.
Add to that, general Arab-Israeli issues and you have a powder keg.
Arab on Arab violence has little to do with the enmity between Jew and Muslim. Brothers who hate each other, unfortunately.
Mike S,
“And we’re really worried about the few hundred dollars John might get for the hundred of hours he likely spends working on things. Seriously?”
I realize you have a pretty one-track mind when speaking of Church Finances. so I kind of expect the comparison.
I only pointed out that John supports his family on the donations to the Open Stories Foundation. Like I said, it’s pretty common knowledge. that’s all.
#58: I realize you have a pretty one-track mind when speaking of Church Finances. so I kind of expect the comparison
And I realize that you have a pretty hard time addressing the substance of comments much of the time. so I kind of expect you to instead dismiss the author.
Mike S if there was a drinking game based on how many times you mention “billion dollar mall” none of us would be sober. I appreciate many of your thoughts but Jeff saying that you have a one track mind about church finances is most definitely substantive when it comes to you.
mike – you nailed jeff on the head. thats how he rolls. he sucks at actually debating substance. how does he get to be the highest volume poster here?
MoHoH makes an interesting point – there does seem to be an acceptance of any group to the right as part of the mainstream, but anyone to our personal left has “gone too far.” That doesn’t seem quite right to me. I’d like to exclude those to the right also. Anyone not on the exact same spot as me is apostate in one direction or the other.
Mike S,
“And I realize that you have a pretty hard time addressing the substance of comments much of the time.”
Mike, just what was the substance of your remark? That the Church takes in more money than John?
OK, you’re right about that.
Joe,
“he sucks at actually debating substance.’
Joe, what do you know about substance? Do you actually read any of the posts here?
“how does he get to be the highest volume poster here?’
It is just my stupid non-substantive posts, I guess…. 🙂
Hawk,
“there does seem to be an acceptance of any group to the right as part of the mainstream, ”
Like who? I don’t see groups clamoring to be accepted into the “Mormon” family. Except those who are outside the mainstream LDS Church.
Are they others who want to be “Mormon?”
Except the only memorandum to bishops I ever saw was about those going to the right with danger signs including home schooling, etc.
And the FLDS and the like could very much be seen as “too far to the right.”
Anyone not on the exact same spot as me is apostate in one direction or the other.
😉
Though, I must say it is more heresy than apostasy 😉
“Except the only memorandum to bishops I ever saw was about those going to the right with danger signs including home schooling, etc.”
Well, there was the letter warning against symposia, but those have come from both directions.
(Jeff,
don’t panic, but I think someone’s going around thumbs downing all your comments again)
Jeff:
I have long felt the same way John does, does that mean that I haven’t read any posts? If I disagree with how (tone, language, etc.) you come across in your replies to countless comments, does that imply that I can’t (or don’t) read?
If Mike makes a comment about $$ that is a direct response to a comment you made inferring $$, does that mean he’s a “one-track” kind of guy, or do you just turn into an arse when someone says something you don’t like? Mike’s point was well made and it had little to do with the church making “more money than John.” To reduce his comment to the inanity of your response borders on either childishness or being extremely disingenuous, not sure which at the moment.
You start the post off by making ridiculous assumptions about what others believe about a word – sexualizing it to the point of ridiculousity – then continue on in the replies to stifle, beat down and otherwise kill the comments. Like other posts where you comment/reply, not only is your mind never swayed, but anyone presenting anything that speaks to a different side of the story is either presented with a “I’ve never seen/heard that” retort or confronted with a “That’s not the mainstream” or cornered with a “That doesn’t happen here in Colorado Springs” or whatever it may be.
What rubs some (me + John = some) people the wrong way about you is that (a) you are incredibly inflexible in your worldview – to the point that you trivialize others opinions on the very same subjects where they disagree with you and (b) courtesy is typically absent from all of your online discussions.
So, though I don’t vote with a “thumbs down”, I would recommend you reconsider how you conversate here online… because as it stands, you generally come off like an example of pompousity (don’t we all, though?).
“Like who? I don’t see groups clamoring to be accepted into the “Mormon” family. Except those who are outside the mainstream LDS Church.” I just mean that as people within the ‘nacle try to define and defend the borders, this is the direction they tend to take. No one includes both T&S and MSP if they are between the two. They would say T&S is mainstream but MSP goes too far. They wouldn’t go the other way if they were saying what’s included in Mormonism or even the ‘nacle.
Joel,
I am certainly sorry that you take such a negative view toward what I write on the blog. You are certainly entitled to believe anything about me that you wish and to classify me and categorize me in any way. I defend what I write and my observations and opinions as I deem necessary. If not, why bother to write them. Sure, I could probably be a lot nicer at times.
I doubt that people who know me would remotely classify me as you do.
Also, you should realize that some comments are made as part of a running dialog from post to post. Such as Mike S’s obsession with Church finances and his disdain for the mall project in SLC. Such that any time Church and money are in the same sentence, you can expect a comment from Mike about the mall. And Joe, or John, as you call him, comes to be blog occasionally and leave generally snarky comments and then leaves, so he gets what he gives.
“You start the post off by making ridiculous assumptions about what others believe about a word – sexualizing it to the point of ridiculousity – then continue on in the replies to stifle, beat down and otherwise kill the comments.”
I have to admit I really have no clue what you are taking about here. so if you’d care to elaborate, I’d be happy to respond.
And given your sensitivity, I’ll be extra nice about it. 🙂
“I just mean that as people within the ‘nacle try to define and defend the borders, this is the direction they tend to take.”
OK, I think I get it now. Perhaps the LDS should go back to “Brighamites.”
“don’t panic, but I think someone’s going around thumbs downing all your comments again’
I guess I have become the “New Will.”
Since my name has been brought up, a few comments:
1) I agree with comment #69, particularly that (a) you are incredibly inflexible in your worldview – to the point that you trivialize others opinions on the very same subjects where they disagree with you and (b) courtesy is typically absent from all of your online discussions.
2) In comment #10, Jeff brought up John Dehlin making money off writing things about the Church in what came off in a disparaging way. The only point of my comment #48 is that there are THOUSANDS in the Church who do the same thing. Witness the entire IT department of the Church, Bonneville Communications, Deseret Book, etc.
3) Yes, I do think it’s absurd that we are spending billions on a mall. I think it’s more absurd that you are worried about John making a few hundred dollars (likely) from something when a non-profit organization spends billions on a mall.
4) And in comment #61, joe said: mike – you nailed jeff on the head. thats how he rolls. he sucks at actually debating substance. how does he get to be the highest volume poster here?
Don’t worry Joe – he’s not. Six of the all-time top 11 posts on this site from all authors (including Jeff) are ones I wrote.
And don’t worry Jeff. I won’t comment again on any of your posts with my “one-track mind”.
And BTW, it’s NOT me voting thumbs down, for what it’s worth.
I have to agree that any money John D is making from his ventures hardly qualifies as profiteering. I’d be absolutely shocked if he breaks even. Jeff, I assume Joel is referring to John D in his remarks, not to commenter Joe.
MIke S,
“2) In comment #10, Jeff brought up John Dehlin making money off writing things about the Church in what came off in a disparaging way.”
It is important to read what I wrote and not to assume what I meant.
All I said was that John was supporting his family while he was going to school. I didn’t say he was getting rich, building mall, buying expensive new cars. He gets about $25K from him from what I understand. Hardly much at all. That was not the point.
It was Nick who brought up any reference to profit.
Again, you are certainly free to interpret it as you wish. Which I suppose you will do anyway, no matter what I’ve written.
:”Don’t worry Joe – he’s not. Six of the all-time top 11 posts on this site from all authors (including Jeff) are ones I wrote.’
Thanks for bringing me back down to earth…..
“Jeff, I assume Joel is referring to John D in his remarks, not to commenter Joe.”
I don’t think so.
“I’ve long felt the way John does…” And then goes on to talk about my comments. I don’t think John D thinks anything about what I’ve said here.
Jeff,
I was wondering, how do you know Joanna Brooks hasn’t been to the temple. Just curious.
James,
I read somewhere that she had not because she chooses not because her husband is not a member. If I am wrong about it, I am happy to correct it.
Oh I don’t have any evidence to the contrary, I was just curious.
After sleeping off having to stay awake for the entire hurricane, let me step in to defend Jeff as to inflexibility.
A few months ago, I sent the other authors offline a very lengthy documentation of the anti-conservative-women attacks made by the political left. These were real examples, and they were ugly, ugly, ugly — very painful for a liberal to have to acknowledge.
I expected to receive the most support against these kind of attacks from the feminists who visit here, but it was Jeff who actually stepped up and acknowledged that such attacks were beyond the pale of acceptable political debate.
So you can persuade Jeff if you are willing to work really hard at it. He’s not nearly as stubborn as I am, for example.